The Price Of Climate Hysteria
West Faces Liability Claims For Extreme Weather Disasters
Representatives of most of the world’s poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015. The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about “loss and damage” – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan. –John Vidal, The Guardian, 20 November 2013
“The EU understands that the issue is incredibly important for developing countries. But they should be careful about … creating a new institution. This is not [what] this process needs,” said Connie Hedegaard, EU climate commissioner. She ruled out their most important demand, insisting: “We cannot have a system where we have automatic compensation when severe events happen around the world. That is not feasible.” –John Vidal, The Guardian, 20 November 2013
The devastation wreaked by Typhoon Haiyan has become a rallying cry at UN climate talks, where the Philippines and other developing nations are demanding aid guarantees for future damage from global warming. The demand has created another deep fault line in the divided negotiations, for rich nations see it as a potential trap, locking them into a never-ending liability for compensation. More than 130 developing states are now calling for an international “loss and damage” mechanism, bankrolled by wealthy nations, to be embedded in a 2015 global pact on climate change. —Agence France Press, 20 November 2013
Africa faces costs to adapt to the effects of climate change that will rise to $350 billion a year by the 2070s if governments fail to rein in runaway emissions, according to a report today from the UN Environment Program. The costs of adapting Africa’s infrastructure to the rising seas and stronger storms caused by global warming will likely total $7 billion to $15 billion by 2020 and “rise rapidly” thereafter because of ever-higher temperatures, UNEP said today in a report released at UN climate talks in Warsaw. –Alex Morales, Bloomberg 20 November 2013
The IPCC, despite the fact that it has made some missteps in the past, is exactly the sort of institution for providing scientific advice to help evaluate conflicting and uncertain empirical claims. In the case of loss and damage from extreme events, the evidence is extremely strong. There is at present no evidentiary basis to support demands for reparations.
…
The proposal, advanced by the G77 plus China, that the US and other nations should pay tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars to poor countries that suffer disasters, is a central theme of the climate negotiations now taking place in Warsaw, Poland. Yet partial responsibility for the emergence of a debate on historical reparations lies squarely with President Obama. Despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, President Obama declared in his 2013 State of the Union Address that “Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods – all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen, were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science.” –Roger Pielke Jr., The Guardian, 19 November 2013
Long drawn arguments through two days of almost continuous negotiations broke out over the key decisions that the Warsaw meeting would make. A draft of the decisions brought out on Monday became the new battleground as developed countries tried to remove any difference in the responsibility thrust upon the developing countries from that of the rich nations. –Nitin Sethi, The Hindu, 20 November 2013
20% of the EU’s budget will go towards fighting climate change, climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard announced in Warsaw today. This equates to €180 billion on climate spending between 2014 and 2020. Much of this will be spent on domestic projects, helping with the development of climate-smart agriculture, energy efficiency and the transport sector. Speaking at a press conference in Warsaw today, EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that if the world is successfully going to tackle climate change “one of the things we need is to change is the whole economic paradigm, including the way we construct our budgets.” She added that Europe is the first region to construct its budget in this way. –Sophie Yeo, Responding to Climate Change, 20 November 2013
Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk dismissed environment minister Marcin Korolec on Wednesday as part of a government reshuffle. Korolec will be replaced by Maciej Grabowski, former deputy finance minister responsible for preparing shale gas taxation. “It is about radical acceleration of shale gas operations. Mr Korolec will remain the government’s plenipotentiary for the climate negotiations,” Tusk told a news conference. His dismissal raised questions over Poland’s position in the negotiations. —Reuters, 20 November 2013
Tom J says:
November 20, 2013 at 7:18 am
“After hearing about legal liability and reparations concerning AGW I must admit that I have become a convert to the cause. I think the rich should be sued for the damages their lifestyles incur upon the less fortunate. Therefore I propose an immediate class action lawsuit naming the following as plaintiffs: Al Gore, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Redford, Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Strong, James Cameron, Daryl Hannah, Michael Moore, John Kerry, Prince Charles, Henry Waxman, Hillary Clinton, James Hanson (remember that 250K check?), Valerie Jarrett, Kennedy (take your pick), John Travolta, David Letterman, Bill Maher, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, Barack Obama…”
Suggested additions:
Moonbat (aka George Monbiot), Greepeace, WWF, Royal Society………any other?
Since the science is apparently settled, why not take all the money currently spent on climate research and use for the Catastrophic Climate Carbon Disaster Fund?
If we’re going to spend taxpayer money on this, why not actually spend it on something beneficial?
Funny that China is the wealthiest of nations…
Is there any doubt left in anyone’s mind that this is truly about redistribution of wealth? Anyone?
As debt attributed to the so called wealthy nations extends to trillions where precisely do these undeveloped nations believe this money is coming from? The UK has debt of £1.3 trillion and rising by about £100+ billion each year with no sign of any real reduction whilst political parties compete to make one or the other sector of society richer by just being there but not requiring any extra effort to lift themselves out of whatever poverty trap the hand wringing lunatic fringe might want to persuade us is more deserving than any other. Indonesia and Malaysia continue to rip out and burn rainforest to plan palm oil to profit from green dementia using palm oil for bio diesel and cheap fillers for biscuits and cosmetics and they continue to burn huge quantities of coal whilst at the same time saying “this can all be stopped now” presumably they mean everyone else on the planet has to curtail their economy in order for theirs to flourish. Yes of course its a disaster for those who are effected but I have not heard a single word by way of comparison with Fukushima where nearly 16,000 people lost their lives and I am not aware of a huge bailout for Japan or the same degree of OMG. Developing countries are just look for another way to get their grubby hands or more of someone elses cash and that is the original intent of the IPCC, Maurice Strong wanted to destroy the developed world in order to even out resources across the planet conveniently forgetting that if the developed world became distressed and bankrupt precisely how would these resources or extra cash be found and distributed. Obama is a fool but unless he was prepared to accept democrat party dogma and doctrine then he was never going to be selected to run for president, politicians put in place people who will tell them what they want to hear and the EU is exactly the same. Connie Hedegaard will spend Euros 165 billion each year until 2100 with the hopeful expectation of reducing global temperate by 5 hundredths of 1 degree saying that if the science is wrong then the money will still be well spent, is that right. Correct me if I am wrong and I prefer to be a realist than either optimist or pessimist but our very existence is totally reliant upon finite natural resources and wasting trillions on trying to fight AGW which does not exist will involve horrendous waste of valuable finite resources which can never be recovered or replaced. On both sides of the argument the focus is about who is right or wrong not about resolving the issue that we cannot in all conscience continue to waste resources as though they were infinite not finite. One day stuff will expire when that will be who knows but it will happen you cannot make something of nothing that is a fact and its about time this simple truth was brought into the argument because it is more valid than trying to define what the temperature should or should not be or what might or might not be causing it, dancing on the head of a pin is not the solution the planet needs.
Since none of the requisite predicted warming disasters are occurring or in prospect outside of the models, every (increasingly rare) weather “disaster” is being seized on and squoze mercilessly. But this transparent sham is losing its mojo.
Typhoons are to the Philippines, like tornadoes are to the Central Plains. Perfectly situated to maximize the number of impacts. “Guaranteed Aid” will guarantee maximum loss of life, and property when typhoons hit. It would subsidize the development of areas that are vulnerable to typhoons and repeatedly hit. Assuming any money was left over after the bureaucrats took their cut.
http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/reference/monthly/
Because there is no “Carbon Disaster”. The fund is and should be empty until one is found.
Not a cent spent on the Climate achieves anything. It is pure waste.
In response to:
EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that if the world is successfully going to tackle climate change “one of the things we need is to change is the whole economic paradigm (William: economic reality, spending more than revenue leads to economic collapse), including the way we construct our budgets.”
William: EU budgeting and long term strategy: Create crisis and then ‘When afraid or in doubt run in circles scream and shoot.’ http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.londonstimes.us/toons/cartoons/johann_lemmingsphone.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/13/24137/7349&h=370&w=432&sz=25&tbnid=I9p81PCQjEQi2M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=105&zoom=1&usg=__CtKbCdNPoVRsI6n5CDNhjYE_Dk8=&docid=QRjg9XkwflinhM&sa=X&ei=ZwSNUrCWEMWZqgG5_oCADw&ved=0CEMQ9QEwBg
Heads up to voters; politicians will spend your country into ruin fighting a made up crisis.
1. There is no CAGW problem. The planet resists (by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics) rather than amplifies forcing changes.
2. Japan, the southern EU countries, the US, UK, and Canada are facing economic collapse, if spending is not brought into line with revenue. The number one problem for developed countries is structural issues (reasons why good jobs are disappearing) and budget deficits.
3. Green scams do not work. For example, green scams have tripled the cost of electricity in Germany for very little benefit. If CAGW was a problem which it is not nuclear power is the only solution.
4. The planet is going to cool due to solar magnetic cycle interruption.
Surely the Scottish verdict of Not Proven would be applicable in most cases.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/not-proven
“President Obama declared in his 2013 State of the Union Address that “Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods – all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen, were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science.” ”
Cloward-Piven strategy (overloading the welfare state to make America collapse. Here extended to “international welfare”)
Question to American Liberals, if there are any around: What do you hope to achieve by collapsing the American economy? Where’s your gain in the Cloward-Piven plan? Because I agree that the collapse will work out as planned; I just don’t understand how even an American liberal could want it.
“….developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015. ”
No, it shouldn’t be discussed at all. Not now, not after 2015, not ever.
End this annual IPCC rubbish. Let them find another reason to get paid for sipping martinis by the pool. If the delegates had to pay for these summits themselves, they’d come to an end in a hurry.
Maybe now the politicians realize it is time to switch climate funding to [researchers] looking for benefits of CO2. I belive it might only take five years before there are [consensus] that CO2 in reality is beneficial.
Please give us a golden umbrella so you can feel less guilty about being successful. Thanks!
Re: U.S. foreign aid
(official and private giving — yes, two different years’ figures, but, just to give a general idea…)
U. S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid (2011)
(Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/03/19/11328/interactive-map-foreign-aid/)
American private charitable giving to poor nations (2003), at $62 billion, over 3 1/2 times U.S. government aid.
(Source: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3712)
We have been “developing” these places for decades.
And they want more (mostly for their socialist “dictatorship of the elite” (F. Hayek) to squander).
It will NEVER be enough.
Thus, re: the above developing nations’ no-fault (i. e. strict) AGW liability claim:
@ur momisugly U.S. gov’t. — Just say, “No.”
@ur momisugly Third world people: Try free markets (instead of hand-outs to the crippled).
********************************************************
And, @ur momisugly the U. N. and E. U.: Dissolve now.
They walked? Quelle surprise! Face it, the only reason they were there to begin with was the money. They knew a money train when they saw one. Climate schmimate. It’s all about the dough. Who gets it, how much, when, and who pays.
David Wells says:
November 20, 2013 at 11:03 am
” Yes of course its a disaster for those who are effected but I have not heard a single word by way of comparison with Fukushima where nearly 16,000 people lost their lives and I am not aware of a huge bailout for Japan or the same degree of OMG. ”
The 16,000 lost their lives in the Tsunami, not at Fukushima.
Call me a cynic, but this development is likely to force western governments to fund some ‘alternative’ climate studies to, lets say make the issue ‘more cloudy’.
Jud says:
November 20, 2013 at 7:54 am
“Am I reading this right?
Surely even the EU isn’t crazy enough to throw away 20% of its overall budget on this?”
Who says they’ll throw it away? It is a giant slush fund. Fund some renewables contraption somewhere in the bankrupt parts of the EU; give money to farmers for biofuel to buy votes; give money to homeowners for insulation to buy votes, maybe fund fracking (less CO2 than coal); maybe fund nuclear, and of course, lots of graft and black budgets (some spooks). Nearly anything goes as long as you can show it helps the climate; the flimsiest explanation suffices; climate science standards apply.
And don’t confuse the EU budget with the sum of the budgets of the slave territories – ahem, member states. All EU states have ultra bloated public sectors; at least 50 % of the entire EU GDP feeds those monsters. The 30 bn per year that the EU commission will use as slush fund against climate change is just 60 EUR or so per EU citizen and year; or 100 USD; the cost of the member state public sectors per citizen are on the order of 20,000 EUR a year or 28000 USD.
Every tax dollar is used against you. Just stop paying your Government a single dime.
If they’re starved from money the entire scam stops out of it’s own.
I applaud the fact that Poland timed its reshuffle for during the talks – sending their second clear message of disapproval and giving an extra slap in the face to the alarmists and eco-terrorists. Well done, Poland!
Such claims for reparations are actual a good thing , why because there is no chance in hell of any politician that wants to get re elected , and all that have to want to, doing so if they agree .
So one way for them to deal with this, is to the kills the claims off by killing off the basis of the claims . No AGW , no need for guilt cash ,
We should actual encourage this behaviour from these countries, for as the saying goes, never stop your enemy from shooting themselves in the foot.
juan slayton on November 20, 2013 at 10:01 am
You have clearly illustrated why I never passed a bar exam. Yes, once in a while I can have a, Duh moment. Best wishes.
Janice Moore
November 20, 2013 at 11:55 am
‘Re: U.S. foreign aid
American private charitable giving to poor nations (2003), at $62 billion, over 3 1/2 times U.S. government aid.’
Hi Janice. They always overlook charitable giving in favor of government (i.e. unaccountable taxpayer funded) aid. My guess is that charitable aid is more likely (unfortunately oftentimes with a big chunk taken out for administrative costs) to go to the genuine needy whereas government aid permits all sorts of opportunities for the unscrupulous to milk the system.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Assuming the rich nations are stupid enough to cough up, can you imagine the size of the bureaucracies that would need to be created? No that’s wrong – replace ‘need to be’ with ‘will be’ – the latter is a large multiple of the former.
And don’t forget to shed a tear or two for all the Swiss bankers who are literally going to be rolling in all this money.