![worldbank-support[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/worldbank-support1.jpg?quality=83)
Eric Worrall writes: Rachel Kyte, the World Bank’s special envoy for climate change, claims that rich nations have a moral duty to help island nations survive climate change.
According to Ms Kyte; “For some of the islands, we’re really talking about the extreme effects of climate change now, which are going to put their entire cultures in jeopardy within the foreseeable future. We have an obligation to help build these countries’ resilience. Some will argue that this is an actual issue of justice and an actual issue of rights” given the role rich nations have played in emitting greenhouse gas emissions to “poison” the atmosphere”
The word “moral”, as ever, is a politician speak demand for more of our money. But the article does end on an amusing note – as evidence for the urgency of the demand for cash, the author cites a report suggesting “a thinning of Antarctica’s grounded and floating ice, with the annual loss in the order of 350 gigatonnes as the planet warms up”.
See related WUWT story on Antarctica here
For a tutorial on why these islands aren’t ‘sinking” or being inundated by sea level rise due to global warming, see this excellent essay by Willis Eschenbach.
I agree completely with the need for the rich countries to help the ‘sinking islands’. It is our duty to buy them out wholesale (say at about 10 ¢ on the Dollar as they are a distressed property). We can even pay the expenses of relocation for all the local population to some higher elevation. Say around Mount Kilimajaro where it’s nice, high, and safe.
The newly acquired islands ought to be used as a penal colony of sorts for all Climate Skeptics. Anyone who has publicly published or run a blog expressing a skeptical position ought to be assigned a small compound (say about an acre with a 2000 sq ft house) facing the beach where they can be forced to endure the rapidly approaching water…
(Do I really need to put a /sarc; or /irony; tag on this?… 😉
Yours is a very reactionary post driven by the Koch brothers’ interest in investing in Pacific island penal colonies.
Canada should buy a bunch of these tropical islands outright; make them our newest territory. There is plenty of land in Nunavut for resettlement.
You can expect to see thousands of Canadians flocking their in winter to escape Global Warming. To the tropical islands, that is. Don’t expect many to flock to Nunavut in winter.
Packing my bags
Brings new meaning to the expression “lift up the poor”.
World Bank…part of the problem and part of the solution! I took the Coursera Course, “Turn Down the Heat…” sponsored by the World Bank and have modified the final course assignment into a critical evaluation of the course. You can find it here-
http://climatesensitivity.blogspot.com/
Doug Allen
I left you a comment suggesting you also check and discuss the IPCC representative concentration pathways.
Thank you Fernando. I agree that it is useful to hypothesize different emission trajectories over time based on energy sources and consumption (and other factors such as land use) in order to relate those trajectories to different scenarios of warming and climate change. Interesting exercise for looking at possible trajectories and planning for contingencies, but so many assumptions, so very many. In my critique I concentrate on one such assumption, climate sensitivity and the very great difference between a sensitivity of 1.5 which is and 4.5 degrees C. That 3-fold difference is the main difference between a benign and a catastrophic warming based on any substantial emissions increase. The fact that a World Bank climate course omits mention of climate sensitivity and their own high sensitivity assumption, especially when climate scientists and the IPCC itself are lowering sensitivity estimates is, well, astounding and a disservice to those who who took the course. I don’t know if they have changed the course since February when I took it to see the rationale for their alarmism.
For those who don’t think climate sensitivity is a constant, I agree we don’t know, but it is an index like global temperature that can be usefully applied to empirical temperature data.
I doubt much disagreement between Anthony and me- , we rich nations do indeed have a responsibility to poor nations should sea level rise cause them harm- whatever the underlying cause- but this is just a continuation of the help we always give when disaster strikes. There is presently so little sea level rise that there is no urgency, and the World Bank is just crying wolf one more time, just as they do in the course I review. What happens when you cry wolf over and over? You get division, alarmism, polarity, extremism, cynicism- everything that makes for disfunction. Unlike many here, I think most of these alarmists are truly scared (and truly ignorant of the data and science) and not just scamming.
Nonsense !
Mother Gaia, is quite happy to have everything responsible for its own survival.
There is no moral imperative to use resources to promote the survival of competitors.
But when it comes to human invention of “humanity”. One has to assure, and work to ensure one’s own survival, before one is even able to help others, who might need (but are not owed) a helping hand.
It’s a bit ‘rich’ for a BANKER to lecture the rest of us about moral duties!
“Do as I say, not as I do” It’s the Progressive way.
Here’s a wonder:
By paying the islands, do we, the First (and Bad) World acttually gain regulatory control over the shore-not-shore maintenance, modification and usage? Would we be expected to pay damages to islanders who do not mitigate or adapt appropriately?
Perhaps Agenda 21 and UNFCC long-term thinking is “yes”, that taking our money gives the UN the authority to control the behaviour, taxes and all sorts of regulatory issues with Vannanatu and other Islands.
Wouldn’t that be a kick in the head for the Islanders who think we’re just handing cash overr, and a score for the World Order guys?
I’ve got a much better idea. Just sell the island. Put it up for auction. My guess is you’ll find plenty of hotel developers whose business sense extends beyond their political correctness.
How do you get a job like Rachel Kyte’s – the World Bank’s Special Envoy for Climate Change? I’m sure her job description must include promoting the need for rich nations to give to the poor, based on the supposed threats of climate change. If warming doesn’t happen, she’s out of a nice job that no doubt includes traveling the world first class and staying in five star hotels, preaching the climate religion.
Rachel Kyte is the World Bank Group’s vice president and special envoy for climate change. She oversees work on climate change adaptation, mitigation, climate finance, and disaster risk and resilience across the institutions of the World Bank Group, including IBRD, IDA, IFC and MIGA.
The climate group is focused on ensuring that all Bank Group operations integrate climate change and take into account the opportunities that inclusive green growth presents. The group is also an advocate for global climate action.
Ms. Kyte previously served as World Bank vice president for sustainable development and was the International Finance Corporation’s vice president for business advisory services and a member of IFC’s management team.
She is a professor of practice in sustainable development at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. She holds a master’s degree in International Relations from Tufts University, and a bachelor’s degree in history and politics from the University of London.
Her tweets certainly show her advocacy positions rkyte365 – she is a committed warmista.
That so.
Well, lets see. The West is led by the U.S., which is reviled by the have nots of the world (surprise surprise). Some call us the Great Satan as a matter of fact.
So somebody clue me in and explain why I should lose a moment’s sleep or pay one red cent for these islanders?
How would it help them again? The islanders like those on the Maldives, who I read are building FIVE airports to support climate tourism, would it help them build an extra concourse do you think?
Why would my money help? Is the plan to bribe the ocean to quit rising? The ocean that’s been rising since before we’ve started burning fossil fuels on any significant scale, that ocean?
No. It’s not moral. It’s a racket. Even if it were moral, I wouldn’t care. Even if I cared, this wouldn’t be the way to solve the problem. If there were a problem to begin with.
When the island nations actually start sinking we might start helping them out.
But since islands don’t generally float on the water they don’t generally sink either.
How do you stop subsidence – remove all their irrigation and water pumping capacity? Take away the fishing equipment they use to kill off the parrot fish? Force them to stop cutting channels through their reefs? Attach floatation devices (Hank Johnson sky anchors)? Or just remove the people from the islands until the islands have recovered naturally? It worked for No Bikini Atoll (Map here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88QOmxSa-IE).
Well, those “island nations” aren’t really sinking.
But maybe we are supposed to help Japan. The 3/11 earthquake caused a coast to drop about a meter (that and the 3 extra meters of Tsunami height contributed to the inundation). That is a sinking island. Not that anything related to climate will change that.
Rich nations have moral duty to help ‘sinking’ island nations”
So UK wants China to help them ??
Ping pong ball! Use ping pong balls to keep them from sinking.
World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, Federal Reserve…..it is always about running up perpetual debts with these people…..debts that THEY earn interest on for their own pockets.