China, India: Where's that $100 billion you promised?

Asia's new climate advisor?
Asia’s new climate advisor?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

China and India have issued a rare joint statement, demanding to know when the $100 billion green money they were promised is going to be delivered.

According to the official website of Prime Minister Modi;

6. The Two Sides [China and India] stress the equal importance and urgency of implementing the outcomes of the Bali Road Map in order to increase the pre-2020 ambition and build mutual trust amongst countries. The Two Sides urged the developed countries to raise their pre-2020 emission reduction targets and honour their commitment to provide 100bn US dollars per year by 2020 to developing countries.

Read more:

Neither China nor India have made specific commitments on climate change, though Modi, who won the last election on the strength of his stunning economic track record as first minister of Gujarat, has repeatedly stressed that his priority is a strong pro-business economic model to alleviate poverty.

Leaving aside the hilarious possibility that the only way the West could raise $100 billion on short notice, is to borrow it from China, give it back to China, then pay interest on the money it had just returned to China, it seems likely that the joint statement represents a flat demand to see the cash. Loose talk about $100 billion climate cash might be enough to get China and India to the conference table. Keeping them there will take more than words.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eugene WR Gallun
May 16, 2015 9:14 am

I am without words
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
May 16, 2015 2:51 pm

Here are the words (unfortunately). This is the UN page dealing with:
“Now, up to and beyond 2012: The Bali Road Map…
At COP17 in Durban, they reached agreement on a second commitment period on the Kyoto Protocol and on a pathway and deadlines to drawing up and committing to a new, post-2020 mitigation framework under the Convention (see section on Durban Platform for Enhanced Action). …
At COP 18 in Doha, Qatar, in December 2012, Parties adopted the pdf-icon decision 1/CP.18 (Agreed outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan), thereby successfully concluding 5 years of work under the Bali Action Plan, with significant achievements enabling enhanced action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and capacity-building.”
Which links to a “decision on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” which quotes the $100 billion figure:
“Framework Convention on Climate Change
Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011..
Recalling that the developed country Parties commit, in the context ot meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries”
and a “decision on the second commitment period of the KP” which at least allows “alternative sources” for the funding (which should be entirely donations from warmists who fall for the scam):
“Report of the Conference of the Parties on its eighteenth session, held in Doha from 26 November to December 2012…
Reaffirming that the developing country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing country Parties, and that funds provided to developing country Parties may come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources,”

NZ Willy
Reply to  BoulderSkeptic
May 16, 2015 4:03 pm

Ah, it says “a goal” of $100B in every instance. That means no actual money was promised, whew.

Reply to  BoulderSkeptic
May 16, 2015 10:30 pm

@NZ willy , wake up there is no money… period. … anywhere.

NZ Willy
Reply to  BoulderSkeptic
May 17, 2015 2:31 am

@asybot, fiat currency still buys gold, so isn’t dead yet. On life support, yes.

Reply to  BoulderSkeptic
May 17, 2015 7:46 am

Willy, you cannot eat gold, buy good farm land pref on a small river.out of the way. ( lead better than gold btw)

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  BoulderSkeptic
May 18, 2015 7:58 am

That $100bn was specifically to address the negative impacts of AGW. Has anyone demonstrated any? No damage, no claim. The Copenhagen Agreement (which I encourage all of you to read) defined ‘damage’ as pretty much anything.
Bigger question: Is this an economic damage balance sheet? Will positive effects of CO2 be credited in one column and negative effects (if any) be debited in another?
It would be sort of a cruel joke if it turns out the positive effects paid for by energy consumers in the developed countries are accompanied by no ill effects at all, and the underdeveloped countries are sent an invoice for fertilizer.
But then with China and India putting out a lot of CO2 these days, the tables will turn and the de-industrialising West will be in a debtor position, getting invoices from India and China for the good work they have done to send fertilizer to the developed countries. Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
May 17, 2015 12:42 am

That’s a useful quote. It’s not 100 billion. It’s 100 billion PER YEAR.

May 16, 2015 9:18 am

When liberals say they want to “spread the wealth”, they aren’t talking about their own money. They prefer to rob the rich and give a few tokens to the poor. The rest they spend on the political machinery and national welfare to consolidate their power.

Reply to  Johanus
May 16, 2015 2:29 pm

“They prefer to rob the rich and give a few tokens to the poor.”
No, Johanus. They will increase the tax load on middle class employees. The rich have loads of ways to avoid paying taxes – if all else fails, just leave the high tax welfare state, you can still run your businesses there while you reside in a low tax country. This of course introduces some fixed costs, too much for a middle class employee to bear; so the leftists need to concentrate on plunder those who can’t escape.

Reply to  DirkH
May 17, 2015 1:45 am

That simple observation is often missed, DirkH.
The wealthier one gets, the greater the means one has to protect oneself. This can mean something as simple as to have access to a better doctor.
It also is the reason why many of us here continue insisting that it is the poor who are getting screwed. It is not because there is a campaign to get them explicitly. It is because they are comparatively more vulnerable and, thus, cannot defend themselves from the unequivocally delusional, uber-perfect solutions dreamed up by “well meaning” folks.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  DirkH
May 18, 2015 4:47 pm

I cannot speak to the tax structure in your country, but here in the US that myth has long been debunked. True, the middle class burden does increase, but the idea that the rich are getting away scott-free is bogus. In a recent comparison year, the total amount paid by the lowest 50% of payers was $39 billion. As much as was paid by Exxon-Mobil all by its lonesome. Some 68% of the tax bill was paid by the top 10% of all earners in 2011. The only way to get more blood out of the turnip is to squeeze the rich. The rest of us don’t have enough to make a difference. Neither in fact do the rich. Based on current US deficits, if you took all the income from the top 50% of earners, leaving them absolutely nothing, you would never cover the current deficit, let alone pay down the debt.

John Peter
May 16, 2015 9:20 am

So Merckel, Obama, Hollande and Cameron will quickly pull out the cheque book and provide the money? If they do they really are quite stupid. I simply do not understand that these politicians cannot see the ploy here that the future grand CO2 emitters are asking for money from the stupid westeners who are destroying their economies because the have been convinced that we are all doomed.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  John Peter
May 16, 2015 9:35 am

They don’t pull out the check book. They simply turn on the printing presses. Bam, $100 billion in just a few hours, unless of course, China and India want small denominations of unmarked bills.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 16, 2015 9:46 am

Hi Tom
Far too big job for the presses. Just add few more zeros in the in the computers financial model for the Quantitative Easing.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 17, 2015 3:49 am

Vukcevic is right: what is a few more bytes filled with zeros on the left side while your addicted to QE?
If the West and Japan pulled out must more to save a few crooked banks they can equally pay for their own fear of excess anthropogenic CO2.

Reply to  John Peter
May 16, 2015 12:30 pm

Are these Eastern countries not already leaders in CO2? Take a nice air-seeing trip there sometime. Mexico too.

Reply to  John Peter
May 17, 2015 5:00 am

John Peter:
“Stupid is as stupid does”… can’t remember where I heard that.

May 16, 2015 9:23 am

I don’t know who agreed to the “Bali Road Map,” but in the USA, only Congress can authorize new spending or taxes. So those who signed the agreement to pay China, India, and other developing countries can pay them out of their own pockets.

Reply to  Louis
May 16, 2015 9:39 am

Exactly. This President’s habit of ignoring the law, the Constitution, the Courts and Congress because of his inability to lead in a civil society has long since gotten old.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Louis
May 16, 2015 9:42 am

That is no longer true. Anything Obama wants the Republican leaders in the House and Senate will roll over and give him what he wants. They campaigned on opposing Obamacare and Obama, and then after the 2014 election, they are all back in bed together. The Republican Party is only an Appendage of the Democrat Party and Obama.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 16, 2015 2:37 pm

Leonard sez:
The Republican Party is only an Appendage of the Democrat Party and Obama.
Yeah, the Republocrats are just Democrat-lite (with a few exceptions). The difference is that the Democrats are rushing headlong into ruin while the Republicans are just on a random walk towards eventual ruin.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 17, 2015 5:03 am

Leonard Lane: truer words never spoken, for sure. Fight organized crime; vote for no one.

Bennett In Vermont
Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 17, 2015 3:52 pm

H.R., Wow, +10 for accuracy. You made my face twitch…

Reply to  Louis
May 16, 2015 10:18 am

So, did Congress authorize the $165,000,000 spent by the Obamas for vacations?

Reply to  Louis
May 16, 2015 10:51 am

in the USA, only Congress can authorize new spending or taxes

Yip. 100% true.
Was the “Bali Road Map” a signed treaty? Only a treaty trumps Congress.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MRW
May 16, 2015 6:04 pm

But the Senate would have to give it’s consent for the treaty first.

May 16, 2015 9:26 am

It isn’t just “short notice”, since the USA is about a $Triilion per year in deficit, has a foreing trade imbalance, demographics for more retirement and less workers, and large ongoing loss of jobs and outsourcing to India and China, the ONLY way we could pay them is via borrowing. Europe is in worse shape, Japan is stagnant and also in need of cashing out US bonds, not buying more. So who does have the cash? China, Saudi Arabia. Who benefits by us not using coal and hobbling industry? OPEC as the only viable alternative is oil, and China.
So we are going into debt to hurt ourselves and benefit the lender.
The first one is always free… here have a happy green pill…

Reply to  E.M.Smith
May 16, 2015 10:57 am

the ONLY way we could pay them is via borrowing.

No. Congress could authorize it. That’s how new interest-free money (USD) enters the economy, domestic or global.

john robertson
Reply to  MRW
May 16, 2015 1:29 pm

Zimbabwe Mon.
Worked out real well there too.
I expect that is what the “Concerned Ones” intended to reward India and China with.
One hundred billion.. almost buys a loaf of bread.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  MRW
May 18, 2015 8:02 am

Zimbabwe printed 10 trillion Z$ notes before they gave up.

David Wells
Reply to  E.M.Smith
May 16, 2015 11:19 am

To be precise at the end of 2014 America was indebted to the tune of $18.2 trillion with as much – or more – again in unfunded pension obligations. Yet Obama wants to more or less shut down fossil fuel and Hilary Clinton seems determined to shut down free speech in order to avoid fact finders crawling all over here desire to be the next President. The say that wanting to be a politician should immediately result in termination your ambition to be a politician and that is especially true in the UK but more obvious in America, in two terms exactly what did Obama achieve? Other than expose himself as a complete idiot.

Reply to  David Wells
May 16, 2015 12:22 pm

To be precise, by the end of March, 2015 the USA had created $719 trillion since 1998. It redeemed $701 trillion.
The remaining $18 trillion is in everyone’s bank accounts–yours, mine, and your grandmas–or what is on the Daily Treasury Statement marked each year as “Net Change in Public Debt Outstanding.” That’s what we’re allowed to keep.
Add it up yourself. It’s Table III-A (issues and redemptions):
Use the last day of September for the total for the year because that’s the end of the fiscal year.
The “national debt” is in everyone’s bank account. You pay it back, and no one will have a dime.

Reply to  David Wells
May 16, 2015 2:32 pm

“The remaining $18 trillion is in everyone’s bank accounts–yours, mine, and your grandmas”
And your friendly UAE emir.

May 16, 2015 9:35 am

May 16, 2015 9:40 am

I think all those wealthy warmists like Al Gore, Prince Charles, The Guardian, Huff Po, ATTP, ought to pay up.

Reply to  TinyCO2
May 16, 2015 10:18 am

And SOS Heinz.

May 16, 2015 9:42 am

Eric Worrall
Thankyou for this hilarious news.
The jamboree to be held in Paris in December promises to be really funny!

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 16, 2015 2:00 pm

I have nominated you to collect the UK share which I estimate at around 10 billion dollars annually. I am sure that all it will take is a small advert in the Guardian and the money will come flooding in.

May 16, 2015 9:58 am

China and India are well aware that the $100Bn. won’t materialise anytime soon. They also realise that their votes will be essential in Paris. This is an attempt to wring some concessions from the West while they have this bargaining chip. Or am I just being too cynical?

Reply to  dickon66
May 16, 2015 1:46 pm

Do they really need ‘concessions’ they have effectively said their going to do what they like anyway , but you cannot blame them for trying to put the squeeze on for that sort of cash.

David A
Reply to  knr
May 17, 2015 3:12 am

Concessions, promises to purchase items they produce, promises to leave markets to them that they want, etc.
Look, Obama wanted to enhance his green credentials, so he promised to destroy the US economy, in exchange for a promise by China to consider a stop to increasing emissions in 15 or so years.

David A
Reply to  knr
May 17, 2015 3:13 am

…in exchange for a promise by China to consider a stop to increasing emissions in 15 or so years, or about when their nuclear program will kick in.
They are very anxious to negotiate some more with Obama.

Reply to  dickon66
May 17, 2015 5:10 am

There can be no such thing as “too cynical”, since a cynic is an informed optimist.

Greg Woods
May 16, 2015 10:14 am

Patience, the check is in the mail.

May 16, 2015 10:15 am

Both China and India had bad experiences with European colonial powers and there’s no way in hell that they will tolerate Europeans meddling in their affairs ever again. None.

Reply to  bobburban
May 16, 2015 2:34 pm

The English might feel a bit miffed by you calling them “Europeans”.

Reply to  bobburban
May 16, 2015 3:00 pm

The Chinese I agree are beyond meddling, the Indians on the other hand are quite a different matter.
What you have with India is a thin crust of modernity, that overlays a massive soggy pudding of poverty and ignorance. I doubt they are in much better shape today than they were when the Brits took over the place back in the day ?

Reply to  Fanakapan
May 16, 2015 4:36 pm

They do not get forced to grow spices to pay their taxes anymore so they don’t starve in the millions anymore. I’d call that in better shape.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  Fanakapan
May 17, 2015 11:48 am

DirkH, it’s easy to criticise what did happen if you don’t think about what else might have happened. What sort of shape do you think India would be in without the Raj? My guess is it would look a lot more like Africa, but with bigger wars. It simply isn’t plausible that it would have coalesced into a single country without massive wars and brutal tyranny.

May 16, 2015 10:16 am

Its $100 billion every year. ‘Green Climate Fund’ from Annex 1 to Annex 2. UNFCCC already set up HQ in Korea, and whining they have no money to hand out.

michael hart
Reply to  ristvan
May 16, 2015 11:57 am

That’s what I heard. $100 billion this year next year, last year, every year. Presumably until the IPCC say the ‘problem’ is fixed, which will be no year ever. Hell, if it was ever paid one year then the next year the demand would be $110 billion.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  michael hart
May 18, 2015 8:08 am

Till the year 2100 that is only a total of 8.5 trillion bucks. Chump change. If we give it to them, will the (unelected) implementers of projects in underdeveloped countries do all the work that the developed countries are presently refusing to pay for?

May 16, 2015 10:30 am

Why isn’t ABC reporting on this?

May 16, 2015 10:36 am

I recently received an urgent email from an attorney representing a recently deceased long-lost relative. Coincidentally, this unnamed relative is leaving me the approximate amount China and India are seeking! I have to send the attorney a significant security deposit, along with some trivial details about my bank accounts, home address, etc. I will forward the this email to the China/India representatives. Perhaps we can split the deposit and inheritance, and call it even. I’m sure the Nigerian attorney will be most helpful and gracious.

May 16, 2015 10:49 am

$100 billion a year? This is hysterical. Modi has a sense of humor. So India and China are going to scam the $ out of the west? They (the West) asked for it.
BTW, Eric, it is a physical impossibility to borrow USD from China that we, the US, wouldn’t have. China does not manufacture USD (unless they’re counterfeiting it in some factory downtown). Only the US can issue USD worldwide legally.
The $1.X trillion in US treasury securities that China has in its savings account at the Fed are from Walmart, Best Buy, and Target, etcetera, paying for goods from China. (The $1.X trillion also represents the amount of money that did not go to US businesses that could have produced the same goods here; Obama thinks the TPP Pacific Rim countries are going to buy expensive US exports instead of doing what China did: steal our technology and more of our manufacturing.) By law, USD cannot leave the US banking system, so China’s US dollars (treasury securities) are sitting in an account at the Fed in NYC.

richard verney
Reply to  MRW
May 16, 2015 1:46 pm

Isn’t that what the sale of government bonds/treasury bonds is all about?
The US government sells bonds which China buys. This gives the US government short term liquidity which it can then use to pay for government expenditure, the state/public spending, pensions etc. and grants/loans gifts to the developing world etc. So the US government can sell say a 10 year bond to China and receive an immediate cash injection, then the government hands back the money that it has just received from China, back to China and some to India.
The alternative is to simply print money but that option devalues the currency and that carries both benefits and detriments as one can see from the QE programme. Historuically, all strong economies are based upon a strong currency. The two go hand in hand.

Reply to  richard verney
May 17, 2015 2:09 am

Isn’t that what the sale of government bonds/treasury bonds is all about? . . . . hand in hand.

The government sells treasury securities in response to Congressional spending. (After the fact.) If Congress authorizes $100 in spending, then the US Treasury issues $100 in treasury securities and offers them at auction to the public. Congressional spending increases the money supply in the real economy. The US Treasury selling treasury securities restores the money supply to balance. All this happens before the Federal Reserve is involved other than paying the vendors Congress authorized.
When Walmart pays China for cheap s**t, China could opt to change the USD to Yuan and wire it home. It’s China’s choice to keep the USD here and buy treasury securities. Like you choosing to buy a CD at your local bank. By law, China’s US dollar “CD” of treasury bonds is kept in its savings (securities) account at the Fed until the bonds mature, or it buys something American with the USD, or it exchanges the USD for Yuan and wires it home.

May 16, 2015 10:55 am

What can you buy for $100,000,000,000 these days? They should demand at least a trillion.

Reply to  MarkG
May 16, 2015 11:08 am

Ya’ think that’s why China told Obama they’d git ‘er done by 2030?

Reply to  MarkG
May 17, 2015 8:23 am

The World Bank did demand the west fund it to the tune of $1500 billion for this green scam. That’s US $ not Zimbabwean $ denomination

Reply to  tonyM
May 17, 2015 8:27 am

BTW a real oversight: that is US$1500 billion PER ANNUM 🙂

May 16, 2015 11:01 am

Having checked out the 2007 ‘Bali Road Map’ on Wiki., I can’t see any reference to the sum requested by India and China. In fact can’t see anything but a meaningless heap of ‘UN Speak’ jargon.
It is all all so pathetic, especially when one reads of the real horrors occurring daily on a world wide basis. These are what our politicians should be concentrating on ameliorating – not some hypothetical future one.
But I guess the real ones are just too difficult for the incompetents to tackle.

May 16, 2015 11:05 am

The 2007 Bali Road Map was supposed to be finalized, or officially adopted, in Copenhagen ’09. Was it?

Reply to  MRW
May 16, 2015 11:06 am

Or is this what they are going to ask for in Paris, 2015?

EdA the New Yorker
May 16, 2015 11:08 am

Let’s see.
Obama: “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” SOTU address 21 Jan 2015
Rodham: “Climate change is our Space Race. It is our home-front mobilization during World War II, and it is our response to the Great Depression.” 5 Nov 2007
Kerry: “Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” 16 Feb 2014 (on foreign soil)
So, given the warnings by the US President and his two top diplomats, $100 gig / yr is cheap at twice the price right? (I WISH I could add a sarcasm tag. That speech by Kerry in Jakarta, a true national embarrassment, is still on the Department of State web site.)

Ian Macdonald
May 16, 2015 11:12 am

When you think about it, $100 billion is more than six ITERs worth. Six times the cost of the most expensive fusion project on the planet, and which at current finance rates won’t be compete unti the mid-2020’s. Now, the odds of six projects using different designs all producing no useful outcome cannot be all that high. Whilst the benefit of paying China and India to put up windturbines is easily calculated, as a nice round, single digit figure.
The cost of a fullscale thorium or Polywell test would both be considerably less than ITER. It only calls for one of these technologies to work; energy problem solved and eco-Communists silenced.
The endgame of NOT pursuing these goals will be Chinese patents on the various technologies, because we know that they are already working on them. Hence, we need to get there first.

May 16, 2015 11:33 am

100bn US dollars per year by 2020
Sorry, we have been bailing out banks and Greece here in Europe. We are broke now.

May 16, 2015 12:38 pm

As of December 31, 2014, only $122 million had been paid into the Green Climate Fund and $65 million had been spent on administration. Nine meetings of the Board so far.
Another UN / green industry psyche job on the gullible.

David A
Reply to  Bill Illis
May 17, 2015 3:22 am

One of the most productive things leaned in Ivy league schools is how to write grant proposals, and funding requests.

May 16, 2015 12:56 pm

An interesting item on BBC news on India and Greenpeace. It is good to see Greenpeace being brought up short. It also shows that India is determined to fuel its economic growth with coal:
‘At the end of April, India cancelled the registration of nearly 9,000 foreign-funded non-governmental organisations (NGOs), saying they didn’t comply with the country’s tax codes.
And the Indian government has singled out the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, for special attention………The charity says it will have to close down in a matter of weeks unless the Indian government lifts the financial freeze it has imposed on the NGO.
A secret report from India’s Intelligence Bureau, leaked last year, explains why India’s government has such a beef with the environmental charity. It said campaigns headed by Greenpeace and other NGOs had drained three percentage points off the nation’s annual growth rate.
Greenpeace wouldn’t claim to have been anywhere near that influential but its campaign against the coal industry does strike at the heart of the (the Prime Minister’s) ‘Make in India’ policy.
Coal is the main source of power in India and is central to the BJP government’s plans to boost industrial………….According to the International Energy Agency, India is set to double its coal consumption by 2035 and become the world’s largest coal importer by around 2020.
Almost half of the 1,200 new coal-fired power stations proposed around the world are in India according to the World Resources Institute.
That’s why campaigning against the coal industry in India has been a priority for Greenpeace.
The charity’s campaigns have stopped coal mining in some of India’s forest areas.
The NGO will also have earned the government’s ire by its relentless attack on two of India’s corporate behemoths, Coal India and the Adani Group.’

Reply to  Old'un
May 16, 2015 2:40 pm

India should be well informed about the way “the West” uses NGO’s as enemy agents/fifth columns; see Color Revolutions, OTPOR, Gene Sharp, Einstein Institute, CIA. (and of course, PNAC, 7 countries in 5 years, NeoCons, Maidan Putsch, Porky, coughISIScough). If the Indians haven’t found out themselves their buddies Putin and Xi Ping will have told’em. So kick Greenpeace and the others out, and you’ve neutralized that tactic.

May 16, 2015 1:01 pm

India and Geenpeace:
Whoops, fourth para. should read ….to increase industrial production…..

Bruce Cobb
May 16, 2015 1:37 pm

The $100bn should arrive by around 2030. These things take time. China should know this.

May 16, 2015 2:36 pm

This is BTW just another little move by the BRICS to tell the Maritime Empire, time’s up. For you and your monetary system and your narkowars.

May 16, 2015 3:05 pm

So..the new religion requires even more (human) sacrifice…….?

May 16, 2015 3:15 pm

There were two meetings in Bali. One is the Conference of Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC and the other is the Meeting of Parties (MOP). US has signed and ratified the UNFCCC and is a member of the COP but it has signed and not ratified the Kyoto Protocol so it is not part of the MOP. What Modi has stated is merely a restatement of the UNFCCC of Article IV section 7 of the UNFCCC. 7 which states “The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention
related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.” UNFCCC was signed by US under a republican administration and ratified under a democrat administration.
Of greater significance for public in developed countries to worry is the amendment provisions of the expired Kyoto Protocol that might be copied or even expanded in any of succeeding treaties. Kyoto Protocol required ratification by the US Senate or in the case of other developed countries by their constitutional process for treaty ratification. There could be lots of debates on specific provisions for ratification but the pro treaty group could just remain silent because at the end of the day, the amendment provision of the treaty allows the MOP to make changes and amendments binding on the parties without further consultation with Congress or going through the constitutional procedures for ratification of the amendments. The caveat is the country having ratified the protocol has also ratified the amendment procedure in the protocol that gives blanket authority to the MOP to make the any amendments.

May 16, 2015 3:50 pm

Q. Where is the capital of Zimbabwe?
A. In a Swiss bank account.

Mickey Reno
May 16, 2015 4:46 pm

I vote that we put the Clinton Foundation in charge of raising this money. That’s what, about 4 or 5 speeches by Bill and the same by Hillary? Imagine how loud they can crow about saving the planet as Hillary runs for President.

May 16, 2015 5:43 pm

Money used to be something of positive value.
Now money is something of negative value — irredeemable debt.
You can’t move liabilities to the asset column and expect rational outcomes.

May 16, 2015 5:45 pm

Money For Nothing
by Dire Straits

May 16, 2015 7:14 pm

I believe none of this was approved by Congress and thus it is not a commitment. Congress has the purse strings and we owe them nothing for the non-existent global warming.

May 16, 2015 7:25 pm

Hopefully it’s their way of saying, “Put up, or shut up.”

Joel O’Bryan
May 16, 2015 9:01 pm

A piece of that $100Bn USD action is also motivating the Vatican to embrace the Climate Change orthodoxy. Money talks. While Truth and democracy die in the Climate Change world.

Stephen Skinner
May 17, 2015 2:24 am

Both China and India are wealthy enough to have bought UK companies or have invested heavily. Considering that this 100bn would likely come form government money then it can only come from taxation. It is ironic (and tragic) then that the workforce at Jaguar Land Rover will be required to compensate their owner, Tata, for their forebears working in industry. Who’s brilliant idea was this? (my last sentence is sarcastic).

May 17, 2015 8:23 am

Both India and China marched with Russia at last week’s WWII celebration. The EU mostly boycotted it patting themselves on the back for winning WWII with Germany stupidly crowing about how Germany boycotted the one nation that really destroyed Hitler’s war machine.
Looks bad all around. Anyways, Putin spent a huge number of hours entertaining the Presidents of both China and India and this announcement is the result. Remember: the US and EU did everything they could to destroy the ruble.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot with the euro and dollar very vulnerable.

Reply to  emsnews
May 17, 2015 11:19 am

“about how Germany boycotted the one nation that really destroyed Hitler’s war machine.”
There’s no “boycot”. There’s a few sanctions against individuals, there’s the Russian import ban on EU food, and there is a growing amount of cancelled projects of German companies in Russia.
German industry is FURIOUS about this.

Reply to  emsnews
May 17, 2015 12:33 pm

For an informative and engrossing analysis of Russia and WWII and what Obama snubbed, listen to this interview with historian Stephen Cohen on the John Batchelor Show. Cohen is one of our top Russian analysts; he’s not even allowed in the White House, much less consulted. He discusses the Ukraine for the first 10 minutes, then gets to then upcoming May 9th event.
How America Misremembers Russia’s Central Role in World War II, May 5, 2015.

“We have the “Saving Private Ryan” American narrative of World War II,” said Cohen. “I read often…that the liberation of Europe was Eisenhower’s achievement. This is historically untrue…America won the war in the Pacific and Soviet Russia won the war in Europe.”

There was a follow-up interview on May 12, 2015 after the May 9th celebration on the same radio show where Cohen discusses your second paragraph, the meaning of the presence of the Chinese leader at the right side of Putin.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  MRW
May 17, 2015 1:42 pm

“Liberation of Europe”. How would Poland view their ‘liberation’? Or Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany?
Russia’s defeat of the Nazi war machine in the East was an extraordinary achievement and I was not aware that it was ignored or belittled. Also Russia’s might was not something that the allies could do much about because without the western allies landing in Italy and France then Russia would have ‘liberated’ all of Europe. Stalin’s military tactics were brutal to his own forces and probably meant many more died than was necessary. Operation Barbarossa and what followed was unimaginable and Russia was in a desperate state, but Stalin’s view of his own people meant the Russian’s had to survive not only the German onslaught but Stalin’s inhumanity. There is no denying the great achievements of General Zhukov (for example) but Stalin tried to deny even his achievement. If the Western view of Russia’s WW2 achievements is supposedly less than it should then that is the fault of Stalin and how Russia treated those countries ‘liberated’ following the defeat of the Nazis. And what about the Gulags?
So yes, Eisenhower did liberate Europe, at least Western Europe

Reply to  MRW
May 18, 2015 12:44 am

@Stephen Skinner,
Cohen gives some interesting statistics. He described how Germany got all the way to the residential outskirts of Moscow in 1941-42, wreaking indescribable devastation across western Russia as it did so. Then Germany attacked Stalingrad, or whatever it was called then. That’s when they encountered the 57-year-old General Zhukov, who pushed them back to Berlin. There is no indication that Russia had predatory pretensions on other European countries.
I did not know, for example, that Russia destroyed 600+ German divisions on the Eastern Front. Neither did I know that when we Americans decided to enter the European war officially on D-Day in June 1944 that our troops only faced 11 German divisions. Germany had 228 divisions fighting then on the Eastern Front. Would we have won if we had to face them? Who knows.
It is true that Russians were fighting for their lives. After all, they didn’t attack Germany. It was the other way around. I remember reading that Stalin supplied his troops with newspaper for socks in the brutal winters that are like those in the Northwest Territories of Canada. . . . and the vodka to not notice.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  MRW
May 18, 2015 2:48 pm

MRW May 18, 2015 at 12:44 am
With respect and apologies as I expect you know this. The opening of the Eastern Front took the threat of invasion away from Britain. The western front when it opened took pressure off the Eastern front which is something Stalin had been pressuring Britain and the US to do. The western front, when it opened was made possible by all the preceding victories and defeats including Dieppe. The tide began to turn in the Allies favour with the routing of the Nazi army at El-Alamain in North Africa. Rommel was pushed all the way back up the North African coast until met by the US coming the other way. Meanwhile Malta was under siege and under continuous attack because of its vital strategic position. Operation Pedestal was an extraordinary operation that broke the siege and meant this important island did not fall. One vital US ship with aviation fuel was so badly damaged it was carried into Valetta by two RN Destroyers. The first Western front to open was the landing of British and US soldiers on Sicily. To prepare for this, Gliders were towed all the way from Cornwall to North Africa and this had to be done by flying far out into the Atlantic to get around Spain, and then air towed all the way along the North African coast to the starting point. The success of the invasion of Sicily was greatly assisted by Operation Mincemeat which deceived the Nazis into think the allies were going to invade Greece and Sardinia and thus meant the loss of life was greatly reduced.
The allies battle up Italy and especially Monte Casino was not a picnic, but was greatly helped by the Italians themselves who were now enemies of the Germans.
The D-Day invasion was made possible by not just the lessons learned from the Dieppe raid but the developments in Radar and Code-Breaking. Both of these helped the Allies defeat the German Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Code Breaking meant strategic messages were being deciphered in less than 30 mins and advances in radar meant U-Boat periscopes could be detected from Coastal Command aircraft and then attacked. The Battle of the Atlantic should not be belittled as the number of ships being sunk with valuable supplies was reaching dangerous levels. For D-Day itself the US and Canada had to move not only enough soldiers to be effective but all the equipment including boats and planes. So Radar and Code Breaking meant all the US and Canadian troops made it across 3,500 miles of hostile ocean.
Before D-Day began Britain was under attack from two new secret weapons in the form of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and these weapons kept coming until well after D-Day. Here again advances in Radar greatly reduced the loss of life. Arranged along the South coast of England were radar controlled anti-aircraft guns that shot down 40% of the cruise missiles.
For D-Day the allies had almost complete air supremacy which was achieved after 5 years of brutal air combat. The Battle of Britain was the first turning point and the RAF also owes much to the many seasoned Polish pilots who made it to the UK after Germany invaded Poland. The arrival of the USAAF and long range fighters meant the air war could be taken all the way to Berlin and beyond. There were raids that were carried out on the request of the Russians and some that were blocked such as the planned supply drop in support of the Warsaw uprising. The life expectancy for the crew of a bomber was two weeks.
Finally the preparation for D-Day was greatly assisted by the bravery of the French Resistance with actions of sabotage and espionage and then the direct assistance they gave on D-Day itself and the following days.
Besides the bulk of D-Day being made of British, Canadian and US troops there were many other nationalities including French and Polish and the loss of life was remarkably low, but it was planned to be so.
I will not belittle anyone’s efforts to beat the Nazis as this was a World War with unimaginable tragedies but also stories of extraordinary bravery. The Battle for Moscow was the worlds largest battle ever! The amount of soldiers and equipment is truly staggering. But to temper this, Napoleon also led a large Army into Russia and the outcome was almost identical. The German advance was so fast that they bypassed entire Russian armies but then as with Napoleon the Russian winters took their toll. Hitler was Germany’s liability and he made dreadful strategic decisions, the worst being to invade Russia.
There are many other nationalities that risked their lives and fought for freedom in Europe, such as the Norwegians, Australians, New Zealanders, West Indians, US Indians (First Nations) but in the end I would hope that all the stories of bravery are put together rather than vie for tribal supremacy based on whose s**t was the biggest. Otherwise we are right back at square one.

Reply to  MRW
May 18, 2015 3:47 pm

Stephen Skinner,
Good synopsis. You say:
Hitler was Germany’s liability and he made dreadful strategic decisions, the worst being to invade Russia.
I would put another, possibly greater strategic blunder up there with invading Russia: Hitler declared war on the United States when we had our hands full with Japan. He was manipulated into doing it by Roosevelt, who couldn’t have coaxed Americans into another war front (FDR goaded Japan to attack, too). It was certainly not required, as the Japanesse argued. Germany and Japan had a mutual defense treaty. It didn’t apply when Japan did the attacking.
Hitler should have heeded the maxim to never enlarge your circle of enemies without a very good reason. It was a monumental blunder to unilaterally declare war on America. And of course, the U.S. turned out to be a really big additional enemy.
Hitler might have won in the east. Who knows? But with the U.S. suddenly attacking Germany everywhere possible, it took enough of the pressure off Stalin (not that Stalin would ever admit it).
FDR was anxious to get America into the war. He was excellent at manipulating public opinion, and he was an excellent wartime President who accomplished just about everything he set out to do. But like Wilson before him, he should have kept the U.S. out of the war. By mid-September England had fended off the German air attacks, and thus stopped the planned invasion. Germany couldn’t win outright after that (another blunder was Hitler’s allowing the British standing army to escape at Dunkirk).
So FDR got America into WWII. Look what happened. The goblins released in the Russian revolution were dispersed throughout the world, and they and their progeny are still causing continuous problems. The U.S. could have acted as a neutral arbiter; a referee in Europe. Instead, we took sides, and just like getting into WWI, it didn’t do us much good, if any.

Reply to  MRW
May 18, 2015 5:13 pm

Thanks Stephen Skinner. That’s some summary. I don’t know which country you live in, but we Americans have never experienced a World War here. I find the current warmongering with Iran and Russia to be repellent beyond words because if we kick the hornet’s nest, we will have bombs fall on us this time.

G. Karst
Reply to  MRW
May 19, 2015 8:43 am
May 17, 2015 9:31 am

I think of it as an international remake of “The Sting”

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
May 17, 2015 7:44 pm

Except in “The Sting” Robert Shaw didn’t intentionally stack the deck against himself.

David S
May 17, 2015 1:02 pm

With all due respect Mr. Prime Minister… Shove it!

May 17, 2015 3:58 pm

So that’s how it works.
You offer to bribe the countries with the fastest economic growth into slowing down their growth. They agree. But as it plays out it becomes them telling you, “What are you crazy, we are not slowing our economic growth… we just want the bribe.”

May 17, 2015 6:13 pm

They won’t get it until they implement carbon taxes in the US.

Exiled Maritimer
May 17, 2015 8:36 pm

We gave it to Al Gore. Hasn’t he delivered it yet?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights