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.
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.
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.
So..the new religion requires even more (human) sacrifice…….?
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.
Q. Where is the capital of Zimbabwe?
A. In a Swiss bank account.
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.
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.
Money For Nothing
by Dire Straits
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.
Hopefully it’s their way of saying, “Put up, or shut up.”
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.
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).
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.
“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.
@emsnews,
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.
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.
“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
@Stephen Fisher 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.
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.
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.
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.
Good advice:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWW6aDpUvbQ&w=854&h=510%5D
I think of it as an international remake of “The Sting”
Except in “The Sting” Robert Shaw didn’t intentionally stack the deck against himself.
With all due respect Mr. Prime Minister… Shove it!
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.”
They won’t get it until they implement carbon taxes in the US.
We gave it to Al Gore. Hasn’t he delivered it yet?