Developing Countries: We want a Trillion Dollars to Sign your Climate Agreement

dr_evil_billiongazillion

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

LDCs (least developed countries) have forwarded an invoice for $1 trillion dollars, to be paid between 2020 – 2030, in order to meet their climate goals.

According to Australian Sky News;

The world’s 48 poorest countries will need to find around $US1 trillion ($A1.39 trillion) dollars between 2020 and 2030 to achieve their plans to tackle climate change – and those plans should be a priority for international funding, researchers say.

Estimates based on plans submitted by the least-developed countries (LDCs) toward a new UN deal to curb global warming show they will cost around $US93.7 billion ($A130.22 billion) a year from 2020, when an agreement expected to be ironed out in Paris over the next two weeks is due to take effect.

That includes $US53.8 billion annually to reduce emissions and $US39.9 billion to deal with more extreme weather and rising seas, according to a report from the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Read more: Sky News

Sky News also notes that On Monday, 11 donor governments pledged close to $US250 million in new money for adaptation in the poorest countries at the start of the UN climate talks. So it seems there is still a fair way to go, to close the gap between expectations and delivery.

And of course it seems unlikely that America will contribute significantly to this funding demand. The US Congress has threatened to block any green funding pledges made by President Obama at the COP21 conference.

EW – Sky News Link corrected (thanks lee)

144 thoughts on “Developing Countries: We want a Trillion Dollars to Sign your Climate Agreement

  1. The only upside of such a massive collusion is that most ordinary people can smell the rot. They know there’s something wrong – thirty years of completely inaccurate predictions of impending climate catastrophe just speak for themselves when those same climate catastrophes fail so resoundingly to materialise.

    Paris CoP is their last chance to make a land grab while the going’s still good. They (the UN) managed to get both Canada and Australia on board at the last moment by engineering regime change in both countries (as Chris Monckton, a year ago, predicted would happen) and with Obama still in office for this CoP they figure it’s ‘now or never’ to go for broke and try and get that whole ‘world governance’ thing finally in the bag.

    But in the end the fracture lines in the CAGW edifice will propagate into structural weakness and ultimately into collapse. May take some time yet, but skeptics have all the time we need. CAGW zealots, on the other hand, are fast running out – 30 years of no climate catastrophe and counting…

    Expect the usual pantomime of ‘last minute emergency ratifications’ and all the ridiculous staged-for-the-world’s-media nonsense these clowns habitually engage in. It will all be meaningless. This entire project is doomed to founder under the weight of its own delusions and lies.

    • I am not sure “ordinary people” smell a rat en-masses actually. There’s no much indoctrination. I was on a non-climate forum where there is an ongoing “global warming” discussion.. and basically if you came across as a “denier” you were scorned, the arguments mainly being the 97%.. deference to the “Authority” of the “climate” scientists, and, the common “Do you not think pumping Billions and Billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere aren’t going to make a difference….. really???”

      I am not one for wading into the argument.. but anything deniers posted were rounded upon.. and references not even read or looked at…

      [“There’s [no such] intimidation”, or “There’s [so much] intimidation” ? .mod]

      • You guys are both right, to a point. Ordinary well- informed people smell a rat and as evidence, look at the “comments” section of any online news article about climate change. The comments are overwhelmingly (97%?) skeptical of the alarmist talk. However, the uninformed are more likely to be brainwashed and stuck in their beliefs. As example, at a recent family gathering, the talk turned to climate change. One fellow’s understanding and belief were revealed when he said, “they say it’s happening”. That was his position, no matter what anyone else had to say. He had to be right and “they” provided all he needed to know.

      • @Phil,

        I have a question for you, and who else may be able to help with this. I’ve been looking at the studies on consensus on climate change. As we know, these studies are replete with problems. I recently got into a debate with someone on a different blog about this very thing. His tactic was to use the lack of any study showing that there wasn’t a consensus. I thought I had found a study that showed that very thing, with the PBL Netherlands survey, as it was pushed by some skeptic sites as evidence of a lack of consensus, yet it still showed a fairly decent majority (66%) of climate scientists do put most, if not all, of the blame on humans for the warming in the latter half of the twentieth century.

        My question is: is there a study that would show that there is even disagreement among climate scientists, or should I just avoid that line of debate, since consensus doesn’t matter really? Considering this is the only thing some of these people want to talk about, it would help to put forward something showing the opposite of what they’re saying, or near to it, rather than refute their findings by way of manipulative questioning or sampling.

      • What I think that most critics of climate change theory appear to miss is that there was a graduate program whistleblower in 2000 whose remarks appeared to specifically address this issue of 97% …

        There was also a more recent letter by a graduate student who quite their PhD program just before receiving their PhD. See excerpts here about bandwagon research …

      • There is a lot of suttle indoctrination happening and the media are right behind it. A weather presenter here in Australia was stating the expected capital city temperatures for the day and commented, “A very hot day in Perth, 36 degrees”. Even when it’s not hot they are trying to get you to think it is. Perth is capable of going into low to mid 40’s. What descriptive would they use for a 45 degree day.

      • True
        I have been monitoring the CBC here in Canada and the propaganda is clear vitriol. You should take a listen to their web site and some of the interview shows like “The current”. As the tailor commented their “bias” is showing big time. they are obsessed with Global warming, and more surprising they are still attempting to demonize former PM Harper, got a real hard on for him and been out for some time now. I suspect they reckon by focusing on Harper they can conceal the up welling transgressions of the new PM Trudeau. So sad.
        for a real look at what we have now check Bill Maher’s season final show with our idiot minister of trade Chrystia Freeland on the panel . totally stupid, you will get the picture regarding our next four years, or as Buzz Lightyear might say “to infinity and beyond”.

    • “Engineered regime change”….except that the human infrastructure the changelings (Basically Soros & Strong) chose are too dumb to fool the dumbed-down populace. Then Strong dies, leaving Soros to face Putin….while that muttonhead Justin Trudeau starts acting like a king, right down to the nannies.

    • If it wasn’t for the fact that they have been guzzling their way through vast quantities of other people’s money – then this episode would qualify as comedy.

      “A favorite of the Obama White House, Abengoa was the second largest recipient of the Department of Energy (DOE) stimulus loans (the DOE’s “Junk Bond Portfolio”). This Spanish company, who is heavily connected to high-profile Democrats, between July 2010 and September 2011, was awarded over $2.8 billion to construct two solar energy complexes in Arizona and California and a biofuel plant in Kansas.

      According to the March 2012 House Oversight Committee Report, “The Department of Energy’s Disastrous Management of Loan Guarantee Programs,” Abengoa received an additional “$818 million in Treasury grant commitments.” Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon recently documented that Abengoa has “received more than $100 million in federal grants.”

      So, it seems that with so many grant figures jumping around, it’s hard to say how much free money that Abengoa scored from the U.S. or if it came from the stimulus-created 1603 Grant Program, of which, as of August 3, 2015, has dished out $24.5 billion of free taxpayer cash.

      However, we do know that Abengoa received plenty of money from the United States Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank), which is another avenue where favored firms are awarded hundreds of millions of taxpayer-backed loans. Besides the fact there are some serious “conflict of interest” that involve the Bank and Abengoa, I found three Ex-Im Bank “green” transactions benefiting this foreign firm that transpired in 2011, 2012 and 2013, exceeding $267 million, which are chronicled in my June 2015 Green Corruption File.

      Also, in December 2013, Abengoa was awarded a $2 million competitive award from the DOE’s SunShot Initiative “to improve manufacturing and assembly of their innovative large aperture parabolic trough collector over the next two years.”

      http://greencorruption.blogspot.co.uk/

      • Did they ever actually build anything? Sounds like the execs cooked the books with all the grants, guarantees and loans, then cashed out right before the whole ponzi scheme imploded.

      • Boy, doesn’t the picture of an

        innovative large aperture parabolic trough collector

        full of grant money conjure up a Josh cartoon? Just thinkin’…

      • A large aperture trough, with a seat, a flush and a waste pipe to carry away all the cash that gullible bozos in govt. keep tipping in. :)

      • “””””….. Also, in December 2013, Abengoa was awarded a $2 million competitive award from the DOE’s SunShot Initiative “to improve manufacturing and assembly of their innovative large aperture parabolic trough collector over the next two years.” …..”””””

        Well there’s your basic problem right there.

        There is nothing at all ” innovative ” about a ” large aperture parabolic trough collector. ”

        What needs ” improvement ” has nothing to do with manufacturing and assembly.

        If one visits the University of California; Merced campus; well it’s in Atwater CA. you can actually see in action, truly innovative and efficient large aperture trough collectors, that do work, and are quite simple to manufacture and assemble.

        But then they aren’t Parabolic either, which is well known to be the wrong shape to make them.

        So once again, the money is wasted on fools, which is what happened in the Solyndra mess too.

        And the successful designs from UC Merced, have actually been installed in remote third world locations where they provide energy to folks who otherwise would go without.

        Americans should have studied the lesson of the Pilgrims that is the foundation of “Thanksgiving”.

        The Mayflower Pilgrims set up a truly communist system, where nobody owned anything, and everything they had belonged to the “community”, to be shared equally by all.

        The result was a disaster, and half of them paid with their lives.

        So the leaders changed the system, and gave each family their own lot to do with as they wished so they could enjoy the fruits of their own labors, and keep what they created for themselves.

        As a result, they ended up with so much food over and above their own needs, that they were able to trade with the indigenous peoples who were always hard up for food during the harsh winters.

        The rest; as they say, is history.

        The peoples of the third world will never be self sufficient, no matter how much you give them to start them off.

        Look what happened to the Klamath Indians, back in the 1960s, when the government paid them for the lands that they relinquished.

        COP 21 will just be the mother of all rabbit holes down which value will disappear, never to be seen again.

        g

      • Thanks for your insightful observations. Here’s another equally ludicrous recipient of a massive DOE for innovation – which isn’t innovation.
        The idea is not novel and it has been tested and discarded repeatedly in the past.
        But maybe, in the insane topsy turvy world of engineering for appearance and hand-outs, they really will be able to get these skirted turbines to generate some income. Forget about energy. All that they need to collect is free money.
        http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=43&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2944&cHash=be02eb02d7e684e2e8a9394fa03c15e3

      • Obama and his corrupt crony money grubbing marxist tax feeders took billions in US taxpayer funds and obligations and gave it to a Spanish company under the guise of creating “green” jobs in the US. He did this in broad daylight.

        And he won’t be going to prison for that.

      • Even if this had been “successful” it is quite obviously one of the most expensive means of “creating jobs” in existence.
        What he going to do next to create jobs in America? Fund the Indian space program? I mean, what could you think of that was more stupid than the Abengoa debacle?
        Obviously if a person did decide that the function of govt. were to “create jobs” by spending other people’s money – then it would be reasonable to attempt to create as many jobs as possible for the money available.
        You would have thought that that much was obvious.
        But, not in today’s mixed up world.

  2. This Developing Countries’ belief and its basis are totally flawed. We should not be contributing anything to them, even if man-made CAGW/Climate Change is a problem, and for several reasons:
    1. 500 years or so ago, there was little difference between the present developed and developing countries’ scientific and technical capabilities and in fact a lot of mathematics, and techniques and products such as printing, gunpowder, ship designs and discoveries etc. etc. had already been provided by present day developing countries. Cities, government and civil administration in both China and the Indian subcontinent were far more developed and effective than those in the present day “developed” countries. Nothing held back the present day developing countries, and neither did the present day developed countries have any relative advantages.
    2. The subsequent empire building and colonialization of the present day developing countries by developed countries was no different to the policies and practices of the developing countries in previous centuries, e.g. the various Mongal, Chinese and Indian Empires.
    3. The later developed countries’ colonialization of what at that time were fundamentally flawed and failed and under-developed major empires and countries – even in the 19th century, literally dragged these countries into the 20th century with much investment and effort on infrastructure and government works and modern day administrations. All this was backed and funded by the developed countries’ scientific, technological and commercial expertise. This expansion was facilitated by a fossil fuelled industrial revolution!
    4. Subsequently, post-independence, massive ongoing investment, funding and assistance was provided to these countries by the developed countries. In addition, through technological transfers of ongoing scientific and engineering innovation and development, better communications and access to current ongoing technical and scientific knowledge, and even education of former colonies’ students in developed countries all continued to advance the capability of developing countries to help themselves. No real obstacles to the advancement of developing countries’ capabilities were ever provided, and their politicians and leaders had every opportunity to provide what they had been preaching to their compatriots from pre-independence onwards, namely a far better life for them without their colonial masters. It is no fault of the developed countries that too many of the developing countries under their new politicians and leaders wasted or squandered their inheritance and in the years following their independence their past rate of development stalled and for many years to come.
    5. It is also a fact that, even if needed, providing state of the art up to date carbon free technology and industrial processes and services is far cheaper starting from a less developed basis than providing similar up to date technology and industrial processes and services to replace existing but somewhat outdated systems. The carbon-free costs for similar works in developing countries started on relatively bare sites and are far cheaper than in developed countries, even over and above the advantages of less expensive labour.
    6. Evidence available shows quite clearly that people from developing countries of all races are just as professionally capable as those from developed countries of managing and developing necessary infrastructure services and works and scientific and technological developments needed by their countries – given that these professionals stay within or return to their countries and are allowed to operate within a suitable political and cultural environment. Such progress in the developing countries from immediately post-independence should have been far more extensive given the aid then still provided from their past colonisers. No actions or inactions by developed countries has ever hindered this, but have only supported and encouraged this!
    All developing countries have benefited from the developed world’s past industrial and scientific development which made full use of what was then current state of the art technology including fossil fuel usage. Without it the developed world would have been saddled with more manual or less efficient and lower capacity systems and would not have had the wealth generation that has been provided which in turn funded more social and industrial development, including all systems and knowledge that have since been bequeathed to developing countries. Developed countries’ past fossil fuel usage directly and indirectly provided what was bequeathed to developing countries and provided these countries with a quantum leap into the modern world as we now know it. What the independent developing countries started from would not have existed without the developed world’s past use of fossil fuels. They have themselves benefited from past fossil fuel usage.
    As such, the developed countries owe nothing to developing countries for their past use of fossil fuels and particularly for developing countries expanding their power generation and industrial capacities, or for funding and supporting a massive increase in their populations.

    • So very true. And exacerbating the incompetence and plunder of the elites of these ‘developing’ countries is the entrepreneur-killing thicket of bureaucracy that impedes the creation of small business. Great examples of this and the folly of supposed ‘good intentions’ are covered in the Russ Roberts interview of economist Michael Matheson Miller here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/11/michael_matheso.html

      • @Mebbe,

        if you’re a government, to spend non-existent money.

        Non-existent money? Not us. Not the US federal government. We make our money.

        Who actually pays the bill is hard to assess

        No, it isn’t.

        Check the federal government checkbook. You can look at it every day if you want; it comes out every day at 4 PM. It’s called the Daily Treasury Statement. Time to elect people who know what it is.

        For example, in Fiscal Year 2014, the US federal government created $69.8 trillion. It redeemed $68.7 trillion. The difference is what the federal government let the people keep in their bank accounts, and pocketbooks: about $1 trillion, what is euphemistically called “the federal debt,” and which no one understands. . . .like the workings of CO2. [You find the annual totals on Sept 30th of any given year.]

        So what were the federal government taxes collected in Fiscal Year 2014? $2.5 trillion. Basically zip. Taxes (federal, not state) do not pay for anything. The federal government created $69.8 trillion to pay for the workings of government and country in 2014, and there is no “debt” to children or grandchildren. Because that’s the way we roll.

        Our money exists. We create it. Congress does. Every time it “appropriates.” That’s Congress’ job. Read the Constitution. (This, of course, is what the COP21 thieves want to get their mitts on since August 15, 1971.)

        Daily Treasury Statement for Sept 30, 2014. Two Pages. Download your own copy. what the fed government creates is Table III-A:
        https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=14093000.pdf

    • I agree with all you say, except that I am not opposed to offering a helping hand, as long as it’s not considered a moral, historical obligation.

      • With who’s money? The USA has no money, we are nearing 20 $ Trillion NEGATIVE. So borrow it from whom? China? To give it to, er China? The EU is in the bucket too, with most countries a step from collapse and Greece already past the bend.

        It is physically not possible for the “developed world” to give what we do not have without taking it from others. So who?

      • E.M.Smith

        As is often pointed out, it’s much easier to spend other people’s money than your own and it’s even easier, if you’re a government, to spend non-existent money. It is, indeed, possible to give what you don’t have; it’s what happens every day at many scales. Who actually pays the bill is hard to assess and, even, what that bill winds up being. It’s not as unambiguous as 19th century bankruptcy laws.

      • So borrow it from whom? China? To give it to, er China?

        Oh, here we go again. Please name the factory in downtown China manufacturing counterfeit $US dollars that the US borrows.

        The United States creates its own currency. We don’t have to borrow from anyone. (Greece does. It gave up its currency for the Euro; idiots. Ditto Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, etc.)

    • Well articulated! I’ve thought along these lines for quite a while.
      If the starting point for ‘The West’ developing and taking advantage of the benefits of the industrial revolution is approx 1880, without being too harsh why not ask the LDC’s why they didn’t do the same over the past 135 years?
      The honest underlying message being, get off your backsides and earn ‘the modern standard of living’ that the entire world is meant to aspire to and share! Anything less really is a disgusting trivialisation of the hard work put in by many individuals, companies and countries over that time to achieve what they have, – followed by lazy the insistence that it is shared with countries that haven’t been putting in the hard yards to progress in any way, shape or form.
      “You developed it, now give it to me. Along with payments for having done it first.”
      But then again, that’s Fabianism and Socialism.
      And we all know this is the real agenda…

      *climbs down off cassandra’s soapbox…*

    • You’d think the folks in India, China, Brazil etc. would see through this, but no doubt the political “leaders” of those groups smell personal gain in that $1 Trillion and are wiling to sell out the future of their member citizens for it. Imagine trying to build a successful, growing economy while saddled with a bureaucracy that insists you rely on undependable, inefficient and absurdly expensive energy sources just to satisfy the unfounded ideological needs of industrialized nations? “Let them eat cake!” doesn’t begin to describe it.

      It’s a recipe for war and I fully expect the people behind it know that and plan to profit from it.

    • One good thing. These demands are an order of magnitude greater than a slapstick comedy used as an “obsene planetary ransom”. When they hear this, people do understand, at least on some levels, that this is purely about the money.

      Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.

    • Likely outcome but, if they used their heads, they could salvage some benefit from all this wasted effort.

      Instead of dumping worthless currency into a grab bag, developed countries could pledge finished product using a barter system until the developing country achieves a reasonable GDP. Developed countries would need to coordinate to properly design culturely appropriate solutions. Developed countries don’t need the UN to do this.

      It’s also a perfect opportunity to implement new approaches like decentralized power generation which produces power, wasted management, and drinking water.

    • Of course. The UN would dearly love its own funding stream so that it is not reliant on governments to fund it. Another left wing bunch, the EU, is exactly the same. It wants money paid straight to it so that it can waste it. No accounts from the EU have passed audit for 15 years. Eventually the EU will take over all member countries anyway but it is getting impatient.

    • I believe the drill works like this:

      -The donor country’s contribution is greenwashed through the grasping parasites of its (wink! wink!) “environmentally concerned” bureaucrats and NGO crony-grifters, who take a healthy “slice” of the contribution and divert it to their own insatiable, trough-centric good-times on the taxpayer dime.

      -What remains of the donor country’s contribution then gets forwarded to the even more rapacious UN bureaucrats, who treat it to various sloppy-seconds, piranha-like, feeding-frenzy indignities, which convert the vast majority of what passes through their hands into brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie perks and gravy-trains, there for their exclusive benefit.

      -The stripped “bones” of the donor country’s contribution is then passed along to the recipient country’s back-stabbing, homocidal-maniac, kleptocrat President-for-Life, who immediately sends the largest portion of the meagre sum remaining to his secret, numbered, Swiss bank account.

      -Finally, the few remaining skeletal shards of the original contribution, sucked dry of their marrow, are then shuffled off by the “Big Boss” onto the recipient country’s lethally corrupt bureaucrats who make no “bones” about it and just steal what’s left–except for the few kopecks tossed to a coupla-or-so photo-genic locals, turned out in their colorful native garb, who. all grins, appear front-and-center in the obligatory PR photo-shoot, that inevitably attends these sort of Gaia-friendly, rip-off evolutions, of them pretending to plant a tree, or some such–all this, while in the background, sleek, well-fed, self-satisfied, minor-league UN and NGO eco-hacks proudly peruse the whole creep-show, agit-prop charade. (For some reason, though, the NGO hot-babes never appear at these absurd photo-ops (or at least get into the published pictures and videos). Hmmm…maybe the pretty-ladies’ low profile is meant to head off any “certain” questions, by any “certain” wives–none of our betters’ toadies, sell-outs, gofer-enablers, and Gruber-wannabes wanting their life’s partner to start pulling on that thread, I’m thinkin’.)

      • Hmm…screwed up that second sentence, above, I see. Meant it to be: “The donor country’s contribution is greenwashed through its homegrown, “environmentally concerned” (wink! wink!), grasping bureaucrats and NGO crony-grifter parasites, who take…”

      • No numbered accounts in Switzerland, that’s history, but French banks love this easy money, and most will come from African states for lots of reasons. This is their speciality, thats why Hollande is so supportive. 90% of those funds to Africa will soon reside in Paris, CAGW stands for Certified African Global Wiinnings.

    • “It’s almost like the whole CAGW thing was always just a plot to impose an international tax on us.”

      Almost? That’s EXACTLY what it is; along with income redistribution, one-world government and the destruction of capitalism.

  3. I think that “ordinary people” will think this is perfectly reasonable because they have been convinced by the propaganda that every extreme weather event is caused by “climate change”, rather than “climate”, caused by the “developed” nations. We are all guilty, and must pay!

  4. If these fellows succeed in extorting $1 trillion from the developed world and then spend it on pointless, overpriced “renewables” supplied by consortiums of the “new” business paradigms it will be job done. Virtue signalling, wealth redistribution from western taxpayers to the “friends of Barry” and Switzerland of course all resulting in a feel-good sensation amongst the deluded greenies and absolutely nothing else of any value.

    It is all a bit irritating I must say.

    • Thank you for posting this. It rather dramatically makes the point of where the growth in emissions is occurring and indirectly poses the question as to why the Annex 1 countries should sacrifice their economies now.

  5. Oddly such clear attempts at a ‘shake-down’ are not bad thing from a sceptics point of view.
    Has these ideas where always a hard sell in the best of times , now they are much hard sell.
    So if anything they are less likely to get governments that have to consider voters , and these are the only ones being ‘shaken ‘ , to sign on. And if they can reject this idea , it is much easer to reject other ideas by coupling them together.
    Greed has be the downfall of many of man , and we could see the same again to no ones harm but those that seek ‘Wealth disruption’ has means to show how much they hate the west and care about the poor , who been one of the many groups how have hitched their wagon to ‘the cause’ in the hope that it would carry-them forward.

  6. What the LDCs do not realize is that the point of all this aid is to prevent them from developing. The governments of these countries will use the finds to fund themselves and thus not gove a darn what happens to its people, who will get poorer and sicker due to long term government neglect. That’s the whole point of foreign aid, it keeps the governments in power despite the plight of their peoples.

    • They don’t care about developing. If they did, then they wouldn’t want the aid (international aid has historically been counter-productive: compare sub-Saharan Africa to Vietnam). This is about their own power at best, and bribery, skimming, and corruption at worst.

      • This is about their own power at best, and bribery, skimming, and corruption

        There is no “best”.

    • As I have said before, the whole scam is about stealing from poor people in rich countries, & give it to rich powerful people in poor countries. Wealth re-distribution in a limited manner!

    • Yup. And as the “developed” world runs low on feuls, they can conveniently hop in and take the resources from the “undeveloped” nations that these “climate change” agreements keep the “undeveloped” nations from using for their own purposes.

  7. The Chinese covered their chagrin at the failure of the shakedown in Copenhagen by pretending outrage at the neo-colonial maneuverings of one Obama.

    This is same song, second verse. The shakedown is a charade, and Obama will be unable to resist injecting himself in some convenient, embarrassing, and disruptive way.

    Plus, I’m still expecting snow at Paris.
    ===================

    • “…resist injecting himself in some convenient, embarrassing, and disruptive way.”

      As ever, Kim puts her (middle) finger on it. HAs there ever been an American President more embarrassing than Obama? Maybe Richard Nixon, but at least he lived on planet earth…albeit s paranoid, petty, rather horrifying version of it…

      You know what? I think we should give them the money. It would be worth it, provided we can accurately track where it all goes. Not that there’s the slightest doubt. Even the Clintons will find a way to get their greasy fingers on some of it…

      (seem to be fixated on fingers this morning)…

  8. Definition of Foreign Aid: Taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving to rich people in poor countries.

    • The greatest beneficiary of this scheme will likely be Daimler and other luxury limo makers. That’s were the despots like to spend their money, armored limos.

  9. Wikipedia: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
    IIED was set up in 1971 with backing from industrialist Robert O. Anderson and was originally called the International Institute for Environmental Affairs. In 1973, its first director Barbara Ward moved the organisation to London and changed its name to IIED.
    Ward’s book Only One Earth (co-authored with René Dubos) was the key text for delegates at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (also known as the Stockholm Conference), which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)…
    It held its first symposium at the 1974 UN World Food Conference and in 1975 joined forces with UNEP to create Earthscan, an information and environment service for media. In 1976 it was heavily involved in HABITAT, the first UN Conference on Human Settlements…
    In 1985, IIED and the World Resources Institute (WRI) began to produce the biennual World Resources Report, which today is solely a WRI publication. In 1987, the Brundtland Report, also known as Our Common Future, cited IIED’s contribution to creating “a global agenda for change”…
    IIED played an important role ahead of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, or Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, by mobilising civil society and drawing international attention to the summit. For this, IIED was awarded the Blue Planet Prize…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_for_Environment_and_Development

    LinkedIn: Andrew Norton
    Dr Andrew Norton
    Global Development Leadership and Strategy
    February 2015 – Present
    From end June, Director of IIED.
    Director of Research
    ODI – Overseas Development Institute
    September 2010 – February 2015
    Lead Social Scientist
    The World Bank
    August 2005 – August 2010 …etc
    https://uk.linkedin.com/in/andrew-norton-bb154433

  10. Western Guilt is the primary stock-in-trade for the Climate Liars. And it’s a double-whammy; first and foremost is the guilt of being “rich”, which is a mind-set of Progressives, and is tantamount to our “original sin” in the Climatist faith. The second whammy is “carbon-guilt”, which is the idea that we have emitted most of the nasty, evil “carbon pollution”, and thus are primarily responsible for the “problem” of “climate change”. But salvation is available – Hallelujah! All we need to do is punish ourselves economically, and “go green”. And the other Big Lie they like to tell is that this really won’t hurt much, and then they go into all the “green jobs” blah-blah, and how, if we don’t do this now, it will cost us even more in the future.

  11. I’ve reached 30 and I’m already tired of this world and it’s stupidity, I wonder what men in their 80’s must be feeling like…

    • Time for the Laphroaig (by appointment to Prince of Wales) and the revolver probably (I’ve a few years to go).

    • “I wonder what men in their 80’s must be feeling like…”

      Killing stupid & corrupt politicians !!!

    • Being a youngster of 62, I can’t speak for those in their 80’s, but it does seem as if mankind is in the process of taking a giant leap backwards, where stupidity and insanity aligned with greed and quest for power appear to have taken over. Truth and rationality are no longer valued apparently. I believe we are winning though, with Mother Nature’s help.

    • Cant speak for octogenarians but as someone in his 60’s I can tell you its deja vu all over again as the late great Yogi Berra said.

      In the early 1960’s were going to run out food with mass famines even in developed countries predicted by 1970 with 65 million people in the USA dying of starvation and the UK ceasing to exist. What we got was a European grain mountain as crop yields rose ahead of consumption

      In the late 1960’s we were told that world reserves of oil and gas would be gone by 1980, now they tell us we must leave these dangerous resources in the ground.

      In the 1970’s we were assured by climate scientists that unless we stopped burning fossil fuels a new ice age caused by global cooling would doom us all in the next decade.

      In the 1980’s we were assured that global temperatures would rise 2 degrees C by 2010- didn’t happen

      At the end of the 1990’s climate scientists said we should close all the ski resorts in Scotland and that our children would not know what snow looked like. Cue record snow seasons in Scotland in recent years.
      They also told us to expect prolonged droughts in the UK and that we should dig up our flower
      beds and lawns and plant cacti – what we actually got was wet summers and flooding.

      Note that many of the experts who wrote such appalling forecasts are still issuing confident predictions for the future and demanding we give them billions of dollars to prevent them coming true.

  12. Some further thoughts…

    Climate zealots have refused to engage in ‘debate’ with informed sceptics. They are cowards, intellectually and morally. They are running scared, knowing full well that the moment they face up to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the science and a media-savvy presence they will be outed as the serial frauds they so clearly are.

    This is why here in the UK the BBC hides behind it’s duplicitous ‘due partiality’ clause when refusing to air the opinions of informed sceptics. It is pure scientific cowardice – there really is no other word for it. The BBC talks about ‘having a debate’ – as if just saying it can somehow make it real – the truth is that the BBC (along with almost all of the rest of the msm) does not want a ‘debate’ about so-called ‘climate change’. They run a mile from ever – ever – engaging with informed sceptics because they know very well that when the grubby little rock they and their pro-CAGW pals are hiding under is turned over and exposed to real scientific fact and method their entire house of cards will very quickly come tumbling down.

    CAGW is a mass deception. It relies on the willing, complicit maintenance of censorship to survive – luckily for the eco-zealots all the msm and most western governments have all signed-up to the collusion. They’ve all agreed that the best way to keep the deception alive is by refusing to engage with informed critics; by declaring falsely that the ‘science is settled’ (it isn’t, not by a long mark) and that anyone who dissents is a heretic, to be ostracised, to be excommunicated.

    Liberal fascism, writ large. So much for ‘the debate’, then.

    • I notice that the BBC have been giving plenty of coverage to the scientific and economic views of Prince Charles and Charlotte Church.
      Meanwhile, lifelong professional climatologists such as Curry or Lindzen are excluded from their pretense of “debate”.
      Could the BBC possibly sink any lower?
      They should be an embarrassment to themselves.

    • I’m in my 80’s (82, in fact), The first thing I can tell you is that there has been no perceptible change in the climate in my lifetime, given the day-to-day or year-to-year variability that is an integral part of it. The second thing is that you don’t know how lucky you are to be living in the present. Our biggest worry is that we eat too much and exercise too little. The abundance we enjoy is the result of the great scientific work of super intellects like Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein etc. and the efforts of thousands of hard-working scientists and engineers who took the principles these men discovered and turned them into the miracles of modern technology. Added to this is the availability of cheap, abundant energy. Without it, modern civilization would be impossible, and there are no practical alternatives to fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. We’ve spent billions on wind turbines and solar, and they contribute a paltry 0.5% to the world’s energy needs. As for the “science” of climate change, I would rank it up there with the thousands of “studies SUGGEST that variable A MIGHT cause an increase in variable B” that you read about in the newspapers every day. Thus, one moment you are told that salt is bad for you, the next that it is good. As for COP 21, don’t worry. It will all pass. I’m confident that the climate is very robust and resistant to change, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. You need to have a time perspective when looking at these issues. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. That’s four thousand, five hundred million years! Our heroes in Paris are worried about an 85 years period. That’s not even a blink of an eye in terms of geological time. Do you not think that in the past, the Earth hasn’t been subjected to CO2 shocks caused by erupting volcanoes, unchecked forest fires that raged for months or even years? The climate system is chaotic in the scientific sense of the word, but remarkably stable on average. In a chaotic system, it is impossible to isolate the long term effects of one variable. In this way it is the same as the weather. Just as a weather forecast stretching 2 weeks is meaningless, an 85 year climate projection is also meaningless. Finally, if there is a temperature rise due to the increase in CO2, we’ll adapt to it. We aren’t buffalos or polar bears. My ancestors came out of Africa where the temperature was a balmy 20 to 30 degrees C and moved up into northern Europe. Now that’s what I call climate change! They adapted and so will our descendents.

    • It is unfortunate, but everything that is said about the BBC is equally valid here in Canada with our CBC radio. (The other MSM are right behind, but I spend most of my time with the radio.) No discussion has been permitted- everything has been based on the belief (by the CBC journalists) that they know the truth and that we who are sceptical of the CO2 hypothesis are never given a listen. I have mentioned Ball, McKitrick, McIntyre, and Essex as four Canadian experts but the CBC (radio and TV) has its own safe go-to people, like Suzuki, Gore, Jacquard (sp?), Weaver, May and the like and completely ignores people who really know what they are talking about.

      Ian M

    • No, they’ll increase their emissions when the dear ‘leaders’ of those countries take the trillions and buy themselves new and multiple mansions, private jets, yachts, and cigars.

      • Only partially right, more importantly they will sign contracts with Russia and Iran to build nuclear powerplants, that will ensure their presidential campaign funds are well funded for years. Oh yes, sorry, they will reduce their carbon emissions too!

  13. The world’s 48 poorest countries will need to find around $US1 trillion ($A1.39 trillion) dollars between 2020 and 2030 to achieve their plans to tackle climate change

    Shur nuff, …. and all those promised BILLION$ to be given to them “to achieve their plans” will be as successful as is/was all of the BILLION$ that have been given to the Palestinians (Arafat et el) during the past 40+ years “to achieve their plans”.

    “Rat-holes” are ”rat-holes”, … which are not good places for depositing tax dollars.

    • We will always be able to keep our CO2. We will just have to borrow the money from China. Then, we can borrow more money from them to pay them back. Simple.
      OK, here it is……..the latest on Global Warming and Cooling! From someone who really knows. No, it is not Al Gore, it is Ian Rutherford Plimer.

      Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

      These are his extensive credentials.

      Born 12 February 1946 (age 67)
      Residence Australia
      Nationality Australian
      Fields Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
      Institutions University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide
      Alma mater University of New South Wales,Macquarie University
      Thesis The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
      Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal(2003), Clarke Medal (2004)

      Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

      Professor Ian Plimer’s book in a brief summary.

      PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

      Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

      I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…..well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

      The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.

      I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

      Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year – think about it.

      Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

      And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

      Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.

      Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why?

      It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bullshitartists got caught with their pants down.

      And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

      It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

      But, hey, ……go give the world a hug and have a nice day.

      • Ric, that’s a fantastic post. I wonder how likely it is that the BBC might give Professor Plimer the time of day..?

        No? I thought not.

      • I thought that Plimer had disowned the claim about volcanos being responsible for so much of our CO2…..

        Ian M

  14. The Developing Countries continue to argue that the developed world emitted all the previous CO2 emissions and created this CAGW problem during their development and, as such, we should be significantly funding actions needed by the developing world to manage this man-made CO2 induced global warming problem. This justification is totally flawed. We should not be contributing anything to them, even if man-made CAGW/Climate Change is a problem, and for several reasons:
    1. 500 years or so ago, there was little difference between the present developed and developing countries’ scientific and technical capabilities and in fact a lot of mathematics, and techniques and products such as printing, gunpowder, ship designs and other discoveries had already been provided by present day developing countries. Cities, government and civil administration in both China and the Indian subcontinent were far more developed and effective than very many in the present day “developed” countries. Nothing held back the present day developing countries, and neither did the present day developed countries have any relative advantages.
    2. The subsequent empire building and colonialization of the present day developing countries by developed countries was no different to the policies and practices of the developing countries in previous centuries, e.g. the various Mongal, Chinese and Indian Empires.
    3. The later developed countries’ colonialization of what at that time were fundamentally flawed and failed and under-developed major empires and countries – even in the 19th century, literally dragged these countries into the 20th century with much investment and effort on infrastructure and government works and modern day administrations. All this was backed and funded by the developed countries’ scientific, technological and commercial expertise: an expansion that was funded by a fossil fuelled industrial revolution!
    4. Subsequently, post-independence, massive ongoing investment, funding and assistance was provided to these countries by the developed countries. In addition, technological transfers of ongoing scientific and engineering innovation and development, better communications and access to current ongoing technical and scientific knowledge, and even education of former colonies’ students in developed countries all continued to contribute very significantly to advancing the capability of developing countries to help themselves. No real obstacles to the advancement of developing countries’ capabilities were ever provided, and their politicians and leaders had every opportunity to provide what they had been preaching to their compatriots from pre-independence onwards, namely a far better life for them without their colonial masters. It is no fault of the developed countries that too many of the developing countries under their new politicians and leaders wasted or squandered their colonial inheritance or that in the years following their independence their past rate of development was not maintained and even often stalled and for many years to come.
    5. It is also a fact that, if now needed, providing state of the art up to date carbon free technology and industrial processes and services is far cheaper starting from a less developed base than providing similar up to date technology and industrial processes and services to replace existing but somewhat outdated systems. The carbon-free costs for similar works in developing countries starting on relatively bare sites are far cheaper than uprated or refurbishing existing systems in developed countries, even over and above the advantages of less expensive labour.
    6. Evidence available shows quite clearly that people from developing countries of all races are just as professionally capable as those from developed countries of managing and developing necessary infrastructure services and works and scientific and technological developments needed by their countries – given that their professionals stay within or return to their countries and are allowed to operate within a suitable political and cultural environment. Such progress in the developing countries from immediately post-independence should have been far more extensive given the aid then still provided from their past colonisers. No actions or inactions by developed countries have ever hindered this, but have only supported and encouraged this!
    All developing countries have benefited from the developed world’s past industrial and scientific development which made full use of what was then current state of the art technology including wealth generation and industrial development based on fossil fuel usage. Developed countries’ past fossil fuel usage directly and indirectly provided what was bequeathed to developing countries and provided these countries with a quantum leap into the modern world as we now know it. What the independent developing countries started from would not have existed without the developed world’s past use of fossil fuels. They have themselves benefited from past fossil fuel usage.
    Even if man-made CO2 emissions are creating the horrendous problems forecast by pro-CAGW/Climate Change supporters, and that’s a big if, the developed countries owe nothing to developing countries for their past use of fossil fuels and neither should they be held liable for funding needed for tackling their current problems, many of which are due to their massive unmanaged increase in populations. Look at China’s progress – all without foreign aid and western funding!

  15. Those third world Swiss bank accounts need a little love. Hey maybe the Saudis could pony up.

  16. Naturally the big river of Climate cash will pass through the financial sluice gates constructed by Bloomberg, KPMG, and every other big financial entity you can think of. Check out the list on the UNFCCC site. It is an eye opener.

    They had this set up for 2009 but it didn’t quite happen. As pointed out earlier all bets are on lame duck Obama. Good luck getting it through the US Congress.

  17. Let’s see:
    Most of the LDCs are in the tropics.
    Climate change is supposedly mostly at the poles.
    The Tropics can expect a big nada change in temperature.

    What are they spending the trillion dollars on?

    • Fossil fuel fired power stations, airports and hotels to attract the jet set and concrete and steel for the hotels just as they did in the Maldives. This nation while playing the climate change victim card is planning to increase its petroleum imports by 500% in the period 2000-2020 and has made negligible investment in renewables but somehow still claim they will be carbon neutral by 2020. The 150 million dollars provided to finance renewable energy has not managed to do anything other than line the pockets of the government.

  18. If we add 2 C to our daily temps, both high and low, is this what they mean when they say 2C is the tipping point for all life.?
    Serious question, though it sounds lame.
    If that supposition is correct, doesn’t look dangerous from here….

  19. A trillion dollars will go into the pockets of all the tin-horn liars thugs and dictators who run the third world countries who are supposed to benefit. Not one penny will actually be spent to help the average citizens of those countries. Not only is global warming a sham, but the UN has been a sham for a much longer time. Americans are the biggest suckers in the world. The UN should be dissolved and the IPCC along with it.

  20. Just send the bill to the American middle class, or what’s left of it. They won’t mind and all it takes is top tier message managers to ram it through. Throw in some paid protesters to keep it in the news.

  21. So if the weather doesn’t become more extreme and the seas don’t rise, do we get our money back? How about the unspent portion, at least? No? I thought so.

  22. If Climate Change was really life and civilization threatening, do people really think the victims of that potential climate disaster would be asking for a big payoff before saving them?

    Imagine ones house is burning, and the fire department arrives to find the owners of the house demanding payment before allowing the firemen to put the fire out. That is exactly what is going on in Paris. The Force, er I mean the Stupid is strong in Paris COP21.

  23. I will never forget that all the alarmist outlets, MSM and many blogs protested vociferously at the suggestion that the UK conservative government may consider spending £10 million on the re-instatement of dredging.
    Dredging which had only been suspended 20 years earlier due to interference of enviromentalists, primarily in academia, NGOs and the EU.
    The spending of £10 million was attacked from all quarters. Academics, green blogs and the Guardian and BBC piled in to attack the supposed shameful waste of public cash.
    Because – climate change. Because, they now desperately need flooding to support their agenda.
    Even if they have to cause the flooding by insisting that man-made drainage channels are allowed to clog with silt.
    To put this in context, $1 trillion is 66 thousand times more money than the £10 million.
    And all of a sudden, the green brigade consider such spending to be the most brilliant use of public funds.
    And whilst the £10 million was intended for U.K. jobs and infrastructure – the $1 billion is likely to be channeled directly into the pockets of bureaucrats with swiss bank accounts and tin-pot shysters in bongo-bongo land.
    All of a sudden we are told that we just can’t tip the money down the toilet fast enough.
    Give me a break!! What a bunch of malevolent crooks. From the very top to the very bottom.

  24. More mining of colonial guilt I see. Good timing, given Obama’s background. The next president is not as likely to pony up.

    I have no colonial guilt. I wasn’t alive then, my ancestors had nothing to do with colonialism until way back in 1705 or so, and that’s only on one side of the family. I go to the local casino occasionally to assuage that minor guilt.

    Peter

    • On the contrary, the rest of the world owes the West for medical science, economic tools, education, technology, etc. A full cost benefit analysis of, say, the Romans interference in the life of the Germanic tribes is a definite plus for the tribes. It’s no different today. We already gave today’s underdeveloped their trillion and their heads of state bought palaces in France and real estate in NY, etc.

      • Spot on, Gary.
        The benefits they and we have gained from the industrial revolution and the onward march of technology far outweigh the theorized costs, however they are calculated.

      • Here’s my take on India’s and the Developing Countries’ demand for funding their “CAGW” problems and costs.
        They all still continue to argue that the developed world emitted all the previous CO2 emissions and created this problem during their development and, as such, we should be significantly funding actions needed by the developing world to manage this man-made CO2 induced global warming problem.
        This belief and its basis are totally flawed. We should not be contributing anything to them, even if man-made CAGW/Climate Change is a problem, and for several reasons:
        1. 500 years or so ago, there was little difference between the present developed and developing countries’ scientific and technical capabilities and in fact a lot of mathematics, and techniques and products such as printing, gunpowder, ship designs and discoveries etc. etc. had already been provided by present day developing countries. Cities, government and civil administration in both China and the Indian subcontinent were far more developed and effective than those in the present day “developed” countries. Nothing held back the present day developing countries, and neither did the present day developed countries have any relative advantages.
        2. The subsequent empire building and colonialisation of the present day developing countries by developed countries was no different to the policies and practices of the developing countries in previous centuries, e.g. the various Mongal, Chinese and Indian Empires.
        3. The later developed countries’ colonialization of what at that time were fundamentally flawed and failed and under-developed major empires and countries – even in the 19th century, literally dragged these countries into the 20th century with much investment and effort on infrastructure and government works and modern day administrations. All this was backed and funded by the developed countries’ scientific, technological and commercial expertise. This expansion was driven by a fossil fuelled industrial revolution!
        4. Subsequently, post-independence, massive ongoing investment, funding and assistance was provided to these countries by the developed countries. In addition, through technological transfers of ongoing scientific and engineering innovation and development, better communications and access to current ongoing technical and scientific knowledge, and even education of former colonies’ students in developed countries all continued to advance the capability of developing countries to help themselves. No real obstacles to the advancement of developing countries’ capabilities were ever provided, and their politicians and leaders had every opportunity to provide what they had been preaching to their compatriots from pre-independence onwards, namely a far better life for them without their colonial masters. It is no fault of the developed countries that too many of the developing countries under their new politicians and leaders wasted or squandered their inheritance and in the years following their independence their past rate of development stalled and for many years to come.
        5. It is also a fact that providing state of the art up to date carbon free technology and industrial processes and services is far cheaper starting from a less developed basis than providing similar up to date technology and industrial processes and services to replace existing but somewhat outdated systems. The carbon-free costs for similar works in developing countries started on relatively bare sites and are far cheaper than in developed countries, even over and above the advantages of less expensive labour.
        6. Evidence available shows quite clearly that people from developing countries of all races are just as professionally capable as those from developed countries of managing and developing necessary infrastructure services and works and scientific and technological developments needed by their countries – given that these professionals stay within or return to their countries and are allowed to operate within a suitable political and cultural environment. Such progress in the developing countries from immediately post-independence should have been far more extensive given the aid then still provided from their past colonisers. No actions or inactions by developed countries has ever hindered this, but have only supported and encouraged this!
        All developing countries have benefited from the developed world’s past industrial and scientific development which made full use of what was then current state of the art technology including fossil fuel usage. Without it the developed world would have been saddled with more manual or less efficient and lower capacity systems and would not have had the wealth generation that has been provided which in turn funded more social and industrial development, including all systems and knowledge that have since been bequeathed to developing countries. Developed countries’ past fossil fuel usage directly and indirectly provided what was bequeathed to developing countries and provided these countries with a quantum leap into the modern world as we now know it. What the independent developing countries started from would not have existed without the developed world’s past use of fossil fuels. They have themselves benefited from past fossil fuel usage.
        As such, the developed countries owe nothing to developing countries for their past use of fossil fuels and particularly for developing countries expanding their power generation and industrial capacities, or for funding and supporting a massive increase in their populations. Just look at what the Chinese have achieved without such funding!

  25. Make that $2T when you factor in the self imposed declines in industry of developed countries such as agriculture in Australia combined with the $1T in wealth redistribution in transfers out.

  26. The New World Odor folks expected to buy these country’s support cheap? The poor are smart enough to know that this isn’t going to happen so they may as well ask for the moon.

  27. Ya gotta larf!

    Such a feel good mission, saving the human race, and all that. Then the UN and the World Bank saw an opportunity increase their status and expand their coffers, and soon the banks and great financial companies lined to help (themselves to a bit more of other people’s cash).
    Clever politicians and financiers incoked the vision of the suffering of the poor struggling developing nations to enhance the cade for skimming off extra taxes and commissions. ..

    And not for a moment did they realize those wily, opportunistic, struggling, poor countries would cleverly seize the moment, twist the story a little, and then demand their pound of flesh.

  28. How many LFTR (Thorium) reactors would we need to give away for the for the total reactor lifetime power output to be worth one trillion dollars?
    How many people would be lifted out of desperate poverty?

    Said a wise man (speaking of third-world development) – “Our people know poverty. Our people will know that they have developed when they have electricity”

    Would it be worth it?

    {Always give electricity, money tends to disappear into secret bank accounts.}

  29. Given that the combined GDP of the poorest 48 nations is only about $140b (US) per year, it’s hard to imagine that they “need” another $100b/year simply to adjust to climate change.

    That such absurd numbers can be presented as serious shows the sad state of climate “reporting” today.

  30. The rich countries will just loan them the trillion and use their resources as collateral and when they’ve wasted all their money on corruption and fighting global warming that has already stopped the rich will own it all. Bwa ha ha ha.

  31. The irony in all of this is that the trillion dollars would very likely be used, not only to buy wives and mercedes, but to put fossil fuel power plants in place to keep the palaces and wives warm, and to drill for oil, and to mine coal to sell to the stupid West.

  32. Hey no problem, just mark up the value of the old surplus military gear we send them like the junk we sent to Ukraine. And mark up the value of a Clinton clan speech to the masses to $1 billion each as a bonus.

  33. Developing Countries: We want a Trillion Dollars to Sign your Climate Agreement

    That’s easy. The One Trillion Dollar bill will be issued anyway. Promise those tyrants, that as soon as it gets available, they would be given the first one and they are free to divide it up among themselves.

    But hey should hurry, because the offer expires once the note is in circulation.

      • Berényi Péter, I’ve got one of those!
        But only good for 50,000,000,000,000.8-(
        I’d gladly donate it to pay off the entire world’s carbon debt.
        (Then maybe we all can get back to living life.)

  34. Witness, a shake-down attempt for corrupt dictators and assorted vermin, plus kick-backs to Democrat political campaigns. Only fools and criminals would fall for such a scam.

  35. Giving money away is the dumbest thing anyone can do. It will be wasted and in another 20 years the hands will be out asking for more and then in 20 years the hands will be out again not asking for but demanding more. IF a developed country thinks it should help in, say, sea level rise mitigation it should be able to decide how it is done i.e. it should do the work using its own people and contractors. That way the country in trouble gets a solution to its problem and the helping country isn’t completely out of pocket. Unfortunately, all the developing countries want is cash, not solutions.

  36. These people got us here, so they should pay to fix it .http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ Not governments, their responsible for turning our tax dollars in war equipment and paying mercenaries to create world wide disruption so governments can justify their spending. 15 things you might not know http://www.businessinsider.com.au/military-spending-budget-defense-cuts-2011-10?r=US&IR=T#america-spends-more-on-its-military-than-the-next-15-countries-combined-1

  37. They want a trillion dollars . What are they going to do, go green and burn greenbacks instead of coal ?

  38. Sky News also notes that On Monday, 11 donor governments pledged close to $US250 million in new money for adaptation in the poorest countries at the start of the UN climate talks.

    Remove “governments” and insert “free enterprise” (as in free of nonsensical and/or agenda driven regulations) and the definition of what a “poor nation” is will be raised significantly.
    The taxpayers won’t have to be paying, they’ll be trading.

  39. Wow. The most honest COP ever. It’s all about the money. Did anyone see anything about science in the media? So far, all I have seen is A should pay B because of XYZ. Interesting.

  40. In Australia, a storm in a teacup ensued in parliament over the supposed drowning of an island, Anebok, in the Marshall Islands. Colorado sea level wizard doesn’t seem to support the drowning of Anebok in the last 12 years. It does show a low anomaly in 1997/98 and current. El Nino factor?

  41. “The US Congress has threatened to block any green funding pledges made by President Obama at the COP21 conference.”

    Congress has threatened to block funding for a lot of things lately, including Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Obama’s illegal executive action on immigration, and the Syrian Refugee program. But they never follow though. All Democrats have to do is threaten to shut down the government and blame it on Republicans, and the GOP leadership will hoist a white flag and cower like a flock of sheep spotting a lone wolf on the horizon. After behaving like spineless jellyfish, they then brag to their constituents back home about how their ability to “get along with Democrats” and “get things done” proves they know how to govern. But they never explain how going deeper in debt to fund every progressive scheme demanded by Democrats is getting anything useful done. A lot of money gets spent, but there’s nothing to show for it.

    I’m afraid the same pattern will emerge when Democrats demand additional funding for their less-than-useless climate change agenda. Congressional leadership will talk tough in the beginning, stall until the last day, then completely surrender in a last-minute agreement. The next day they will claim “it was the best they could do” under the circumstances. In an act of political magic that I will never understand, an agreement that gives Democrats everything they want and Republicans absolutely nothing somehow becomes a “compromise.” And to the GOP leadership, it’s a “sensible” compromise at that. To those who disagree, they will say, “This was not the time to stand and fight, but next time we will fight tooth and nail for our conservative principles.” But “next time,” like “tomorrow,” never seems to come. If the American public were paying any attention, their shtick would be getting really old by now.

  42. Mind you, the developing nations neither emitted much CO2 nor invented the CO2 scare: that was all due to the developed countries plus Eastern China.
    In a word, don´t blame them. If others want them not to deploy their own fossil fuels, let them pay for the additional costs. The poor have no money to experiment.

    • The trouble is that it is not the ‘others want them not to deploy their own fossil fuels’ that will picking up the bill , meanwhile there is no reason at all to think that throwing money at corrupt governments stops them from doing anything , just the opposite. And when you look at the relationship between ‘poor for the people countries and those with the worst corruption issues you will find a real link.

  43. Why isn’t the new multi trillion dollar “Solar Alliance” that was rolled out at COP21 receiving any press? Hollande and India promoted it, and supposedly 120 countries agreed in principle to support it, including us, and of course, a solar mfg company in California.

    The MSM blackout on this is strange. Info is out there, Google cop21 and solar alliance.

  44. There they go again demanding money for nothing. Look at the mediators of this payoff the UN Crime Family and their pro-CAGW pals………..

  45. The demand from developing countries for support reflects the underlying ideological driver of the UNFCCC going back to the Rio convention in 1993 at which 154 nations signed on. Developing countries with little or no understanding of climate science were pushed to do the “right thing” for mother earth and mankind with the carrot of receiving massive financial aid to support their efforts. In some quarters this is call corruption.

Comments are closed.