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)

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
144 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert of Ottawa
December 1, 2015 5:28 am

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

troe
December 1, 2015 5:31 am

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.

climanrecon
December 1, 2015 5:32 am

Hmm, they want $1 trillion to sign, but know that they’ll get nothing if they don’t sign, pretty much a no-brainer then.

Owen in GA
December 1, 2015 5:36 am

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?

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Owen in GA
December 1, 2015 6:03 am

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.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Keith Willshaw
December 1, 2015 9:36 am

I knew that. The question was mostly rhetorical and sarcastic

T-Braun
December 1, 2015 5:47 am

Are those ‘shovel-ready’ projects?

Glenn999
December 1, 2015 5:50 am

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….

Jbird
December 1, 2015 5:51 am

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.

DDP
December 1, 2015 6:36 am

$1T? That’s a ‘helluva lot of airports/condos/time shares/hotels and other beach front property.

Resourceguy
December 1, 2015 6:40 am

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.

December 1, 2015 6:40 am

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.

Alx
December 1, 2015 6:46 am

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.

indefatigablefrog
December 1, 2015 6:52 am

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.

December 1, 2015 7:12 am

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

Reply to  Peter Sable
December 1, 2015 7:46 am

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.

markx
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 1, 2015 7:54 am

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.

cassandra
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 1, 2015 3:26 pm

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!

Billy Liar
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 1, 2015 3:58 pm

What have the Romans ever done for us?

Resourceguy
December 1, 2015 7:26 am

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.

December 1, 2015 7:41 am

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.

markx
December 1, 2015 7:50 am

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.

TonyL
December 1, 2015 8:03 am

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.}

December 1, 2015 8:30 am

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.

TRM
December 1, 2015 8:31 am

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.

jsuther2013
December 1, 2015 8:44 am

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.

Resourceguy
December 1, 2015 9:00 am

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.

Berényi Péter
December 1, 2015 9:55 am

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.
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/trillion-dollar-bill.jpg

Resourceguy
Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 1, 2015 9:59 am

Make it more believable with a marijuana leaf in the center.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Resourceguy
December 1, 2015 10:17 am

Here you go. A hundred trillion stoned.comment image

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 1, 2015 4:01 pm

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.)

michael hart
December 1, 2015 10:33 am

The cheque is in the post.

December 1, 2015 12:37 pm

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.

4 eyes
December 1, 2015 1:11 pm

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.