Funding Row 'Threatens Paris Climate Deal', India And China Warn

Newsbytes from the GWPF:

US Wants Developing Nations To Share Climate Finance Costs

The Paris climate talks could fail because developed nations are trying to dodge their financial responsibilities to developing countries, China and India have claimed. Industrialised countries are currently obliged to provide billions of pounds of funding to developing countries to help them go green and adapt to the impacts of global warming. But a draft of the Paris agreement includes new wording, backed by the US and EU, suggesting funding should be provided not only by countries formally classed as “developed” but also by others “in a position to do so”. In a strongly-worded joint statement on Wednesday, China and the “Group of 77″ (G77) developing nations, which includes India, said they were “deeply concerned with the attempts to introduce economic conditions in the finance section currently under negotiation”. —Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 3 December 2016

From optimism the first day, the Paris climate talks descended into scepticism on Wednesday with negotiators shoehorning new agenda for a likely international agreement to cope with global warming. Laurent Fabius, French foreign minister and president of the conference, expressed concern over the “slow pace” of negotiations in the different auxiliary groups with each one discussing a contentious issue for the Paris deal. Indian representatives said differences between various teams have widened since Monday when 154 heads of state struck a conciliatory note.—Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, 3 December 2015

The Paris climate conference has attracted about 40,000 delegates and camp followers, from politicians and civil servants to journalists and campaigners. I don’t have the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that very few of them paid their own air fares or hotel bills. A goodly proportion will have sent the bill to taxpayers in various countries, either directly or via the grants that governments give to green pressure groups. Perhaps the politicians should stop listening to the vested interest of the Green Blob and begin asking what long-suffering taxpayers and real voters think about hitting poor people today in order to protect the incomes of rich people in 2100? —Matt Ridley, The Spectator, 5 December 2015

For Europe and the UK, whose heavy industries are struggling to remain competitive under the weight of unilateral climate taxes and CO2 obligations, a voluntary Paris deal would deliver a real chance to change course. The EU’s own Paris offer, pledging to cut CO2 by 40 per cent below the 1990 level by 2030, is conditional on the UN agreement being legally binding for all major emitters. But if Europe’s key demand for a level playing field is not met, poor EU member states from Eastern and Central Europe will almost certainly refuse to make the EU’s own pledges legally binding. After Paris, the battle for a return to realistic climate policy will begin in earnest. —Benny Peiser, The Spectator, 5 December 2015

For President Obama to make good on his promise to stop the oceans from rising, he needs China’s Communist Party to agree to curb its CO2 emissions at the UN’s Climate Conference in Paris. This it will never do. China’s Communist Party knows that to stay in power – its highest priority – it must maintain the economic growth rates that have raised the incomes of much of its population and kept opposition at bay. Curbing fossil fuel use, China’s leaders understand, would dampen its already faltering growth and provide an existential threat to their rule. While they may talk a good game at the UN’s Paris talks, they will make no binding commitments to reduce C02. —Patricia Adams, Financial Post, 3 December 2015

Maurice Strong has died at the age of 86. Multi-faceted does not begin to describe his life. More than any other individual, he was responsible for promoting the climate agenda with which negotiators are struggling this week at the UN meeting in Paris. Before the last great failed attempt to come up with a global climate agreement, at Copenhagen in 2009, which took place at a time of economic turmoil, Strong said: “The climate change issue and the economic issue come from the same roots. And that is the gross inequity and the inadequacy of our economic model. We now know that we have to change that model. We cannot do all of this in one stroke. But we have to design a process that would produce agreement at a much more radical level.” “We must,” he had suggested earlier, “devise a new approach to co-operative management of the entire system of issues… We are all gods now.” —Peter Foster, National Post, 29 November 2015

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 3, 2015 5:34 am

Gee wizz.
That’s a surprising development.
Isn’t it?

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  toorightmate
December 3, 2015 6:39 am

Yes it is. This ‘issue’ doesn’t usually show up until Day 6 of a COP.
I blame the unexpectedly high alcohol content of champagne and the drunken rants that can result even among mild-mannered bureaucrats..

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 11:23 am

You know a coupla days ago there was that photo of the world’s leaders sitting down to a hoity-toity, peasant-free, designer-feedbag, formal-dinner affair, featuring a groaning board of fancy-pants eats, and everything, to kick off COP-21, posted at the Drudge Report, and, wouldn’t you know it, the “denier scum” immediately began making fun of our betters–so what else is new, right?
In particular, those insufferable Gaia-phobes were all suggestin’ (you know how they are) that the world’s leadership should maybe, you know, like, practice what they preach and set the example in terms of livin’ the austere, low-CO2 lifestyle, and everything, themselves, instead of being such a creep-out bunch of in-your-face, brazen-hypocrite carbon-piggies, stuffin’ their pie-holes and gobblin’ their gobbets on the taxpayer dime, and all. You know the drill.
And now I see Jeff, in his comment above there, makin’ a snide comment about all that taxpayer-funded, “free” champagne sloshing around the most important conference of our lifetime, and how that causes our Philosopher Kings and Queens to become drunken, motor-mouth louts, and everything, when all right-thinking people know that that phenomenon is entirely due to climate change’s temperature rise.
So what yah got next, “denier headless-chickens”?–maybe a nasty, smear-job innuendo along the lines that all those perfectly innocent, late-night visits by the NGO hot-babes to the executive suites of our COP21-attending, hive-hero biggies, who are savin’ the world, even as we speak, and for whom every day is “Earth-Day”, involve some sort of so-called “hanky-panky”? Is that where you Republican-brain, flat-earther “denier-types” are headed next? Jeez…
So do you carbon-lover world-haters so despise “the kids” and the polar bears? Double jeez… Though I would agree with you that the Prime-Minister of Great Britain does need to be kept away from the suckling-pig course.

Reply to  mike
December 3, 2015 11:31 am


So do you carbon-lover world-haters so despise “the kids” and the polar bears? Double jeez… Though I would agree with you that the Prime-Minister of Great Britain does need to be kept away from the suckling-pig course.

Hmmmn. Polar bears ARE increasing in size, weight, and numbers and terrorities. Kids ARE being killed by YOUR policies. Who is a “hater”?
Odd. Last few years, it has been the deliberate people-hating artificially high energy prices, deliberate conversion of food to fuel and the deliberate destructions of the world’s economies that DID kill innocents worldwide. 12,000 in the UK alone one winter.
Why do YOU kill people with YOUR policies that will not change ANY global average temperatures?
Why do YOU fight for policies that generate no good (but enriching YOUR politician’s friends and donors and bankers) while opposing the very increase in gas and in temperature that benefits ALL peoples in EVERY country in the world?

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 11:43 am

@RACookPE 1978
May I respectfully suggest, “RA”, that you read my earlier comment again, but carefully this time. And to anticipate a possible next remark, that you might want to make, please be advised that I don’t do “/sarc/” tags–they’re just not my thing, and all.

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 11:45 am

— mike — Ah the sarc is strong with this one.

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 2:24 pm

mike, if you are to proud to do the sarc tag thing, then expect to be misinterpreted on a regular basis as your writings are not that dis-similar to the rantings of your average CAGW loon.

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 3:18 pm

Thank you for your wise counsel, kind sir. And thank you, also, you for that high-compliment of yours offered up for my modest mimetic-gift for “CAGW” loonery–I try my humble best, in that department. And, yes, I know that my regrettable, “sarc”-phobic foible is my cross to bear, in this, my troubled journey through the vale-of-tears that each and every one of us–deluded sojourners, all–witlessly call “life”. But, then, my hope is for a better “world” beyond the Jordan, when I’ve shuffled off this mortal coil.

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 5:42 pm

“”This ‘issue’ doesn’t usually show up until Day 6 of a COP.””
That surely must be a sign of the changing climate and times. I love watching [human]nature at work.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 9:10 pm

Strong the farce is in you. Careful though you must be. For much anger there is in you, and anger leads to hate and hate is the path to the Dark Side of the farce

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 3, 2015 11:31 pm

Your non-use of the “sarc” tags is appreciated by at least one person, myself. I think people who weren’t raised on Monty Python or The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show have a problem interpreting absurd humor, much to their disadvantage. For my part, a joke that needs explaining isn’t funny and using the “sarc” tag is just an explanation for the dull witted.
Please keep up the good work, it’s like an oasis in the desert for people like me.

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 4, 2015 3:10 pm

@Bartleby December 3, 2015 at 11:31 pm
Ditto 😉

Reply to  toorightmate
December 3, 2015 8:34 am

This time last time the US negotiator stated you mean you want us to borrow money off China and [then ask them to] give [] it back ? sums it up I thought

Reply to  rmacp
December 3, 2015 9:24 am

Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

Reply to  rmacp
December 3, 2015 11:32 pm

Maggie Thatcher I believe?

george e. smith
Reply to  toorightmate
December 3, 2015 10:50 am

Well that is easy to resolve.
The USA and other developed countries, have absolutely no obligation to ‘ developing ‘ countries whatsoever. So they can go and pound sand.
India and China particularly, are entirely responsible for their own population burdens, so it is up to them to take care of what they have created.
I seem to recall that in the past, these peoples have rejected any and all offers of advice on addressing their problems. Why should we give them money, when they have shown no ability to use it wisely.
I’m not saying that money necessarily comes with requirements for use thereof; but at least you would think that the beggar would be open to advice.

Reply to  toorightmate
December 3, 2015 3:42 pm

We should have expected the big O would be bored by now.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 3, 2015 5:46 pm

I think he lost his concentration due to the “gun control issue” that erupted in San Bernardino, California.

carbon bigfoot
Reply to  toorightmate
December 4, 2015 1:21 pm

Does anyone know where Strong is buried? I want to make a pilgrimage to piss on his grave.

December 3, 2015 5:38 am

This is a headline that probably could have been written before COP-21 started.
And most of the story, too.
Nice to see people following the script. Any guesses as to the what the “breakthrough at 5 past midnight” will be this year?

Patrick B
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2015 5:59 am

I can’t guess the exact form of the 5 minutes past midnight agreement will take. But I can assure you that a couple years from now none of the agreement’s obligations will have been honored.

Bryan A
Reply to  Patrick B
December 3, 2015 6:28 am

3% Global GDP = US $2.3Trillion
US GDP in 2014 = U.S. $17Trillion
Since they are referring to the U.S. and 6 or 7 other players when they say “the western world”, and the remainder of the Western nations economies combined equals about 1/2 of the U.S., they are effectively saying the 3% GDP worldwide figure will be coming from the U.S. GDP or about 15-16% of the U.S. GDP
How will the “financial obligation” be divided?

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  Patrick B
December 3, 2015 7:43 am

Bryan A –
Let’s say the ‘Western World’ is the EU + US + Japan + Australia + Canada. The EU has a larger GDP than the US.
Assuming a division of cost proportional to GDP, the US takes $17.4Tn/$43.7Th = ~40%.
Except it won’t happen anywhere ever of course. 🙂

David A
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 3, 2015 11:37 am

The breakthrough will be that China agrees to only increase emissions to 2029 instead of 2930. All will be proclaimed a success and all the rented limos will be returned.

December 3, 2015 5:40 am

Re; “154 heads of state struck a conciliatory note”
Ha ha, that’s because “heads of state” have mastered the art of speaking whilst effectively saying nothing. When you don’t really say anything meaningful then no contradiction can be found.
That’s why heads of state speak so slowly and deliberately. A thousand reasonable thoughts may pass through their mind but all must be censored, whilst they carefully composed a single meaningless manufactured sound bite.
Since the process of thinking is actually an impediment to such a craft, the very most successful politicians and diplomats appear to those who have suspended the activity on a permanent basis.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 3, 2015 8:05 am

Our Undocumented Worker-in-Chief took 14 minutes to say less than all the others. Rather than leaving ISIS shaking in its boots, he left them rolling on the floor with his “take that ISIS” rebuke. Reminds me of The Gong Show.

Owen in GA
Reply to  higley7
December 3, 2015 1:12 pm

I really loved that 14 minute “three minute speech”. Did his protocol folks not tell the speech writers that the agreed format for the leader speeches was 3 minutes? Either his State department flunkies or his speech writers made him look like a complete tool on the international stage. Then again, it may have been his own decision to look bad.

Reply to  higley7
December 3, 2015 5:50 pm

Did he really say that? What nerve after what happened yesterday in California.

NW sage
Reply to  higley7
December 3, 2015 6:01 pm

In fact it WAS promoted as a Gong Show rerun! You must have missed that clip.

carbon bigfoot
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 4, 2015 1:56 pm

Henry Ford is credited with this bit of wisdom—-” Thinking is the hardest work there is–what’s why so few people engage in it.”

Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2015 5:47 am

They just need to put the apostrophes in the right place. Crafting these things is delicate business.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2015 8:05 am

And 2 spaces after a period!!! 🙂
The line that had me LMAO was ““in a position to do so”. So now they want China to pay …. ha ha ha. Good one. Do the western leaders realize they just killed any agreement? How does it feel to have the goal posts moved China?
Okay the Chinese are a lot of things and that includes shrewd money managers. You will not get a plug nickel from them because they know “climate change” is nonsense. They, like most of the others, were only going along to score some cash. The only thing they will agree to is what they were planning to do anyway to clean up the air in their cities.

Bloke down the pub
December 3, 2015 5:49 am

China and India will take more people out of poverty, and therefore save more lives, by refusing to sign up to any treaty, than they could ever do by cutting CO₂ .

michael hart
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 3, 2015 6:46 am

And they know it.
It’s win-win for them. the US and other nations won’t pay because they can’t pay. But India and China (and the rest) will demand that they do, if only to expose western environmentalist hubris for what it is.
And if they do get some cash, then their elite will spend a goodly amount of it on Mercedes cars and improved air conditioning.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 3, 2015 8:17 am

Never give in, NO DEALS. NWO nonsense.

December 3, 2015 5:50 am

Losing Maurice was like losing vultures at a carcass-pickin’ party.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
December 3, 2015 6:08 am


“Losing Maurice was like losing vultures at a carcass-pickin’ party.”

+many, but I think ‘grits’ is supposed to be in there somewhere.

george e. smith
Reply to  H.R.
December 3, 2015 10:58 am

I’ll have you know that the Griffon Vulture is one of my all time favorite birds.
And rather than carcass picking, they are actually cleaning up the mess after the orgy by the fat cats.
So don’t go slinging mud at friends of mine.
By the way; did you know that the Rolls-Royce Griffon Engine rotates in the opposite direction from the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Well all except for the Merlin 130/131 engines which are counter rotating mirror images of each other.
So next time you see a vulture soaring on the wind, observe the direction of rotation to see if it is a Griffon.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
December 3, 2015 2:50 pm

I’m glad vultures came up. Climate doomsters remind me of the two vultures in the poster from the ’60s:
Two climate scientists in a pub: “Patience, my arse! I’m gonna *predict* something!”

Reply to  brians356
December 3, 2015 3:52 pm

I had that poster and my black light 😎

December 3, 2015 5:54 am

We’ve seen this movie before… 20 times.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  H.R.
December 3, 2015 6:00 am

It’s just like deja vu all over again.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2015 1:07 pm

It’s worse than watching Groundhog Day, with Bill Murray, twenty times in a row. At least he eventually figures a way out and all’s well that ends well.
IFF the COP movie ever ends, it will not end well.

December 3, 2015 5:54 am

Models, models, models . . . throw out the models and you have . . . much ado about nothing at all.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 3, 2015 6:30 am

Don’t throw them out. Send them over to my place. I like to have lots of models hanging around.
Unless you mean computer models…

Alan Robertson
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 3, 2015 8:16 am

Oh, brother. Having models under your roof is excellent training for a young man. Nobody says that your lessons can’t be beautiful.

Owen in GA
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 3, 2015 1:15 pm

unfortunately these models are a real witches’ brew.

Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2015 5:56 am

COP21 is like something straight out of the Théâtre de l’Absurde. Ironic, innit.

December 3, 2015 6:02 am

The whole idea behind COP21 is for governments to take money from the people and to distribute the stolen money to friends and co-conspirators. The money is uppermost in the minds of the minions of the state, but population control is also a goal.
Given that stolen money is a main concern, one should not be surprised as the thieves argue of the disbursement of the loot.

Ian W
Reply to  markstoval
December 4, 2015 3:58 pm

There is also the power when a small coterie have control over the world’s energy. Until of course the next energy source becomes available.

Reply to  Ian W
December 4, 2015 9:14 pm

Still seems to be reasonably on track for this blog (subscribe to this site for laughs):
“Dudley–It’s Day 5 of the Paris climate summit and the climate deniers are doing everything they can to stop an agreement.
To fight back, we’re filing a formal complaint calling on the U.N. to revoke the conference credentials of the most disingenuous climate deniers. And to make sure our complaint gets noticed, we’re buying a major block of advertising in some of the most widely read Paris newspapers.
Will you chip in AU$1 to help stop climate deniers from derailing the Paris climate summit?
Nabil and the rest of the team at SumOfUs”
Silence was the stern reply! Just thought that it is the greedy nations wanting our hard earned money that are doing their best to derail the summit.

December 3, 2015 6:04 am

But the polar bears… (sarc).

Reply to  rishrac
December 3, 2015 6:21 am

Yeah, well you should be worried about the polar bears.
I just ran the 1950 and 2010 population estimated through my “Erhlich population explosion calculator” and discovered that, following current trends, by 2100, there will be 3 billion polar bears.
So expect them to have spread as far south as Honduras.
Having said that – they mainly eat trash (and street kids).
So there’s an upside and a downside to everything.
(More sarc)

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 3, 2015 1:16 pm

I’m that cranky old man who yells, “Get off my lawn!”, indefatigablefrog, so it looks like its all upside to me. /semi-sarc
(You that’s cranky? My wife actually scooped the ‘gift’ left on our lawn by the neighbors dog and put it in their garage. Now that’s cranky! /true story)

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 3, 2015 1:26 pm

errata You [think] that’s cranky?

December 3, 2015 6:08 am

As a matter of curiosity. I just discovered from wikipedia – that the rare and momentary maximum output of all the solar panels in Germany, which will cost approx $500billion – lifetime 30 years, is approximately equal to the constantly available peak power output of the Three Gorges Dam – cost $22.5 billion – (lifetime 100 years?) Of course, the solar output is rarely at this level and mostly producing between zero and not very much.
Why the hell should the Chinese let Angela Meerkat tell them what to do?
They are not idiots. They have no interest in the policies and opinions of total morons.
18.3 GW – tech: peak electrical power generation of the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest hydroelectric power plant of any type.
22.4 GW – tech: peak power of German solar panels (at noon on a cloudless day), researched by the Fraunhofer ISE research institute in 2014

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 3, 2015 7:47 am

Interesting comparison you have there. Thanks.
Not sure the relevance of the Wiki link though? Is that the link you intended?

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
December 4, 2015 9:59 am

Admittedly, it was a strange place to find these figures listed.
But, if you scan down to the MW section, then you find the peak power outputs of several seemingly randomly selected power generation schemes.
It’s actually quite interesting to see a heap of different technologies listed side by side in this way.

Smart Rock
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 3, 2015 9:00 am

Yes, indefatigable, you are right but you miss the point. Our environmentally minded opinion makers don’t like the Three Gorges Dam. In fact they don’t like any hydro-electric developments as far as I can tell, so neither should we. It’s an equal-opportunity disapproval though – they really don’t like nuclear power either, thereby eliminating the only other non-CO2 producing industrial-scale, reliable source of electricity..
But the solar panels are GREEN!!!

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 3, 2015 9:28 am

And, if you have money, like Germany as a result of their highly productive manufacturing economy, you can add more solar panels.
But you cannot add more dams if you don’t have any more gorges to use. A harder power source to expand, though a better one since it is reliable BASELOAD power.
The opportunities for hydro are more limited, especially if the environmental crowd finds some snail darter in the river !

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 3, 2015 10:23 am

Well, they probably aren’t green yet, but if you don’t keep cleaning them they’ll go green quite quickly.

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 3, 2015 10:44 am

And that my friend is why we switched from water wheels to coal in the first place.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 3, 2015 10:52 am

Smart Rock. The solar panels are only green in the deluded minds of useful idiots following the leftists work to destroy the West and make trainloads of money in the processes. That money can then be used to crush democratic processes wherever they exist.
But you knew that, hence the shouting GREEN.
And you are correct those same radical leftists and their useful idiots do not like any power system that works and serves the people as a basis for economic growth and uplifting of the poor.

george e. smith
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 3, 2015 11:02 am

And dams, whether good or bad do store a lot of water that otherwise might be just wasted.

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 4, 2015 12:34 am

Yeah, the left all read Schumacher’s, “Small is Beautiful” and they drank the kool aid.
All other things being equal – small is stupid.
At least in engineering – scaling up is almost always the route to maximizing efficiency.

December 3, 2015 6:08 am

China has 1 066 billion dollars more money than it has dept. So if they want to make envirometal investments, they can do em.

Reply to  Olavi
December 3, 2015 6:26 am

Ideally though, they would prefer for us to borrow yet more money from their massive reserve fund and then gift it back to them in the form of “climate justice”/”mitigation”/”reparation” payments.
We’re so stupid now, that we’ll probably consider that a brilliant deal.

December 3, 2015 6:09 am

The scientific foundation of the Paris meeting – that there is a global warming – does not exist. 89 percent of the time since the IPCC was founded in 1988 our climate has been in a hiatus. During a hiatus carbon dioxide keeps accumulating in the atmosphere but there is no corresponding warming that the greenhouse theory dictates. Such has been the situation for the last 18 years, and the warmists have been very busy falsifying global temperature to prove that there is no hiatus. An example is Karl et al. paper built upon falsified temperature. But the current hiatus is not the only one. There was an earlier hiatus in the eighties and nineties that I pointed out in my book “What Warming?” Put these two hiatuses together and they take up 89 percent of the time IPCC has existed. The remaining time – eleven percent – is not enough to produce the alleged global warming they claim has happened. In calculating it they take the amount of carbon dioxide [produced and translate it into warming without actually measuring temperature. Considering that 89 percent of the time there was a hiatus when no warming takes place, at most only eleven percent of their calculation can coount towards warming. This is certainly not enough to declare a world-wide emergency and bring everyone into Paris to prevent a non-existent Armageddon at an unknown future time from cooking us.

Reply to  arnoarrak
December 3, 2015 7:35 am

Arnoarrak, your 11% is an interesting number. It compares well with the 12% of geological warming due to CO2 calculated by Mike Jonas in the Mathemarics of Carbon Dioxide posted in this site, and the 14% deduced by Willie Soon in his work on Solar irradiance. Is this just a coincidence?

December 3, 2015 6:17 am

China and India have other motives unrelated to climate change and they are playing those cards against impaired poker players from the U.S.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Resourceguy
December 3, 2015 6:20 am

“Impaired” does imply that they had some skill in the first place, and that it has been diminished. If I were editing I would substitute the word “inept” for “impaired”

Mark from the Midwest
December 3, 2015 6:18 am

Just saw, from the LA Times, the Guv Moonbeam is on his way to Paris, that will really kick-start these talks, after all when it comes to the language needed to create a paradigm shift type of situation the Guv is the master of socialist drivel.

December 3, 2015 6:29 am

Patrick B December 3, 2015 at 5:59 am said:
“I can’t guess the exact form of the 5 minutes past midnight agreement will take. But I can assure you that a couple years from now none of the agreement’s obligations will have been honored.”
Not quite, Patrick. Stupid Australia will be in line with its commitments. Possibly also the UK. Obama can commit as much as he likes and Congress will not pass it.
Actually China may well be in line with its commitments to do nothing to reduce any CO2 emissions before 2030, so that makes three. Perhaps India will make four. Also I suspect that the “Pacific Island nations” will make a lot of noise and agree to commitments so tiny that they can make good on them by stopping planes at a capital city airport for three days in each year.
Of course you should remember that the commitments come due in 2030, not 2017, so everyone can say “We are doing our bit.” By 2030 none of the pollies will be in office, so there will be no comeback when only Australia, the UK, China and India fulfil their commitments.
Long live talk, it costs nothing.

G. Karst
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
December 3, 2015 8:43 am

“Long live talk, it costs nothing.”
The COP24 may be the most expensive talk in human history. Very large bribes will be paid to both India and China to reduce coal consumption and ensure Obama’s legacy. It is supremely important. GK

Ian W
Reply to  G. Karst
December 4, 2015 4:07 pm

COP24 of course will be held on the Sea Ice South of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico and the participants will be claiming that their models show that the warming from CO2 caused the cold and the reappearance of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

Mike Jonas
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
December 3, 2015 12:00 pm

Stupid Australia will be in line with its commitments“. I do agree that it is pretty stupid for Australia to go along with the CO2 fraud, but please note that the way they have set about it is actually extremely smart. Greg Hunt has I think been the main influence here, and he has done a fantastic job. Basically, Australia will meet its CO2-reduction targets by enriching its soil and with virtually no reduction in fossil fuel usage.

Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2015 6:30 am

Wait – I thought O had worked out a deal with China, whereby we jump off an economic cliff, while they “help” by watching us, and now they go and stab us in the back. Typical China.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2015 7:01 am

Push, not watch. China didn’t stab us in the back. Obama decided to cripple American industry, and China said someday, maybe. Do you think India, China, or Russia think CAGW is a threat? If they are attending, the only reason they are there is to see what kind of money they can walk away with. And our insanely stupid leadership makes deals that leave the rest of us with these bad deals. In the last 24 years we’ve had the very worst leadership. I can’t think of one major thing that has been good for the American people. I can’t think of anything minor either. It’s like my first job, any meeting was bad, and if it wasn’t bad for me then it was bad for someone else.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  rishrac
December 3, 2015 7:52 am

I know. I was being facetious.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  rishrac
December 3, 2015 11:01 am

rishrac. You pretty well summed it up. My only suggestion is to add 2 years and make it since Jan 20, 1993.

December 3, 2015 6:32 am

This is how it will go. The Chinese will craft the wording of their statement in Mandarin and Team Obama will purposely misread the meaning and intent of the statement. That is the way forward. It’s the climate agreement version of the Iran nuclear “framework” deal where everyone claims success while moving ahead in their own opposite political directions.

Ivor Ward
December 3, 2015 6:37 am

I see a chap called Vladimir Putin has put his name in as an independent for the US presidential race. Seems likely he will be well supported by people who like to see things get done. Apparently Putin is having Turkey for Christmas. The Quail on offer from Obama did not appeal to him.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
December 3, 2015 12:58 pm

Not only is Putin running for President, he claims he was born in Hawaii.

Mumbles McGuirck
December 3, 2015 6:39 am

If the US and EU are truly asking for the Third World (old skool) to pull its own weight, then it is only a ruse. A straw man to be knocked down in “last minute negotiations” that will produce a wonderful sounding, non-binding agreement full of nonsense. This will be touted as a triumph then everyone will jet home saying to each other, “See you next year.” 21st verse, same as the first, only a little bit louder and a little bit worse.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
December 3, 2015 6:49 am

BTW, COP22 is already scheduled for Marrakesh next July:

Jeff (FL)
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
December 3, 2015 4:52 pm

Crosby, Stills & Hansen … ?

Hadn’t listened to that in decades … 🙂

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
December 3, 2015 8:50 am

It seems very much like the song “Right said Fred” has the CoP’s down to a tee rather than “Henery the Eighth”.

December 3, 2015 6:44 am

‘We are all gods now’. I suspect he’s getting a second opinion about now.

Reply to  kim
December 3, 2015 6:53 am

Can you say “stupid and defenseless?” Because that’s where we are going.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  kim
December 3, 2015 11:03 am

kim. Very good, thanks.

December 3, 2015 7:05 am

May I make a suggestion, sod off home the lot of you con merchants and snake oil salesmen, we are just fine without you and your false warming garbage, that better.

December 3, 2015 7:22 am

The only shocking part of this latest development is that it took until Wednesday for anyone to declare that financing was a sticking point. There is so much more bickering to come before the entire process collapses into a last minute non-binding deal that no one will ever adhere to and will be entirely unverifiable.
But victory will be declared in the end and I am sure Obama will be at the forefront declaring this an “unprecedented” agreement.
Keep thos purse strings pulled tight congress.

Paul Courtney
December 3, 2015 7:23 am

kim, good one. So the AP sent Seth Borenstein and a cub reporter to Paris (Seth probably got a warm n’ fuzzy thinking he’d cut his flight carbon footprint in half), and my morning paper has the above reported as India asking “what’s this new word, “decarbonization”? Seth seems to know that the G7 announced “decarbonization” as the goal, but they forgot to tell Seth what that means, leaving him to say “generally” it means less fossil fuel burning, but they didn’t say precisely. Wonder if the cubbie said, “Gee, Mr. Borenstein, I learned in J-school that we could call and ask the G7 what precisely does it mean, my prof called it “follow up'”. Suppose Seth said something like, “Kid, that’s not how climate science journalism works. Have another taste of this cheese, it’s scrumptious.” Never occurs to Seth that, if you’re gonna save the world now, who’s taking time to make up new words?

December 3, 2015 7:34 am

The truly stupid part is that China and India are actually asking for us to subsidize their future economic development, and in turn as a result further kill manufacturing development in the west. Since their processes are less efficient and in fact produce more CO2, this will have a net effect of increasing CO2. So if this whole COP21 thing is a success by their measure, the true result will be more CO2. I don’t know whether I am more offended by the shear level of stupidity, or the dishonesty. I guess both equally

December 3, 2015 7:45 am

Maybe if China and India give us our jobs back, we might consider paying something.

December 3, 2015 7:45 am

Despite dogg’ed determination, whether is not climate …

richard verney
December 3, 2015 7:51 am

The Paris climate talks could fail because developed nations are trying to dodge their financial responsibilities to developing countries

Developed nations do not have any responsibility, financial or otherwise, to developing countries. That does not mean that developed countries should not assist developing nations but if they do, it is voluntary.
Developing nations are able to develop off the back of discoveries and technologies that the developed countries have given to the world. Developing countries do not have to (re) discover electricity and magnetism, invent the telephone, TV, computer the motor car etc, but no one suggests that developing nations should pay for the discoveries already made by developed nations. Developing nations are already freeloading with respect to this, and should be grateful.
This talk of responsibilities is entirely misguided. The Developing nations should be told this in no uncertain manner. This should be made clear right from the get go.

Reply to  richard verney
December 3, 2015 8:05 am

Yep, guilt entrepreneurship is a fundamental part of the regressive green mix. Altruism only comes without strings.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  richard verney
December 3, 2015 8:40 am

I think the “Developing countries” should be put in the naughty corner until they can behave themselves.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  richard verney
December 3, 2015 11:12 am

Richard, call them intellectual property rights and charge a tariff on their use slightly greater than the reparations they seek.
Seriously, the point you made that development in the “developing counties” does indeed depend on everything done in the developed countries’ work, innovation, investment, etc..

December 3, 2015 8:11 am

I wonder if anyone of the Green Blob know that their patriarch, Maurice Strong, was not only heavily into owning power companies that are far from green, but that he was also an illegal weapons smuggler. He avoided prosecution by escaping from Canada to China, when I believe he spent the last 20 years, retaining throughout his position in the UN. This points out how dishonest and corrupt the UN is if they keep such a person high in their power structure.

December 3, 2015 8:12 am

If “our share” is 17 trillion, that would just about double our national debt. Who is going to pay it? Our kids have been brainwashed to think that reproduction is bad. None of my grown children have even thought about having kids, and they’re all older than I was when I started.

Reply to  Becky Hunter (@TexCIS)
December 3, 2015 9:26 am

Is it really “Brainwashed”? After all, all they have to do is look to any of their friends with even one child and they will see the state of their purse strings should they concieve.
It simply doesn’t make economic sense, what with the economy in a stasis and barely running the last 7 years. It would be different if people owned land (children are still cheaper than paying a guy wages for labor!) but, no, they live in tiny, extremely expensive apartments near their jobs and just upgrading to another room, absent any of the rest of the costs of small children, would probably break the bank for most people in the 25-40 range of having children.
If our dear leaders would ever release their stranglehold on the economy, we would probably start to see rising birth rates, again.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Arsten
December 3, 2015 11:18 am

Arsten, that’s a gloomy assessment not based on facts, in the US anyway. The US census and polling data say just the opposite. Those married adults with families score higher in just about every desirable attribute from happiness to wealth. And faith even adds more as we have always known.

Reply to  Arsten
December 3, 2015 2:30 pm

Your reality doesn’t match the lifestyle of myself or any of my friends with kids.
Might I suggest you get out of the big city and find yourself a real place to live.

David A
Reply to  Becky Hunter (@TexCIS)
December 3, 2015 11:53 am

All the Islamic immigrants and illegal immigrants will happily work hard and not take undue advantage of our welfare programs. They will pay off the debt.

Walter Sobchak
December 3, 2015 8:57 am

It is all about the Benjamins.
Does that surprise you.

J Solters
December 3, 2015 9:05 am

Obama wants a ‘legally binding’ climate agreement. Who or what enforces the agreement? There is no such enforcement mechanism in existence today. Is the penalty a fine, a sanction or imprisonment? An international police force to ensure compliance? A world court with its own police or army? A court to adjudicate a climate related promise to reduce emissions? Utter nonsense. Total charade.

Reply to  J Solters
December 3, 2015 6:09 pm

They want an international shaming body.

December 3, 2015 9:26 am

The president began the negotiation by saying “its all our fault”. Its hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube later in the negotiation.

Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2015 9:46 am

“The Paris climate talks could fail…”
Promises, promises.

December 3, 2015 9:59 am

“The Daily Telegraph, 3 December 2016”
Oh god, are they still discussing this a year from now?

December 3, 2015 11:23 am

What?!?! make the rest of the world pay their own way? That is so un-UN

December 3, 2015 1:05 pm

Any country at all that wants to hugely increase their debt and filling up all their nature with expensive unefficient wind and solar! Maybe unfortunately the latter.

John law
December 3, 2015 1:42 pm

The shakedown begins; who knew.
Politicians will retain 10 percent, of course!

December 3, 2015 2:00 pm

” If they are wrong and we act, the worst that will happen will be an economic stimulus that will result in a cleaner environment, a more technologically integrated world and a healthier planet.”
Actually, no. We would have dug huge mines to smelt copper for thousands of miles of copper transmission and distribution lines, burned mega-tons of coal in steel mills and concrete kilns, pultruded tons of glass fibers, converted mega-barrels of oil into epoxy, cut thousands of miles of access roads and covered them with excavated and crushed stone, transported many thousands of multi-ton assemblies many thousands of miles and erected them so as to disturb both natural and inhabited areas, all to build windmills. Repeat for PV installations, etc.
If we are wrong we will have made the planet dirtier, noisier, and uglier for nothing. We would have consumed resources and wealth for nothing. We would have destroyed industries with high productivity and replace them with industries of lesser productivity for nothing.
There are consequences for being wrong. Just saying “sorry” at a later date will not recover the losses.

Reply to  sciguy54
December 3, 2015 5:32 pm

This comment was improperly placed… sigh.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
December 3, 2015 2:04 pm

Money is always the deciding factor and triumphs over ideology and stupidity.

December 3, 2015 2:55 pm

“heavy industries are struggling to remain competitive”
I believed Germany exempted the big industries from the energiewende overhead? (Which is a huge violation of the European rules against State aids.)
Maybe other countries should just do the same?
Hypocrisy is an art.

December 3, 2015 3:48 pm

“Undeveloped countries ” are still ” undeveloped ” because their tyrannical leaders have very fat Swiss bank accounts !….PERIOD !

December 3, 2015 9:15 pm

“Funding Row…”
Not surprised at all to see our greedy governments tripping over their own greed.

December 4, 2015 10:03 am

So, does anyone know how much money is going to be gifted to islands that AREN’T in any sense threatened by sea level rise?
What a joke this has all become. Is nobody interested in consulting the science?
There is no discernible acceleration of sea level rise.
Why are we gifting money to countries on the back of a manufactured delusion that has no basis in reality?
Doesn’t the world have any REAL problems?

%d bloggers like this: