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
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
Maybe if China and India give us our jobs back, we might consider paying something.
Despite dogg’ed determination, whether is not climate …
http://s24.postimg.org/60lgio3ph/Not_Climate.png
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.
Yep, guilt entrepreneurship is a fundamental part of the regressive green mix. Altruism only comes without strings.
I think the “Developing countries” should be put in the naughty corner until they can behave themselves.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is all about the Benjamins.
Does that surprise you.
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.
They want an international shaming body.
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.
“The Paris climate talks could fail…”
Promises, promises.
“The Daily Telegraph, 3 December 2016”
Oh god, are they still discussing this a year from now?
What?!?! make the rest of the world pay their own way? That is so un-UN
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.
The shakedown begins; who knew.
Politicians will retain 10 percent, of course!
” 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.
This comment was improperly placed… sigh.
Money is always the deciding factor and triumphs over ideology and stupidity.
“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.
“Undeveloped countries ” are still ” undeveloped ” because their tyrannical leaders have very fat Swiss bank accounts !….PERIOD !
“Funding Row…”
Not surprised at all to see our greedy governments tripping over their own greed.
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?