#COP21 Talks Delayed – US Threatens To Walk Out Of Paris Talks If Financial Obligations Made Legally Binding

Via the GWPF – Paris Climate Poker On A Knife-Edge


£2.3 Trillion: Rich Countries’ Bill For Climate Deal

Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion (£2.3 trillion) in payments to developing nations to secure a deal in Paris to curb global warming.

Developing countries have added a clause to the latest draft of the text under which they would be paid the “full costs” of meeting plans to cut emissions. The amount paid by rich countries is a key unresolved issue at the climate conference in Paris, which is supposed to end tomorrow. The latest version of the text has more than 360 points of disagreement. –Ben Webster, The Times, 11 December 2015

The night saw an ugly brawl as US secretary of state John Kerry threatened that developed countries, including the US, would walk out of the agreement if it help up the wall of differentiation or if it was asked to commit to a road-map or a goal to deliver on its financial obligations in the Paris agreement. “You can take the US out of this. Take the developed world out of this. Remember, the Earth has a problem. What will you do with the problem on your own?” he said behind closed doors in negotiations to other ministers on the second revised draft of the Paris agreement. –Nitin Sethi, Business Standard, 11 December 2015

US Threatens To Walk Out If Financial Obligations Made Legally Binding

Business Standard, 11 December 2015

Nitin Sethi

Talks go beyond deadline as developed countries block differentiation in revised draft of Paris agreement and oppose financial road-map

Paris climate talks got pushed well beyond their scheduled deadline of Friday 6 pm. The French foreign minister Laruent Fabius formally announced that the next, and hopefully the final draft, of the Paris package would be brought out on Saturday morning followed by negotiations in afternoon. Bruised by the fractious arguments that had split countries along the developed-developing lines through the night between Thursday and Friday, many negotiators across the divide assessed that the talks would stretch in to Sunday.

The night saw an ugly brawl as US secretary of state John Kerry threatened that developed countries, including the US, would walk out of the agreement if it help up the wall of differentiation or if it was asked to commit to a road-map or a goal to deliver on its financial obligations in the Paris agreement. “You can take the US out of this. Take the developed world out of this. Remember, the Earth has a problem. What will you do with the problem on your own?” he said behind closed doors in negotiations to other ministers on the second revised draft of the Paris agreement.

He added, “We can’t afford in the hours we are left with to nit-pick every single word and to believe there is an effort here that separates developed countries from developing countries. That’s not where we are in 2015. Don’t think this agreement reflects that kind of differentiation.”

Making a veiled threat again that the agreement could fail if the US was pushed for financial obligations, Kerry said, “At this late hour, hope we don’t load this with differentiation…I would love to have a legally binding agreement. But the situation in the US is such that legally binding with respect to finance is a killer for the agreement.”

His remarks were made during the Indaba negotiations at the night between Thursday and Friday. Right after his short intervention Kerry left the negotiating room while other US delegates stayed back, making delegates from other countries point out that the sessions were to exchange views and not just threaten and leave.

Business Standard was able to confirm his remarks and other statements made during the night by speaking to multiple negotiators in the room during the night.

Kerry’s intervention was later followed by developed countries collectively refusing to give a road-map for delivery of their financial obligations behind 2020. EU said it was not acceptable and umbrella group of countries which includes the US too demanded scuttling such a plan.

IN the past the developed countries have been unable to deliver financial flows against their commitments of providing US $ 100 billion annually by 2020. The OECD produced a report recently claiming the rich world had delivered US $ 62 billion by 2014 which the rich countries showed off at the Paris talks. But developing countries, including India, noted gross levels of double accounting and counting of high interest loans as climate finance – which is seen as a reparation cost. The developing countries asked that a road-map for delivery of the US $ 100 billion be fixed at Paris and that the accounting rules too be set by the UN climate convention blocking attempts of creative accounting by developed countries. This was partially reflected in the second revised draft of the Paris agreement.

The proposal got the developed countries in a knot. One after the other each took the floor demanding that developing countries be asked to pay as well. The US went to the point of saying that at best the countries could ask for a one time goal being promised by developed countries in 2025. In other words developing countries would not be able to hold the developed world accountable for their financial commitments post-2025.

“Kerry’s statement against differentiation and legal obligations was shocking. They (developed countries) see this is an opportunity to walk away from their obligations. At all costs the developed countries want the rules rewritten in departure from all the principles and provisions of the convention,” said Meena Raman, from the observer group Third World Network.

The collective pushback from the developed countries got the rest of the developing countries together as well. Southern Sudan, a country formed only four years ago after strife and war, said, “Some developed countries are proposing all parties (countries) shall provide finances but many developing are poor vulnerable, with special circumstances and will not be able to pay for mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage because the amounts we are talking of are significant.”

He added, “We cannot afford to use the money for hospitals saving lives, providing education, water and schools to be used on these matters. The agreement needs to provide adequate predictable new additional and verifiable resources.”

Some of the umbrella group of countries also said they were not in favour of a review to see if the support provided for adaptation to climate change by developing countries was adequate or not.

India, China, Argentina and many other developing countries intervened through the night pushing for differentiation as well as explicit financial obligations from the rich world.

The talks remained inconclusive and the French foreign minister announced the extension of the talks beyond deadline promising to meet countries and groups in bilateral format through Friday and hope to produce the ultimate draft of the text on Saturday.

Key issues that have delayed the agreement

1. Should developed countries have a legal obligation to deliver finances against a road-map

2. Should developing countries that do not have historical responsibility for emissions also contribute to climate flows

3. Should the burden sharing in the agreement be based on self-differentiation based on current economic capacities or on both, historical emissions and current economic conditions

4. Should the actions of developing countries be linked, even if weakly, to the provision of finance and technology or should they be treated as par with developed countries during next ratchet up of emission reduction commitments

5. Should there be a periodic review of delivery of finance and technology by developed world or not

6. Should the long term goal of the agreement unambiguously be to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degree by 2100 or should the agreement refer hedge on this goal

7. Should poor and vulnerable countries continue to hold rights to file for damages and liability against permanent loss and damage caused due to climate change

UN Climate Talks Deadlocked, Officially Delayed Until Saturday

The Times of India, 11 December 2015

Vishwa Mohan

The UN climate talks are officially delayed until Saturday. Overnight negotiations could not result into convergence on many issue.

Stage 5 of the UN Climate Ritual … breakthrough tomorrow?

The next and final text, which was supposed to come on Friday, will now be released on Saturday morning and discussion will begin over it the same afternoon to bring out a global deal latest by the evening to save the world from the impacts of climate change through countries’ post-2020 actions.

As overnight negotiations could not result into convergence on many issues, the French foreign minister and COP21 president Laurent Fabius had to officially announce this morning that he would not present the text on Friday evening as he had thought earlier (to meet the deadline as the Paris talks was scheduled to be concluded on Friday by arriving at an agreement).

As overnight negotiations ran on, Fabius will now present the final text on Saturday morning so that the talks would conclude by the evening.

He said, “There is still work to do. Things are going on in right direction”.

Most of the decisive issues are still open. It include the climate finance, transparency of action and the crucial one on how to share responsibility between developed and developing countries.

China has strong objections on differentiation as it thinks the second text that came on Thursday night was an attempt to dilute this provision. Egypt on behalf of African Group, on the other hand, wants the ‘greenhouse gas neutrality’ should be removed from the second version of the text.

Full story

Note: shortly after publication the first paragraph was reformatted to include some missing headline text.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 11, 2015 10:49 am

Josh’s COP21 cartoon model has been the most successful climate related model so far.

Janice Moore
Reply to  urederra
December 11, 2015 10:55 am

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 11:01 am

The Bengal tigers took it seriously, as did the Chinese Panda… but to those whose flags are red and white and blue (and a green one or two, too), it was, LAUGH OUT LOUD — can’t help it!! — , just a big circus!
(you can see the back of John Kerry’s head as he duck out behind the big top on the left)

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 11:18 am

I do think dwarf clowns driving around in a miniature fire truck when I hear this piece. Entrance of the Gladiators by Fukic I believe.
Sabre Dance has a sense of desperation…. I think…COP21 Theme

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 11:36 am

Paul Westhaver: #(:))
Perfect. And the fire truck’s hoses are full of ketchup!!! And one of the clowns runs around grinning and screaming, “I’ve been to all 62 states! My parents met for the first time after I was born — and I DO NOT SPEAK AUSTRIAN!!” lolololol

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 3:59 pm

Entry Of The Gladiators by Julius Fucik 1872-1916
a Czech composer and conductor of military bands.

James Bull
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 10:20 pm

I think this is a good candidate as a theme tune.
It just seems to fit so well!
James Bull

george e. smith
Reply to  urederra
December 11, 2015 3:16 pm

How do you say: “Go and pound sand. !” in197 different languages ??

Reply to  george e. smith
December 11, 2015 4:56 pm


george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
December 11, 2015 5:11 pm

And by the way, they are NOT obligations. The USA has paid more than its fair share to this cacophony of nano-nations. They can have the same deal we got.
Get your governments off the backs of your peoples, and then watch what they can do without the mill stone around their necks. We can show them how; but we can’t do it for them.

Reply to  george e. smith
December 13, 2015 5:29 am

… I think this might be universally recognizable … ↑ & # SiO2

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  urederra
December 12, 2015 11:57 am

Here’s my suggestion for the COP21 theme song.
Frank Crumit sings …..

…. and that’s how it goes at the COP, it’s really really true.

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  Wun Hung Lo
December 12, 2015 12:15 pm

Oh wait a minute, after reading the rest of this thread, maybeeeeee….

December 11, 2015 10:50 am

What is the unfolding paradox of COP21 in Paris?
In Paris we see, ostensibly for the sake of climate, countries squabbling over who will be plundered for how much and who will be the plunderers. At the same time, paradoxically, the scientific community focused on climate has a profound divide about whether there is any discernably significant basis for any proposed plundering.
Even more paradoxically, even about the existence of a divide there is a deep divide in climate focused science circles.
Growing segments of our cultures are increasingly aware of the irrational situation and have serious issues with the whole climate focused process, and rightly so.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 11, 2015 11:17 am

One way out of this fiasco would be for the whole scientific community to admit to the truth, that the whole thing has been a gigantic scam to gain grant money and political power, and the attendees need to creep back to where they came from and promptly resign. Then get on with impeaching the POTUS and charging Gore, Mann, etc. with fraud. Wishful thinking perhaps, but if the “developing countries” push hard enough….

average joe
Reply to  John Whitman
December 11, 2015 12:38 pm

Perhaps Kerry and other naive leaders of developed countries are finally figuring out the real reason developing countries are so actively on board – so they can get showered with free money! The pretentiousness of these poor countries. It’s all due to the bleeding heart socialist leadership we have. Dam, I want a leader who will re-educate these people. Teach them that they owe us for our graciousness in choosing not to vaporize their countries and allowing them to live. I want a leader who will remind them of this simple fact now and then. The stupidity of our current leader just burns!

Reply to  average joe
December 11, 2015 1:47 pm

You were doing so well up until:
Teach them that they owe us for our graciousness in choosing not to vaporize their countries and allowing them to live
I smell a troll.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 11, 2015 12:48 pm

Good time to remember the Belaton Group, Donella Meadows, and PT Bauer’s 1981 classic Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/spearheading-human-evolution-towards-a-new-vision-of-the-future-via-instilled-core-values-and-ideas/
The excuse for what are essentially colonialism reparations changes, but never the demand.

Reply to  Robin
December 11, 2015 7:28 pm


Reply to  John Whitman
December 11, 2015 2:12 pm

The list of 7 key issues at the end is proof that this is no longer about climate, but rather about ransom money.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 11, 2015 3:06 pm

For some reason, this reminds me of Harold Wilson.
PM of the UK.
Won 4 elections – albeit by small margins 3 times – but never escaped a reputation for being ‘slippery’
Wilson – the man with more faces than the Town Hall Clocks.
Yet COP 21 seems worse than that – to me.

Martin A
Reply to  Auto
December 12, 2015 12:42 am

To be perfectly frank and honest, it reminds me of HW too.

Reply to  Auto
December 12, 2015 5:25 am

Auto and Martin A:
In 1976 Harold Wilson suddenly and without warning resigned as Prime Minister. Years later it was learned that on the day before Wilson’s resignation his physician had informed him that he had the beginnings of Alzheimer’s Disease. It seems that Wilson resigned immediately when he was informed his abilities were to decline, but he saw no reason to inform others of the reason for his resignation.
Today we can only hope to obtain politicians with the devotion and integrity of Harold Wilson.

December 11, 2015 10:56 am

If it is legally binding, that turns it into a treaty. That is thankfully DOA in the Congress.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  ShrNfr
December 11, 2015 1:07 pm

Which is exactly why Kerry is pushing back on it. India, et al. cannot possibly be unaware of that.

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  ShrNfr
December 12, 2015 12:05 pm

That’s exactly what Senator Inhofe says in this address to Heartland Group at Paris. It is DOA, and the Senate have “Papers on The President’s Desk” awaiting Obama’s return from Paris, that will tell him just that, Paris obligations are DOA in the good ole US of A …… Yee-Ha !

December 11, 2015 10:58 am

I’m beginning to think no one wants an agreement. As it is, this has become an industry unto itself. An agreement would put an end to tens of thousands of people travelling to wonderful places, eating lavish foods, enjoying great entertainment, and, most importantly, earning a paycheck, to try to solve the problem.
The war on warming employs too many people to reach an agreement and put all of them out of work.

Reply to  Doug
December 11, 2015 1:51 pm

I’m beginning to think no one wants an agreement. As it is, this has become an industry unto itself. An agreement would put an end to tens of thousands of people travelling to wonderful places, eating lavish foods, enjoying great entertainment, and, most importantly, earning a paycheck, to try to solve the problem.
I think you may well be correct. What would the self-annointed climate saviours do with all their surplus shaming, sanctimony, blaming and personal attacks if an agreement were reached?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  PiperPaul
December 11, 2015 5:05 pm

What would the self-annointed climate saviors do with all their surplus shaming, sanctimony, blaming and personal attacks if an agreement were reached?
I think it is referred to as reciprocity whereby policemen need criminals to justify their employment. No crime, no police.

Reply to  Doug
December 11, 2015 2:58 pm

You make a valid point.

Reply to  Doug
December 11, 2015 8:49 pm
Reply to  Doug
December 11, 2015 10:32 pm

That’s why I keep saying that the conferences should be held outdoors in January. The venue to be Oymyakon and Marble Bar in alternate years.

Mark from the Midwest
December 11, 2015 11:00 am

Because if it’s legally binding then Obummer can’t sign it as an “Executive Agreement.” It would need to go to Congress … and it ends there. Kerry, when pushed into the corner, had to finally admit that he doesn’t really represent the U.S. at large.
I’m not sure who is calling who’s bluff, but it’s getting pretty ugly over there, Naomi Klein is saying nasty things about the French Government, Modi has been lecturing everyone, and Christiana Figueres seems to have total disappeared from the proceedings, and I’m here enjoying every minute of it

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 11, 2015 2:23 pm

The uglier it gets, the better the resulting failure bang for bucks. Remember, this was sold as the last chance.

Reply to  ristvan
December 11, 2015 3:18 pm

This is just the 21st “last chance”; There will be a 22nd next year.
I read an AP report that the attendees are “sleep deprived” as if they are working so very hard to reach an agreement by the deadline ( I wish “deadline” in this case were literal). These same people normally consider sleep deprivation as a form of torture. So can I assume that any agreement reached will be the result of torture?
How can an agreement which is supposed to affect the future state of the planet and all of its inhabitants have a “deadline”?
These people are truly unstable.

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 12, 2015 12:10 pm

“Naomi Klein is saying nasty things”
Shock horror, Pope revealed as Catholic, Bear craps in woods & etc

December 11, 2015 11:01 am

What the th F**kwits expect! Roll over. Dulles would have been proud of the brinkmanship. All talk and no do.

December 11, 2015 11:02 am

COP21 will go down in history as the most expensive game of Russian roulette in history. Is it really possible that a U.S. representative could give away a nation’s total wealth overnight in a foreign capital on a whim with or without alcohol impairment? I don’t think the founding fathers ever saw this possibility. It’s the climate change version of Dr. Strangelove and Kerry is playing the part of…….

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 11, 2015 11:12 am

Thank the founding fathers for their wisdom in establishing a division of authority among the three branches of government. One might quibble with the current state of disarray in Washington, but this is one case in which we’ve been saved from a huge financial drain by divided government.

Reply to  Tom
December 11, 2015 5:49 pm

Our Founding Fathers tried their best to design a mal-functioning government system, unless there was overwhelming support and/or need.
Their intention was also to try and keep elected officials reachable by ordinary citizens. An intention that didn’t really last long.
The concept of one official writing ’emperor edicts’ contemptuously labeled ‘Presidential executive orders’ is not explicitly in the Constitution, the Bill of rights or amendments. Executive orders are a function of how an executive operates and manages administration affairs and the affairs or actions of the government relative to the executive’s function of government. As such they are expected and legitimate.
Where the President goes astray are executive orders intending to override or end-run Congress’s legislative duties.
Kerry taking his marble, a small solitary pitted glass marble at that, and walking out of the negotiations is because the POTUS can not issue funding orders. Not without risking a confrontation.
What the marble headed Kerry is trying for are agreements where the POTUS believes he might be able to use executive orders to demand compliance.
Which means that Kerry nor the POTUS listened when Congress warned both of them that any COP21 agreements are very unlikely to receive funding. And that no payment for CO2 guilt will be approved.
Congress may not be able to override a Presidential veto, but they have sufficient votes to eliminate funds for COP21 compliance payments or CO2/fossil fuel orders.

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 11, 2015 11:21 am
Janice Moore
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 11, 2015 11:39 am

Slim Pickens played a true hero in “Dr. Strangelove,” so, I would give Kerry the supporting role of some empty-headed, self-important, functionary who soberly intones fatuous inanities… .

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 12, 2015 2:17 am

Col. Bat Guano. One of the best movies Peter Sellers stared in.

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 11, 2015 11:26 am

General Jack D. Rippers bodily fluids ??

Reply to  Resourceguy
December 11, 2015 11:41 am

Slim Pickens.
Ride that baby in John…

Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 11:08 am

What does this mean, anyway? (Nitin Sethi keeps using it in his article)

help up the wall of differentiation

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 11:29 am


Janice Moore
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 11:46 am

I’m thinking… it has something to do with Humpty Dumpty.
India, et. al. (grunting with the effort): Come on, guys, help me out here…. I can’t help Humpty Dumpty up this wall all by myself!
Well, ha! Humpty Dumpty read the book. HE is not going to “have a great fall” — even IF “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men” CAN put him back “together again”! With a twist and a leap — Humpty’s off! Last seen taking a swift boat home for Christmas dinner… .

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 2:44 pm

Its actually pretty simple ‘code’. In the original UNFCCC (1992, IIRC), ‘differentiation’ was the enshrined treaty principle that developed nations had burned most of the fossil fuels, so bore a differentiated (larger) responsibility for mitigation. The issue (underlying misunderstood Kerry’s speech discussed on a previous thread) is that is NOT true for the future from now. If the US disappeared now (zero CO2), it would not matter for the future of ‘climate change’. China and India do. China and India want to develop, not contribute their ‘future fair share’. Unless differentiation is mostly done away with, COP21 fails objectively at its claimed mission reducing CO2. Yet no way will China and India let ‘differentiation’ (translation, developed countries commit economic suicide while China and India do as they please) get weakened because of its economic development impacts, arguing back to the original UNFCCC. Rock, meet hard place.

Janice Moore
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 2:49 pm

Thank you for the info. about “differentiation.” Rud. We got that (I think). We were wondering about the phrase “hold up” which, apparently, meant “maintain.”

george e. smith
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 5:16 pm

Well Janice it would certainly differentiate the parts of Dumpty’s shell game from each other.
Really cracks me up !

Janice Moore
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 7:20 pm

@ George (smile): Eggzactly. (ouch)

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 11:50 am

HELD up the wall ????

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 11:57 am


Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 11, 2015 11:59 am

Beat ya by seven minutes…LOL

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 11, 2015 12:12 pm

… John Kerry threatened that developed countries, including the US, would walk out of the agreement if it {held} up the wall of differentiation…

Well, that author needs some writing lessons. “Maintained” is only very awkwardly expressed by “held up.”

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 12:15 pm

Maybe “heap“?

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 12:16 pm

nope – I’m guessing it is literal, but missing a term –
help (build) up the wall of differentiation

James in Perth
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 12:59 pm

It’s definitely a “hold up” if it goes through. Fortunately, the Senate has not yet lost its collective sanity.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 1:54 pm

It’s probably the usual latest leftist buzzphrase that they’ll all be smugly using while everyone else tries to figure out what they’re on about this week.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 7:20 pm

The developed world “scientists” created “Climate Change.” Their politicians pushed it, backed by moneyed interests. Now the Third World is showing up as victims, saying, “You guys caused it, you gotta pay for it.” More like Frankenstein than Humpty-Dumpty. Maybe this is the “Tipping Point” where money talks and B.S. walks.

Tom in Florida
December 11, 2015 11:13 am

““We cannot afford to use the money for hospitals saving lives, providing education, water and schools to be used on these matters.”
Finally, someone with priorities.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 11, 2015 11:30 am

We have to suffer today so that future generations don’t have to adapt to a changing world. $2.5 T will buy the planet a completely controlled environment, set to 1890. There needs to be a provision that keeps countries from suing if they happen to have lousy climates now, and will forever be stuck with that when the climate deal is sealed.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Bernie
December 11, 2015 12:27 pm

BTW, where are all the domed cities that were supposed to be made by now? Perfect way to control the local environment. Of course perhaps one would have to renew at the age of 30.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 11, 2015 11:48 am

Let alone what they’re spending on their armies

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 11, 2015 12:23 pm

Right? Since there IS no “global warming,” this one oughta be EASY!

George Daddis
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 12, 2015 7:49 am

The rational argument (OK, I know) that these smaller truly developing countries should use is that they should be exempt from having to invest in only renewables since their combined contributions to world CO2 is less than a rounding error compared to India and China’s pledged plan to build a new coal plant per week each.
Any help beyond that should come from the generosity of currently developed countries (including China) in foreign aid for economic development and humanitarian purposes, which in fact has been happening long before this current con game began.

December 11, 2015 11:15 am

And everyone thought it would just be plane fair, hotel bills and a few parties the taxpayers would get stuck with…

average joe
Reply to  Bartleby
December 11, 2015 1:34 pm

obummer and his band of loons are flat out the worst negotiators ever! Everything those bitches touch turns into taking money from those who earned it and giving it away to unproductive people. Instead of teaching a man to fish he just gives them fishes – lots of them. That he takes from those who worked to catch them. He has got to GO! And Trump take his place. America might actually start winning again.

December 11, 2015 11:16 am

It’s like the old joke about price negotiations with a reluctant would be prostitute. Compromising one’s virtue won’t come cheap.

December 11, 2015 11:17 am

“In Paris we see, ostensibly for the sake of climate, countries squabbling over who will be plundered for how much and who will be the plunderers. At the same time, paradoxically, the scientific community focused on climate has a profound divide about whether there is any discernibly significant basis for any proposed plundering.”
It’s all rather silly.
And there there seems to be some justice that Kerry and Obama, having painted themselves in a corner, are left holding their paint brushes.
But it seems obvious that COP21 is more likely to start wars then prevent them.
Though there is nothing new about politicians being the cause of wars.

December 11, 2015 11:17 am

Soooooooooooooooooo, I really don’t get this.
The Liberals at the conference really,really,really believe that global, man made warming is the worst fear for the planet, but they aren’t willing to commit to it via a legal document????
Symbolism over substance??

Reply to  Matthew W
December 11, 2015 11:25 am

Because laws must first go through congress. They would get away with it, if it weren’t for that pesky constitution!

Reply to  Matthew W
December 11, 2015 11:32 am

No, I think Mark from the Midwest-December 11, 2015 at 11:00 am nailed it. Both Kerry and Obama know that the “legally binding agreement” they really want is also known as a “treaty”, which has zero chance of getting passed through Congress. Heck, I’d bet there are even Democrat congressmen that wouldn’t vote for it.

Reply to  TomB
December 11, 2015 12:39 pm

A sense of congress resolution opposing the Kyoto treaty passed by a vote of 99 to 1.
I doubt the new agreement could get even that much support.

Reply to  Matthew W
December 11, 2015 11:37 am

Of course it is symbolism over substance. If they really believed in CAGW, the cop21 talks would have been skyped.

Reply to  RH
December 11, 2015 12:05 pm

I have been saying that about these COP jollies for years. I profoundly object to these thousands of people pumping out tonnes of carbon to fly to a summit where they lecture me on my miniscule carbon footprint. If such people had the moral integrity to lead by example, I may be slightly more inclined to take them seriously. Of course, they would also have to point to some real, empirically measured, calibrated evidence of the earth warming in any way that can be proven to be beyond natural variability. Something which they have utterly failed to do for over 30 years of this on-going scam.

Bob B.
December 11, 2015 11:19 am

“6. Should the long term goal of the agreement unambiguously be to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degree by 2100 or should the agreement refer hedge on this goal”
Why stop there? Why not eliminate hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, and the heartbreak of psoriasis while they’re at it?

Reply to  Bob B.
December 11, 2015 11:33 am

I would place hemorrhoids above psoriasis “on a global impact scale”.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 11, 2015 11:40 am

isn’t he on bail ?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 11, 2015 12:45 pm

Don’t forget “a chicken in every pot” and “a car in every garage”.
Free range chickens and zero emissions cars of course.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
December 11, 2015 4:17 pm

I’ve often thought that was a mistranslation – it could be “A chicken in every car and a wok in every garage”
I’m at yum char in Hong Kong. Cantonese is flowing at full volume. I don’t understand a word but I’m assured they’re not talking about the Parisitical junket and the sleep deprived party goers with their hands out. Lol.

December 11, 2015 11:23 am

The Dems are providing all this ammunition just prior to an election year. Show the American tax payers the $BILL$ for this exorbitant vacation, then show them what we bought with our money, then make it clear that it actually could have been much worse. Should make the choice a lot easier for swing voters.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  RWturner
December 11, 2015 11:42 am

and if Joe Public doesn’t ‘get it’, this piece by an historian/political studies guy pretty well hits it out of the park –

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 11, 2015 3:56 pm

Bubba Cow:
Thanks for that link!
Mods/Anthony: I think that Dr. Robert Owens link/article should be elevated to a post here, if he’s willing.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 11, 2015 4:27 pm

Definitely worth a post. He takes no prisoners.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 11, 2015 7:25 pm

Post the Owens link on “tips” — might work. After 2 commenters cried out “Hey, this is a great article” on two different threads and were ignored, I posted there a great article about a German scientist who recently exposed the NOAA data tampering. For some reason, it appears, Anthony didn’t want to post that article! I saw a THIRD mention of it ignored just a few days ago.
So, good luck getting YOUR article posted via “Tips” — maybe no one is monitoring that thread anymore??

DD More
Reply to  RWturner
December 11, 2015 2:51 pm

And why do they keep saying “rich countries”? Have they not seen the $22 trillion debt and $122 trillion unfunded liabilities?
The developing countries asked that a road-map for delivery of the US $ 100 billion be fixed at Paris and that the accounting rules too be set by the UN climate convention blocking attempts of creative accounting by developed countries.
But that is the only kind of accounting these guy have.

FJ Shepherd
December 11, 2015 11:23 am

How does that go again? – the developing nations are right at the economic stage that the developed nations must fall to in order to adequately fight climate change. My, what a convoluted miry web that has been woven.

Power Grab
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
December 11, 2015 5:54 pm

I noticed that, too. I keep wondering how the so-called “developed” countries will be able to sustain payments of the climate ransom after their standard of living has fallen into the ditch.

Tom Judd
December 11, 2015 11:29 am

“India, China, Argentina and many other developing countries intervened through the night pushing for differentiation…”
Argentina wasn’t always a developing country: Che Guevara?
That gives me the perfect solution to this current climate impasse. While he’s admittedly far less photogenic than Che, and certainly possesses far less machismo, Bernie Sanders is possibly every bit as capable as hastening the day in which the U.S. turns into a developing nation. Voila; impasse over with.

Reply to  Tom Judd
December 11, 2015 12:41 pm

Back in the 1930’s Argentina was in something like 8th place in terms of per capita gdp.
Then they discovered socialism.

Reply to  MarkW
December 11, 2015 1:52 pm


Then they discovered socialism.

No, they didn’t. That is not what happened at all. The Economist explains:

Take each in turn. The first explanation is that Argentina was rich in 1914 because of
commodities; its industrial base was only weakly developed. Filipe Campante and
Edward Glaeser of Harvard University compared Buenos Aires before the first world war
with Chicago, another great shipment hub for meat and grains. They found that whereas
literacy rates stood at 95% in Chicago in 1895, less than three-quarters of porteños, as
residents of Buenos Aires are known, knew how to read and write
The landowners who made Argentina rich were not so bothered about educating it: cheap
labour was what counted. That attitude prevailed into the 1940s, when Argentina had
among the highest rates of primary-school enrolment in the world and among the lowest
rates of secondary-school attendance.
Primary school was important to create a sense of
citizenship, says Axel Rivas of CIPPEC, a think-tank. But only the elite needed to be well
Without a good education system, Argentina struggled to create competitive industries. It
had benefited from technology in its Belle Époque period. Railways transformed the
economics of agriculture and refrigerated shipping made it possible to export meat on an
unprecedented scale: between 1900 and 1916 Argentine exports of frozen beef rose from
26,000 tonnes to 411,000 tonnes a year. But Argentina mainly consumed technology from
abroad rather than inventing its own.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21596582-one-hundred-years-ago-argentina-was-future-what-went-wrong-century-decline, April 2014
Argentina was “the model for export-led growth when the open trading
system collapsed. After the second world war, when the rich world began its slow return
to free trade with the negotiation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947,
Argentina had become a more closed economy—and it kept moving in that direction
under Perón,:” and its “share of trade as a percentage of GDP continued to

Reply to  MarkW
December 11, 2015 2:09 pm

If you don’t educate your future generation, you die. If you do what the US is doing now, allowing the banks to plunder the financial future of the future generation with usurious loans and interest rates to achieve a higher education, you doom your country. This isn’t socialism, pal. It’s national suicide.
The banks convinced Cheney/Bush admin that they would finance student loans in return for a 100% federal government guarantee on their loans. That’s the federal government guaranteeing their loans 100%. I.e.: no risk. Interest rates are based on the risk involved. And just to make sure there would be no doubt about getting their money back in addition to the usurious interest, they convinced Cheney in 2005 to let them change the bankruptcy laws so that students could not discharge their debts–again, 100% federally guaranteed–in bankruptcy.
And the parents of America sat around with their thumbs in their bum and their brains in neutral and let them do it.
The US used to be in the top ten of countries worldwide in education. Now we’re 33rd.
Public university was free in the 50s and 60s. Now some kids have a $250,000 debt to pay.
I repeat, this is national suicide.

Reply to  MarkW
December 11, 2015 3:43 pm

Obama had a chance to reverse all that for 2 years with Democrats controlling both houses. Wise up. The Dems are all talk. They are on the wrong side of history on CAGW and countless other issues.

Smart Rock
Reply to  MarkW
December 11, 2015 4:03 pm

Oh come on. They discovered fascism. Ever heard of Peron?

Reply to  MarkW
December 11, 2015 5:52 pm

I live in Chile. I hear about Argentina all the time. Yes, it was socialism. Just like Venezuela. Just like it will be in Brazil. And the reason the US is screwed sure as hell isn’t from the damn student loan crisis. The idiot In office has accumulated more debt than every president combined. He is an utter failure. I actually had great hopes for him but he’s a petulant,anti science, ignorant, egotistical ideologue.

Reply to  Tom Judd
December 11, 2015 12:51 pm

There was a time when the phrase “rich as an Argentine” wasn’t sarcasm. I think Juan Peron put an end to that.

December 11, 2015 11:35 am

So predictable!
The most important issue facing the world and here we are arguing over a few dollars! (sarc)
I think mother Gaia will be fine regardless of what man does.
Can we move on now and start dealing with some real issues.

Reply to  Ron
December 11, 2015 11:48 pm

Ron writes: “Can we move on now and start dealing with some real issues”?
Are you certain you’d want that to happen in light of the current cast of characters “dealing” with issues Ron? I wouldn’t. It’s almost a blessing they’re busy arguing about angels and pinheads. If they started working on real issues, what sort of response could we expect? An effective one? Somehow I doubt that. Instead I believe we’d get some hoked up response that did far more damage than good.
Ask yourself why the Sauds and the OPEC cartel are still pumping oil in mass quantities as the price per barrel approaches $30? Why would they do that? Because ISIS makes its money selling oil through Syria and if oil is cheap ISIS’ funding is cut off. Why is Russia (a major oil producer) now working hard to control Syria? What does this mean to the US consumer? ISIS is directly responsible for cheap gas. Unintended consequences? Certainly. And you might expect there would be others if action were to be taken by the US on “real issues” under the current administration. It’s very much worth considering that before advancing the idea that not enough is being done in some political/economic arenas. Right now, a very effective diplomatic strategy is being employed to restrain ISIS. I’m not certain the Progressives would be capable of pulling something like that off, so let’s not encourage them to engage in other, more important, affairs; I’m virtually certain they’d take us all to h*ll in a hand basket without even knowing what they were up to.
Perhaps it’s better they spend time chasing their tails? Otherwise we might be saddled with some very obnoxious “solutions”.

Reply to  Bartleby
December 12, 2015 5:09 am

We’d get healthcare reform…..ooops

Reply to  Ron
December 12, 2015 12:19 am

BTW Ron, most of that was meant as sarcastic humor. No offense was intended.

December 11, 2015 11:35 am

Kerry has been hoisted by his own petard. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving soul.

Reply to  MikeW
December 11, 2015 12:29 pm

I can’t stand to even look at that man’s petard long enough to enjoy the hoisting…

Jeff (FL)
December 11, 2015 11:37 am

There was a small headline a few days back where the Russian President was quoted as saying that ‘Russia would not stand in the way of an agreement’
Have to say, I really like Putin’s sense of humor. 🙂

December 11, 2015 11:42 am

It is so ridiculous, guys who sit about drinking rum all day on sand 5 feet above sea level are asking for funding because why ?

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 12:24 pm

Because the bottle’s half empty, of course!

December 11, 2015 11:50 am

OK, you have to consider that for people to get into these positions they are not stupid, so you have to think what is this whole thing about as it is obviously a scam.
It has to be some sort of scheme to find a common denominator for all the humans. Is like a common purpose plot utilizing all available methods to create a world wide communist state. I didn’t think people were that smart.

Power Grab
Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 6:03 pm

As they say, “Everyone talks about the weather…but no one ever does anything about it.”
The common denominator is the weather. Everyone has to deal with it. It’s the common ground you can pretty much get everyone to admit they care about. And if you can get them to be scared about it, you can shake loose a whole lotta change out of their pockets…so to speak. Actually, it’s more than just pocket change. It’s supposed to end up being a life-sucking burden of debt for everyone who still breathes.
Didn’t those civilizations in Central America have as their central belief the idea that their leader was capable of controlling the weather? And if they sacrificed enough valuable warriors/kings/virgins, then the weather was bound to behave?
This scam is as old as mankind.

Reply to  Power Grab
December 12, 2015 4:43 am

Power, The same system could be used today, scam or not ,people would follow and be pleased, but alas it is the lack of virgins to sacrifice that puts this system tried and true as it is, out of business. Thus we need carbon credits as a personal sacrifice, I myself would prefer the virgin option as it is much cheaper.

December 11, 2015 11:55 am

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

This is how badly skeptics have lost the debate. The entire world’s leadership is squabbling over who will pay how much (and to whom) for damages that do not exist. Not a single world leader has had the stones (to the best of my knowledge) to demand a discussion of the science itself. It just isn’t on the agenda. The fact that climate issues poll at the bottom of concerns for citizens world wide is similarly swept aside.
The only thing preventing the most disastrous stupidity in the history of mankind becoming prevailing governance across the planet is the selfishness and corruption of nations. We debate the science, but reality is that the science no longer matters.
At some point one wonders if Big Coal will wake up and put some serious money on the table to fight back.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 12:03 pm

“This is how badly skeptics have lost the debate.”

Reply to  Ron
December 11, 2015 1:39 pm

I suspect that DMH is referring to two parallel universes: one of the interested
and another of the public. The problem is that the public’s universe is informed by
only one conduit: the media. They have long since abandoned the ship of objectivity.
It is for this reason that political process by voices of reason like Cruz, Smith,
and others currently in congressional command are so important. They are now
the only hope of side-stepping the media and reconnecting the public to reality.
One can only hope that those efforts are more effective than to date.

Michael 2
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 12:13 pm

“This is how badly skeptics have lost the debate.”
What debate? The science is settled; wealth distribution not so much.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 12:52 pm

Wealth generally gets redistributed upward.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 4:46 pm

Here in Australia,we had Tony Abbott when Prime Minister of this once fine country,said”Climate Change”was “Crap”He and the Canadian PM were in agreeance.Lord Monkton foresaw that the UN needed to get rid of them before the”Paris Love IN”Our Malcolm Turnbull made sure that their wishes were granted and the”Numpties”in Canada voted Harper out,which they and we in Australia will regret.

Reply to  clive
December 11, 2015 10:40 pm

I agree Clive wholeheartedly. I never trusted Turnbull, especially it was rumored that he had visited Goldman Sachs a few years ago when carbon credits were about to be abolished and he may have owned some himself? If developed countries have to carry the financial burden themselves as they contribute more to adverse climate changes in developing countries, there will be a mass of revolt in Australia as AGW is a load of crap.I feel developed countries are not that stupid to go alone with this.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 5:56 pm

Yep. Two degrees is simply a means to an end. This was never about two degrees of temperature rise. It is only about money and liberal guilt.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 11, 2015 7:16 pm

The argument is about who controls the slush fund formed by the ruling elite. Kerry has no issue with the payment being binding. It is the distribution he does not want. All these socialists elites want a big pile of money betrothed to the U.N. so they can wallow in it.
The frustration is that the poor actually want the share their promised. What audacity these staking horses have?

Steve (Paris)
December 11, 2015 11:57 am

Locally i sense a slight change of mood among my many friends in the AGW camp. The Green led riots last Sunday at La Place de La Republique in the heart of a city in deep mourning appears to have opened a few eyes. ‘If they can’t understand that this is really not the time and place then perhaps something is not right’ seems to be how they are thinking. Time will tell.

Louis LeBlanc
December 11, 2015 12:00 pm

So…the CAGW chickens are coming home to roost. After 20 years of convincing the world that the developed countries (and a couple of developing countries) have endangered the very lives of all the people of the world by spewing carbon dioxide (aka “greenhouse gas” and “carbon”) into the atmosphere, and passing around government largess to green industries and faculty researchers, they have also convinced the other developing and undeveloped countries that they can demand payment for the reduction of CO2. Next they will demand reparations and payment of damages through the various “international courts” and the UN. How can we not be guilty after broadcasting our guilt for so long? Can it be that the avarice and fraud of the CAGW cabal is actually bringing sown its own house, to be hoist on its own petard?

Reply to  Louis LeBlanc
December 12, 2015 4:03 am

way back in 09 when I read the parts re “reparation/ claims” I realised theyd created something they couldnt begin to deal with…all the 3rd world would be holding hands out n trying to sue for supposed harm/damages
well here and now we have the exact scenario unfolding
its bloody funny:-)

December 11, 2015 12:01 pm

Don’t bash the developing nations. They didn’t invent the CAGW hoax. A lot of the developing sector probably doesn’t believe a word of the GHG Dogma. They’ll play the game for what it’s worth… I hope Kerry sticks to his word and walks out in a huff. This is so delicious.

December 11, 2015 12:01 pm

It’s simple! Walk away, go home and then via respective Parliaments “cancel” all Climate Change Laws and Regulations and all Renewable Energy subsidies, tax breaks, and guaranteed minimum unit power prices. Cancel all such related Climate treaties. Then re-introduce competitive open free markets in power and energy throughout the developed world and let the market and the law govern. Leave those and those countries supposedly suffering from the negative effects of our man-made CO2 driven global warming and climate change, in the past, the present and in the future with the opportunity to seek damages from those parties deemed responsible and in the appropriate court of law. The onus would be on those suing us would be to
1. prove cause and effect,
2. identify and prove entities actually solely responsible,
3. provide evidence of actual loss in both type and valuation
4. etc. etc.
Problem solved, particularly now that the Developing Countries are emitting far, far more CO2 emissions and particulate carbon, sulphates, NOX emissions etc. than Developing Countries.

December 11, 2015 12:06 pm

And back on the local front; 350.org will be standing around demanding 100% renewable within the next 35 years:
“Saturday, December 12, 11:00 AM
Lane County Fairgrounds – Holiday Market Entryway, 796 West 13th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97402
The biggest international climate summit of the decade will end on December 11th.
In Eugene, and around the world, people will be standing in solidarity to demand a binding, science-based climate treaty. We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and finance a just transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050!
Our community “Climate Red Line Vigil” joins hundreds of other actions in sending decision-makers the message that we will protect and defend what we hold dear, our children’s future; and that there are concrete limits we must respect if we are to ensure a livable planet for next generations.
For one hour we will hold space for this global, resilient and unstoppable movement, with beautiful banners, an Eiffel Tower, song and festivities. Love will win out over fear, and our movement will win over injustice. This year we stand up for CLIMATE JUSTICE!”

Reply to  DonM
December 11, 2015 12:14 pm

350.org is holding a one hour “vigil”. Apparently beautiful banners, faux Eiffel Tower, and songs will take place throughout the hour. My guess is that the “one hour vigil” will not be well attended, even though it is for “our children’s future” and is necessary to create the Red Line.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  DonM
December 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Hi DonM
I’m looking forward to their Little, tiny, unlikely to occur “vigil”.
Guess what the weather is like?
Surprise ….
Better wear proper attire…
Laughing just laughing

Reply to  DonM
December 11, 2015 2:50 pm

the Morlock,
Thank you for that!

Reply to  DonM
December 11, 2015 12:54 pm

Here in Ontario, Canada, we cut out our coal-powered plants and added more gas-fired plants (while keeping our aging nukes, benefiting from our hydro, and of course, overpaying by $9.7 billion for our “green”).
So, when it came to actually place those superspeciallookatthemtheyarenotcoal plants…well, the NIMBYism hit overload (during an election), and the plants were moved from a Liberal party riding to a gross old Tory riding.
I thought it was too bad that we couldn’t route brown and blackouts first through those places that want energy, but don’t want to be bothered with how its created.
I now with that we could force 350.org, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. to use only solar and wind power for their servers…

Matt G
December 11, 2015 12:10 pm

I wonder if anybody would bet against me/anyone with the price of one billion dollars, never mind one trillion dollars if anyone had anywhere remotely near it. The bet being CAGW is a load of unscientific nonsense and definitely won’t happen in future over the next 30 years. The friends in the AGW camp are seeing the light for what it has all been about and that is the exchange of wealth.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Matt G
December 11, 2015 12:24 pm

at some point the rabid “environmentalists” will become pissed as they realize that while they scammed conservation to their socialist cause, the capitalist “renewables” out-scammed them for the bucks

Reply to  Bubba Cow
December 11, 2015 7:43 pm

Exhibit #1. GE

Reply to  Matt G
December 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Lemme ask you ONE question:
Gas here right now is retailing for $2.13, and that’s including 45 cents’ tax. If “global warming” disappeared tomorrow, would you go pay $40,000.00 clams for a Prius?

Reply to  Goldrider
December 11, 2015 12:47 pm

A couple of stations around here have dropped to $1.75

Matt G
Reply to  Goldrider
December 11, 2015 12:55 pm

The attraction of hybrids have always been on getting the balance right between cost, performance, reliability and environment friendly. Problem being until electricity can be relied on without using fossils fuels there is little overall value to it. Either use fossils fuels from factory that produces the electricity or use fossil fuels that provides fuel for the petrol car. Without global warming it would appeal less for most people, unless the performance/cost/reliability can match the petrol car. I’m in favor of saving/reserving/recycling as many natural resources as possible. Meet the main categories in a hybrid and the answer will be yes, even without global warming.

Reply to  Matt G
December 11, 2015 12:47 pm

The best counter contrarians could make would be a billion dollar bet against warmist temperature projections. (Base it in a country where betting is legal, like the UK.) Even if no warmists took it up, that fact would be damning, in PR terms. This is such an obvious opportunity to show them up and pocket some cash–too bad no bigshot has been rude enough to say, “Put your money where your mouth is.”
(Hmm …. Trump!??)

December 11, 2015 12:15 pm

It is going to be a long night.
I’ve sent out for more popcorn.

Reply to  Oldseadog
December 11, 2015 2:54 pm

I believe they have agreed to a days extension. I will have a stiff drink with dinner, and arise afresh in the morning to contemplate the COP21 shambles. Sailor, not motorized ‘stink potter’. Strictly recreational, unlike yourself.
I think it wise that commercial sailing vessels were all retired some 100+ years ago. Wind does not always blow, as the wind turbine folks are just rediscovering.

December 11, 2015 12:17 pm

The prospect of ‘free’ money is all that has kept this show on the road for at least a decade.
There has been no warming so what else are they there for other than the prospect of freebies?
Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion
KMA. I will give this cash on the condition that no recipient country ever uses any ‘Western’ devised technology.
After all, we generated CO2 developing it all and if we must have ‘climate reparations’ then the very least that recipients can do is to stop using the results.
“Pacific Islanders give up Antibiotics, medicine in general, IC engines, airports, hotels and tourism for ‘climate change’ reparations”.
Like that’s ever going to be a headline on the front page of ‘The Times’.
Truth to be told “Paris talks break down as Western nations refuse to borrow Chinese money in order to pay China ‘climate reparations'”
We live in strange times indeed.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  3x2
December 11, 2015 1:34 pm

“Truth to be told “Paris talks break down as Western nations refuse to borrow Chinese money in order to pay China ‘climate reparations’”
Hard to believe this is not parody!!

December 11, 2015 12:20 pm

re “Suddenly I’m a Sceptic”—As we contrarians have said all along, it’s not a question of IF, it’s a question of HOW MUCH.

John F. Hultquist
December 11, 2015 12:22 pm

Right after his short intervention Kerry left ..”
This mouth-off and retreat strategy is common procedure in the US Senate; as reported by Mark Steyn, Dec. 10; titled Markey Mark.
“… their financial obligations …
their = you and me
I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel the obligation. Some of these countries should be paying me for the shoddy products I am forced to buy because nothing else seems to be available.

December 11, 2015 12:23 pm

I learned a long time ago…FOLLOW. THE. MONEY.
It’s always about the money. All of it.

Reply to  katherine009
December 11, 2015 12:40 pm

A timeless comment. And so , so deliciously true.

David S
December 11, 2015 12:23 pm

I think the best way for the situation to resolve this issue of differentiation is for everyone to adopt the much acclaimed Chinese climate change solution which was so loudly applauded by Obama and global green groups. Do nothing and keep emitting until 2030 when your CO2 levels can top out. If everyone thought that deal shows how committed to action on climate change China is let’s make it the gold standard.
Then there is no differential between developed and developing nations and everyone should be happy.

December 11, 2015 12:26 pm

Money talks and bullshit walks.

Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: the $$ motive:
Given that Obama & Co. are just Big Wind/”Sustainability”/Sort-of Big Solar’s rainmakers…
there must be some way the developing nations are still going to get $$ aid for buying “renewable” energy infrastructure.
Otherwise…. O & Co. really messed up this deal…
Re: the political motive
Yeah, they know the Senate is highly unlikely to ratify a treaty binding U.S. to financial obligations…, but, that wouldn’t stop them. In the AGW Cultmembers-Democrat base’s eyes, their achieving that noble treaty (just as with the never-ratified Kyoto treaty under Bill Clinton) would be a big plus (even without ratification making it enforceable).
In sum:
1. It was in O & Co.’s party’s interest to have a binding “save the planet” treaty.
2. It was in O & Co.’s client (Big Wind, et. al.)’s interest to have the developed nations fund “renewables” in developing nations.
So, I am really wondering…. why would O & Co. do this? Looks, on the face of it, like a pretty dumb move.
That is why I am wondering… what’s in it for them (or their clients)?
The answer is: “follow –> the –> money”…. but I can’t see the trail at the moment… .

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 12:46 pm

Possible answer:
Kerry is the “bad guy” setting the stage for “climate savior” B. Hussein Obama to be the rescuer of the planet by creating the impression that he and he alone was able to get all the other developed nations to agree (behind closed doors so no one can see that it had nothing to do with his feeble hand wavings — rather, some hardball tactics played out by those who do his thinking for him). Big O has a dedicated little group of followers (Bill Ayers is one) who promote this view of him for their own ends (“Follow this man! (and turn the U.S. into a socialist police state which we, the neo-weathermen, will control) He is the “chosen One” (sickening)).
That is, could be that this deal is already a done deal. Just theatrics to make the Democrat’s “Magic Negro” (L.A. Times editorial) a hero to help the Democrats in their attempt to win the 2016 presidential election.
The O Administration has used this tactic before (and thanks often to crybaby Boener, they got away with it).

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 1:16 pm

Just for fun Friday night speculation I’ll go with this from Janice. Entirely possible that some kind of sweetener deal was worked out between the Obama administration and the main developing nation players well in advance of Paris. The rest may well all be just part of the circus showbiz with possibly a smidgen of i-dotting also and we now wait breathless for Barry Obama to sweep into the Big Top in a spangly suit for the grand finale to the rapturous applause of the World. Have to doubt that he’s left open the possibility of coming away from this looking like a total dickhead.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 1:44 pm

Oh, Cephus0,
Thanks for taking the time to post your reaction. I really wanted to hear what someone else thought of that idea. Glad to know another thinks it plausible!
Remember Obama in Berlin during his 2008 campaign? It was really, really, disgusting, yet, people vulnerable to a cult (and there are millions who have this vulnerability) fall for this sort of thing…
Barry Soetoro — Savior of the Planet (barf)

echoes of “Corporal H1tler” (W. Churchill)…..
Barry Soetoro, Democrat = > planet savior => vote Democrat in 2016 and save the world.
Average 20-30 Democrat (socialist in U.S.): Well, Obama says we need to wreck America to help the rest of the world. So, like, OKAY, MAN! Let’s get on with it! {smashes in window of Chevy Suburban — yeah, it will still run… we’re not dealing with high IQ on the average, here}
Average 31-120 Democrat: Go, man, go! I’d join you, but I have {a job — a child to care for — arthritis}.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 12, 2015 7:56 am

Ah well, fun speculation Janice but disappointingly all we got in the end was a mush of happy pledges. I should’ve known that Obama wasn’t smart enough to puppet master like that and I generally adhere to Hanlon’s razor – which if you’ve not come across it before is similar to Occam’s razor and states “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 1:48 pm

It doesn’t matter who is there, who walks out, or who bellows the latest stream of platitudes. At the end of the day, it will be framed as “Success!”. The reality of this exercise, however, will be hollow – except for one certainty: Schedule the next publically-funded extravaganza – for the public’s own good, of course.

Reply to  Ian
December 11, 2015 4:28 pm

If / when a Conservative wins the White House, The U.S. will not be attending the next little Love Fest, making it even more useless !!!

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2015 4:31 pm

@Janice Moore,
You’re dead right that it’s the money, but you muddy the waters with sneering comments about Obama’s race and calling him by his stepfather’s name, and dragging in the ole’ buggaboo “socialism,” which you don’t even understand. Cut it out. It diminishes both you and your argument. Stick to the point.
Obama’s current US Trade Representative is the same guy who ran the COPwhatever in Copenhagen in 2009. The two are related. Our current US Trade Representative has an office in Geneva, Switzerland, out of US jurisdiction. The TPP, TTIP, and the other global trade agreement (can’t remember the acronym) are the done-in-secret legal frameworks for the globalization that they were hoping to finally achieve with this climate scam, one they’ve worked on since 1987 by enslaving an entire new generation to phony science that doesn’t understand basic radiative physics. They couldn’t git ‘er done in 2009. So they worked on the secret trade agreements, the legal part, in the interim. Actually, the UNFCC has been doing it . . . all to benefit the multinationals–the real 1%— out in the open since 2009. They don’t even make a secret of it anymore. Just check UNEP’s Financial Directives webpage. Go look. It isn’t about climate or the environment; it’s about cashing in by international bankers who do understand what you and the majority on this board don’t or refuse to figure out: how fiat currency really works in countries that issue their own currency, and can “denominate their own debt in their own currency.” Which means in plain English: federal governments that provision themselves by issuing the currency to pay for it out of thin air, without the need to borrow. Countries like Great Britain, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the United States. We don’t borrow from China, darling. We’d kill them if they were counterfeiting our bills. China parks its USD sales in US treasury securities–just like you would buy a CD at your bank with your excess income–because the alternative is to let its USD sit in a checking account at the Fed not earning interest, or exchange for Yuan and wire home. And China needs to keep a reserve of USD to buy oil. By law, USD cannot leave the US banking system. By law! Get that? (Walmart and Best Buy pay China in USD.) So China buys treasury securities with its USD and leaves the dough in its savings account at the Fed. It ain’t “borrowing,” Janice. It’s China’s money parked in a federal government US Treasury CD.
Take a look at who his Chicago donors are. Obama recently installed one of them as Commerce Secretary: Penny Pritzer, the owner of Hyatt, a multinational. Guess who reports to her? The current US Trade Representative. Getting the picture? And he’s Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
Obama’s problem is his lack of judgment in who he chooses to listen to. He appointed Tim Geithner as Treasury Sec after Geithner as Prez of the NY Federal Reserve ignored the FBI warning in open testimony in Sept 2004 that there was an “epidemic of mortgage fraud.” (90%, the FBI said, see CNN). It was Geithner’s JOB to regulate mortgage banks; mortgage banks don’t come under federal banking charter, they’re the ‘wild west’ of banking. He appointed Eric Holder, whose idea of justice was pick and choose. He appointed John Holdren as US science czar, who is a Nutcase-in-Chief with a record to prove it. Obama’s risked WWIII and began the demise of the USD as reserve currency with his inopportune remarks about Putin interfering or stealing Crimea when the 1992 Ukraine Constitution specifically states that Crimea has the legal right to determine it’s own future and has the sole right to vote whether it wants to be a part of the Ukraine or Russia (the Ukraine government wrote that provision, not Russia). Which Crimea did in March 2014 with a referendum. Obama never demanded that subject matter experts weigh in on this before he accused Putin of something he didn’t do, and forced Putin to create financial alliances with China that will mean the demise of the USD reserve currency by 2030. Obama doesn’t understand how ISIS was created as a result of Bush illegally bombing Iraq, and is backing the ISIS rebels because the neocon think tanks and traitors like Victoria Nuland want to dismantle Syria and get rid of the democratically-elected Assad, which the MSM conveniently doesn’t educate the people about.
In short, Obama wasn’t ready for prime time. And still isn’t.
But, in one thing you and Obama are exactly alike (including his other bad judgment call: Jack Lew as Treasury Sec). Both of you do not understand how federal accounting works. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts you’ve never read the federal government’s daily checkbook: The Daily Treasury Statement. If you had, you’d know that in Fiscal Year 2014, for example and because I have it on my desk, the US Treasury created $69.8 trillion dollars to run the entire federal government–yes! out of thin air; it’s been doing it since 1933–but only brought in $2.5 trillion in federal taxes. Federal taxes don’t pay for anything. (If you want the annual, pick September 30th of any given year.) Obama could have ended the Great Recession in four months if he understood how this worked, and saved millions their jobs and homes with no debt to children or grandchildren. Taxes didn’t pay for FDR’s government programs either, because no one had jobs to pay the taxes, and subsequent generations never paid for them either.
It’s a slice of this $69.8 trillion-making-abiliity that the bankers and multinationals want a piece of. But they need that treaty, by getting the people clamoring for it. They already have Obama convinced that TPP, TTIP, etc are good things; he’s so effing stupid. (Betcha’ Penny Pritzer helped him reach that conclusion, or no library money, btw). Get it? The bankers want a piece of that dollar-creating action. Baron de Rothschild in 1987 euphemistically called it a “Second Marshall Plan” at the 4th Worldwide Wilderness Congress, the phrase that captivated the idiotic Naomi Klein in 2012 when she heard it from a Bolivian NGO official, and spawned her latest book. No s**t it’s a “Second Marshall Plan.” Only in return for nothing. The First Marshall Plan brought work to 9 million Americans returning from WWII rebuilding a devastated Europe, and created the middle class.
Here’s the link to the Daily Treasury Statement. They go back to 1998: https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/DTSFilesArchiveAction.do?qtr=1

Reply to  MRW
December 11, 2015 4:34 pm

The Don Quixote in graf #3 above is Obama, not the current US Trade Representative.

Reply to  MRW
December 12, 2015 4:15 am

so now that Chinas got into the game with the imf/sdr and can still keep dropping values..
thats going to upset a few applecarts financewise globally sometime soon..hmm?
and russia n china and others trading direct NOT in usd allowing cream skimming by yankbanks?
ouch 😉

December 11, 2015 12:33 pm

John Kerry is already on record as stating that even if the Developed nations revert to a Stone Age Culture, there will be no affect on the Global Climate. Now that the AGW Bill for “Helping” Developing Nations is becoming the only reason for continuing COP21, look for all of the “Rich” Nations to Bail Out of further talks and end this Ridiculous Nonsense called “Climate Change”. If there was irrefutable evidence, QUANTIFIABLE Evidence of AGW effects, then maybe there can be some sort of Compromise – But since EVERYBODY KNOWS that there is no such thing as AGW, once the subject of Money or Reparations comes up, the topic is over and done with. Kerry knows that a binding monetary agreement is DOA in the US Congress.
BTW, What happened to all those Carbon Trading Credits / Taxes that were supposedly administered by the UN? Surely there was money that changed hands in those Deals? Or has it turned out that Carbon Credits are as worthless as the COPXX Love Fests?

December 11, 2015 12:33 pm

I have observed this sort of behaviour before, everything comes around at least twice.
It is fashion, like sun spots.
my own opinion is that we got here because of the nature around us helped us live. Our sort of speciality takes many thousands of years to work itself out. There is no guarantee space travel will save us ( although that is my wish) and so I really would like to see less pollution generally, if that would be OK ?

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 1:06 pm

CO2 is NOT pollution, it is plant food !!

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Marcus
December 11, 2015 1:13 pm

On that score, CO2 has much in common with urine and feces.

Reply to  Marcus
December 11, 2015 1:23 pm

yr fx8ted m8

Reply to  Marcus
December 11, 2015 1:59 pm

So does water Brandon… that’s why I drink Scotch whisky

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Marcus
December 12, 2015 12:00 am

“Brandon Gates
December 11, 2015 at 1:13 pm
…in common with urine and feces.”
Two very good sources of nitrogen, the OTHER plant food.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Marcus
December 12, 2015 1:18 pm

I’m reminded of the time my father trucked in several years’ supply of horse dung for his garden. The neighbors weren’t happy.

December 11, 2015 12:37 pm

This was obvious all along.
If the developed nations get into a panic over emissions and want the developing world to refrain from using cheap energy sources then the developed world has to pay.
We have the stupidest leaders in the history of civilisation.
And,ironically, there was no need for the panic in the first place.

Doubting Rich
December 11, 2015 12:45 pm

“US Threatens To Walk Out If Financial Obligations Made Legally Binding”
This is realism. Congress is never going to accept the obligations, and without Congress the Obama regime can’t make a treaty, so cannot make a legally-binding agreement.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Doubting Rich
December 11, 2015 1:10 pm

Yours is the 2nd post in this thread I’ve seen which nails it.

December 11, 2015 12:49 pm

Just before this OP appeared, I was wondering why we were talking about somebody in Australia driving an SUV. So I concocted this post on COP21, and then forgot to post it. But now it’s relevant:
Why are we talking about this trivia, when the U.N. has just agreed to agree on finalizing the final version of its non-binding draft of what everybody needs to agree on.
Containing this shocking confirmation that the mysterious triple hash “###” is definitely in the pipeline.
“Each Party shall regularly prepare, communicate [and maintain] [successive] ###4 and [shall][should][other] [take appropriate domestic measures] [have in place][identify and] [pursue][implement] [[domestic laws], [nationally determined] policies or other measures] [designed to] [implement][achieve][carry out][that support the implementation of] its ###].”
And apart from lots of ### they “strongly urge” all developed nations to give them hundreds of billions of dollars.
You can read the full steaming heap of complete ####, right here:

December 11, 2015 12:53 pm

at the risk of being banned for being too off topic too many times I must say that there is no way I can explain why are humans so smart compared to the rest of the earthly creatures.
I really, really, really hope that the old stories are true. we were made from aliens and they might come back and explain a few things.
This is on topic! is about the global system and that, why Earth ?

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 2:19 pm

Humans are not that much smarter than some animals. I think we are smarter overall because we have come to depend on tools and other types of technology to live. We are physically very degenerate. Compare us physically to any other primate. It is embarrassing, frankly. We have compensated by our “over-developed” intellect and highly agile fingers. We are literally freaks of nature.
And, I suspect, an evolutionary dead end.

December 11, 2015 12:56 pm

If this talk fails big time, that could be what it takes to get greenies to realize that nuclear is their only path to decarbonization–and that it is the lesser of two evils. Until now, they’ve been hoping they could have it all–a greenie utopia, running on renewables. Afterwards, they may realize they will have to settle for half a loaf. It’ll be their only fallback position.

Reply to  rogerknights
December 11, 2015 1:09 pm

everybody wants the same thing

Reply to  rogerknights
December 11, 2015 1:12 pm

What a bitter irony if it turns out that way: It’ll then be the greens who cost us 20 years in getting started on decarbonizing, and thereby pushed us past some tipping point into planetary calamity. But their bigshots, mostly, just HAD to play holier-than-thou among their peers. It was all a game of ego-driven one-upsmanship and childish wishfulness. As Henry Adams said, “It is always the “good” men who do the most harm.” Well, anyway, the Pranksters on Olympus won’t be suffering.

Reply to  rogerknights
December 11, 2015 1:19 pm

Not a chance. As I understand it wind and solar are the only two options on the table for the greenies.

Reply to  rogerknights
December 11, 2015 7:51 pm

Population implosion is the only path to de-carbonization, seeing as we are all carbon life forms. Of course, when we rot, we will release CO2. Quite the quandary. Maybe we should embrace this carbon thing. You know, peace, love and all that.

December 11, 2015 1:04 pm

Well, more than half a dozen beat me to it in comments above, but as soon as I read

US Threatens To Walk Out Of Paris Talks If Financial Obligations Made Legally Binding

you just have to laugh… and I did actually LOL.
“We’ll sign anything, promise anything, but if we actually have to deliver anything we are OUTTA here!”
Remind me again; where is COP23 being held? ;o)

December 11, 2015 1:07 pm

I live in the UK and I can NOT afford to connect my house to the local electricity grid.
Nor do I have mains water or mains gas.
Even though my house has been occupied for 150years.
And even though I can see a major town from my window.
But, the hefty pricetag on mains connection is outside of the reach of my meagre financial resources.
It seems ironic that both my income and my spending on essentials are heavily taxed and that some of that money will now be spent on providing foreigners with super expensive renewable electricity.
I would also like some electricity.
Hurrah for climate justice.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 11, 2015 1:11 pm

you must be in SNP territory ?

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 1:22 pm

I’m on the Somerset Levels.
A couple of years ago, the local electricity supply monopoly dug up the road only 1km from my house, in order to connect a solar panel farm several km into a local town, where there is a substation.
I spoke to them at the time. They casually reckoned that a connection would cost me about £40K per km.
There is no competing provider to my knowledge.
And NO they could not connect me to the solar connection.
Due, I suppose, to the surges and lulls on that limb of the network.
So much for the lovely idea of local microgeneration, it had to be piped for many miles on its own special underground connection.

Janice Moore
Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 1:54 pm

Dear Indefatigable Frog!
Oh, I am so sorry I ever got angry with you (even if you deserved it, heh). What you are living with is HORRIBLE. And I am amazed that it is legal in the U.K. In the U.S., at least in Washington State (where I looked up a bit of the law on this topic awhile back) a utility that did that would be breaking the law.
Are you sure there is no “Commission on Public Utilities” or the like to which you can go for help??
And I thought the mid-1900’s case of Mr. Pilgrim’s land being taken with-OUT just compensation was bad… .
You, O Frog, deserve a hearty round of applause for even managing to be on WUWT — it can’t be easy to make that happen.
Take care, over there,

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 2:11 pm

Why Janice, the frog will be allowed to use an evil fossil fuel powered generator, with the help of a battery and inverter he can probably have more electricity than you or I could poke a skick at without the burden of unaffordable renewables being heaped on. Here in QLD Australia, grid electricity is at break even with (effciently used ) local diesel fuel generation.
In fact with just 3KW of solar at current feed in tarriff I can just about buy all the diesel I need for a diesel generator powered house using the earnings from my unreliable useless solar feed in.

Janice Moore
Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 2:18 pm

Well, Bobl, that is good to hear. Not how things OUGHT to be (should be NUCLEAR powered electricity from the 100 new plants built all over the UK!), but, glad Froggy is not, I hope, as miserable as I feared.

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 2:30 pm

to: indefatibablefrog
you are quite near me then. perhaps I should purchase a beer for you ?
when I was in that situation I think it was 300 quid per pole ( wanted to get 3 phase) managed to squeeze enough (80 amps I think) out of single phase

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 4:35 pm

!2yrs ago they wanted £11,000 to upgrade to 3ph over 4 poles !!!! So I spent ~£2000 on a 3ph genset, fuel tank, pluming for hot-water takeoff + a small block shed. All the 3ph & all the heating for ~ £450/yr

Reply to  zemlik
December 11, 2015 7:19 pm

In rural British Columbia, if you choose to live at a distance from existing lines, you can expect to pay $100K a kilometre (minus a couple of poles, goodwill) to bring power in.
If you find power poles unsightly, you can pay considerably more to have the supply put underground. 3 phase costs more.
Other options include moving to a property that is already serviced or persuading the Marshall Islands to subsidize your existence.

December 11, 2015 1:14 pm

Australia will have to borrow ALL the money which we will give to developing countrys and we will never know what they will do with the money, all the while we have large number homeless war vets living in our parks every night very sad .we should be looking after Australians first

Janice Moore
Reply to  tango
December 11, 2015 2:14 pm

… all the while we have large numbers of homeless war vets living in our parks every night … .

tango at 1314, today.
Yes. “We should be looking after Australians {and Americans, and… } first”:
(Source: Federalist Papers: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/tag/veteran-homelessness )

Reply to  tango
December 11, 2015 6:10 pm

“Australia will have to borrow ALL the money which we will give to developing countrys”
Does dept created to pay COP money qualify as odious dept?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 11, 2015 11:43 pm

In 2007, Australia was in surplus BILLIONS in surplus. in 2008 Australia was in so much debt, the Govn’t started borrowing (I don’t recall the daily figure, may have been AU$100mil…or something silly like that) to pay people some money during the Global Financial Crisis (Wholly man-made). So now, the country is broke, in debt, industry walking away and a PM, Turnbull, willing to commit Australia to some sort of FINANCIAL climate deal in Paris. Way to go Australia, we’re certainly lucky have politicians like Rudd, Gillard and Turnbull.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  tango
December 11, 2015 11:56 pm

December 11, 2015 at 1:14 pm”
It’s not only vets who sleep in parks and are homeless. I see many people, mostly middle aged males, begging one streets in Sydney where the median house price is now close to AU$1mil. I give them what I can…but there are simply too many. I helped a middle aged woman who had slept rough in a bus shelter. I offered to get her some food, she would accept only water.
Australia, the lucky country; Lucky to have job, lucky to be able to pay for a roof over your head, lucky to find support from a system most workers have being paying taxes in to for 40 years or more.

Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2015 1:26 pm

Wait. You mean they thought we would actually PAY?

December 11, 2015 1:27 pm

Developed countries be like
“The only thing we can do now,” said Benjy, crouching and stroking his whiskers in thought, “is to try and fake a question, invent one that will sound plausible.”
Then Frankie said: “Here’s a thought. How many roads must a man walk down?”
“Ah,” said Benjy. “Aha, now that does sound promising!” He rolled the phrase around a little. “Yes,” he said, “that’s excellent! Sounds very significant without actually tying you down to meaning anything at all. How many roads must a man walk down? Forty-two. Excellent, excellent, that’ll fox ’em. Frankie baby, we are made!”

December 11, 2015 1:38 pm

Under “Key issues that have delayed the agreement” there should be a number “8” stating: Does anyone here really believe that CO2 is/has caused a noticeable change in the climate?
Is there a “safe space” for those who don’t like what they are hearing at the “Paris Circus”?

December 11, 2015 1:46 pm

By the way, thank you for presenting us a summary of the negotiations at Paris. I haven’t been able to find anything anywhere else.

December 11, 2015 1:49 pm

The Circus of COP21 continues at le Bourget. It hass nothing to do with the Climate or CO2, it has descended into a battle of political Egos, and a mis-directed altruism which is only a sort of disguised fascism. The aim of the UN/IPCC is to churn money from country to country and remove a lot of it as it passes by them. The redistribution is achieved under the cloak of CAGW and when it is no longer needed it will be shed like an insect skin. It is in fact just a huge scam created by organised Banking Crime under the guise of Charity and pseudo-science.

Reply to  ntesdorf
December 12, 2015 5:20 am

And where do you think Obama and Kerry expect to get grants for their “foundation”s after office. The Clinton’s have made a killing skimming the world’s generosity. The hole of depravity has no floor, making it an abyss.

December 11, 2015 1:53 pm

I’m guessing that many of the AGW leader aka Kerry ect…proponents from developed countries will start to “turn” as they realize the costs and will start looking a fraud/cooked data ect closely. Basically I reckon the AGW fraud will be over after this last AGW meeting re ~July 2016.

December 11, 2015 2:07 pm

So the U.S. is expected to contribute trillions to “International Development” and “Climate Justice”.
Meanwhile, back at home…

December 11, 2015 2:07 pm

There have been episodes in recent decades of reparation settlements and payments by the U.S. government to tribal groups in formal proceedings. When the actual payouts took place to young and old members of the group there were runs on the car dealerships and liquor stores. Nothing much remains from those binges and rusted heaps today.

December 11, 2015 2:36 pm

Dear humans,
There are no countries in Paris. Paris is a city, in a Country called France.
Mr. Obama is not the US, he is a man who might be extremely anxious to sign a legally binding agreement in our (citizens/bosses) names. If so, it will be signed.
Please stop thinking there are countries in Paris. It makes you very vulnerable to sucker punches, head fakes, back stabbing, etc, it seems to me. Stop thinking the people there ostensibly “negotiating” now, are connected to or represent anyone but the most powerful people in each country.
That said, this whole “Paris talks stalled” moment, looks like staged drama to me. Big shots anxious to sign a binding agreement, but wanting to make you believe their arms (and tender hearts) are being twisted by the poor people of earth, rather than them just plain betrayed you, again.

December 11, 2015 3:18 pm

The 6 things you need to know about the Paris Climate Debacle by James Delingpole
Really a very good short read.

Janice Moore
Reply to  markstoval
December 11, 2015 3:49 pm

Thanks for sharing that, Mark Stoval. Great read, indeed! James Delingpole is one of the finest writers (and thinkers) of his generation.

Reply to  markstoval
December 11, 2015 4:29 pm

This (from the article) is blatantly illogical, to me;
“2; No serious person in the world believes in man-made climate change any more. They just don’t.”
“Essentially, China and India have got the Western nations over a barrel because, unlike the Western nations, they don’t believe in climate fairies and therefore feel they have no moral obligation to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to save the world…”
Clearly, to me, it cannot be true that people who do not really believe in “climate fairies”, are, or feel they are, under any “moral obligation” to save anything from them.
Basic logical reasoning renders Mr Delingpole’s thoughts as he expressed them there, dumb (to put it in layman’s terms ; )
Something is wrong with his basic understanding of the world, it seems to me. I believe it is (to no small extent) a failure to recognize that much of the language we have been indoctrinated to “think with” is simply not rational.l.
That a few people in power, for example, are the countries they have power over. No they are not, and you literally have to be pretty dumb to believe they are, it seems inescapable to me But, we have been trained from birth essentially, to be that dumb.

Reply to  markstoval
December 12, 2015 12:36 am

I agree! Thanks for posting the link. The article deserves its own post.

December 11, 2015 3:31 pm

The big question is…..do they reach an agreement

December 11, 2015 3:33 pm

What a shame “Sunny” Justin Trudeau had left the Circus. No doubt, in exchange for a photo “op” he would likely have offered the trillion $$$$$$$$, without reference to the Canadians he recently left “in the dust”. He is a progressive in search of his image.

Berényi Péter
December 11, 2015 3:34 pm

US secretary of state John Kerry: “I would love to have a legally binding agreement. But the situation in the US is such that legally binding with respect to finance is a killer for the agreement.”

That is, he would love to commit instant financial suicide, but evil Congress would not let him.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
December 11, 2015 3:57 pm

This diplomatic development is nothing more than a “predictable surprise.”

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
December 11, 2015 4:01 pm

Given 40,000 attendees for 11 days, and the US State Department per diem for Paris being $480/day, and average airfare for each delegate being $5,000 or more, The cost for the conference comes to $211 millions plus for per diem, and $200 million or airfares totals $411 million and counting. Not included are convention facilities, clean-up fort he city of Paris, limousines for high mucky-mucks, and so on. I guestimate this charade has cost the world $1 billion at least.

December 11, 2015 4:14 pm

Kerry is saying some interesting things in recent days. It is almost as though he is backing down and having seconds about the issues.
Firstly there this , which others above have mentioned
“Sec. of State John Kerry: ‘The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.’
Then we have this
NYT 10 Dec: Secretary of State John Kerry took a similar tack in a speech here on Wednesday.
“For a moment — and a moment only — let’s give the climate deniers the benefit of the doubt,” he said. Even if the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong, he asked rhetorically, “what is the worst that could happen” by shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy?
The answer to his question in the second quote is easy —many economies will be wrecked.

Robert of Ottawa
December 11, 2015 4:32 pm

The damn fools of the developed world brought this upon themselves. They started and promoted this BS and others are taking advantage. Idiot Kerry.

December 11, 2015 4:52 pm

If anyone had any doubts, the purpose of COP21 is now out in the open.
“Pay up if you want my country to go along with your climate mitigation proposals.”
There may be a few developing countries where financial due diligence is practiced. But I don’t know any and I have been working in development since 1970. Whatever the source of funds, loans or grants, the leakage from the coffers of the state sector to the pockets of the political class is substantial. Depending on the country and the sector, the percentage stolen varies from zero to 100%.
International donors would consider a country well-run if the level of misappropriation averages 15%. Such a figure would be deemed tolerable. The impact on the elites in developing countries would be enormous because the political elites typically make up 1% or less of the population of these countries. They are inter-related by blood, marriage and business.
So if the US were to contribute $200 billion, $30 billion would go into the pockets of the families and cronies of the very people who attend COP21.
That is why I think the name of the skeptical movie was well chosen: because COP21 was a hustle not much different in principle from someone trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.

December 11, 2015 5:03 pm

What a surprise !! It all comes down to M-O-N-E-Y ?!?

Reply to  jimbobby
December 11, 2015 5:35 pm

Steyn’s line applies:
“Give us your money or the planet gets it.”

December 11, 2015 6:16 pm

Amazing how such a big problem can all be solved with money. IPCC… What a bunch of con artists, shysters and frauds. And you know it will be all us poor people who will have to cough up the billions.

December 11, 2015 6:37 pm

All the gold from planet earth dancing with pin heads.

December 11, 2015 8:48 pm

The whole thing is a charade. What a juvenile Kerry is! Meanwhile China just keeps on being China – using as much coal as it wants and needs.

Reply to  Douglas
December 12, 2015 6:42 am

China’s coal consumption feeds my fruit orchard. I say “Thank you”, China!

December 11, 2015 9:07 pm

Soooo…the developed countries don’t want a climate deal if we have to pay our fair share…aaaaand, the developing countries don’t want a climate deal if they have to pay their fair share. Great, it sounds like we have an agreement then.

Reply to  naggme
December 11, 2015 9:24 pm

Don’t be so daft. Who is that wants to fool around with the plant food? Not China Not India Not the developing countries. Just the w**kers.

Reply to  naggme
December 12, 2015 6:48 am

The “fair share” for “developed” countries (except in intelligence) should be ZERO.
Increased CO2 already contributes $1.5 Trillion annually in additional foodstuff production worldwide, alleviating a lot of famine we’d have without it.
What, the developing* countries don’t like to eat?
*developing: they’re becoming as devious as our so-called “developed” countries!

December 11, 2015 9:42 pm

The TV portrays the C02 pollution as the smog in China choking everybody. What does general pollution have to do with C02? I have spent time in India and thank God I only stayed three days in Delhi, I thought I was going to die. But people! it was absolutely nothing to do with C02, it was Carbon Monoxide poisoning for God’s sake. Are people so dumb that they don’t know the difference?

Reply to  jimheath
December 11, 2015 10:06 pm

Yes that and smoke .I too have been right through India and also parts of China of (Shanghai mainly) and you are right – that fool Obama and the equally inane Kerry have a totally misguided agenda. Obama has always been linked to the Chicago Climate Exchange PLC. One wonders how he ever became US president.

Reply to  Douglas
December 12, 2015 2:22 am
Patrick MJD
Reply to  jimheath
December 12, 2015 1:40 am

India/Africa…the same. Particulate pollution from fires for cooking and heating fueled by wood and dung. Been there, got the “T”-shirt and can still “smell” it. And BTW, smell is one of the most basic functions of the human system, connected to the limbic part of the brain.

Joel O'Bryan
December 11, 2015 10:04 pm

There is a very simple legal reason SeccState Kerry can’t allow the payments to the fund to be binding.
If in the final agreement the payments are binding on signatories, it becomes a treaty and President Obama would be forced to submit the signed agreement to the US Senate for ratification. As long as payments are merely guidelines or suggested donations Kerry can sign it and not call it a treaty.

December 11, 2015 10:09 pm

It was never a goer anyway – all Kerry was doing was posturing – he would have been there sooner but was detained by a full length mirror.

Chris Wright
December 12, 2015 2:11 am

Owen Paterson has an excellent piece in today’s printed UK Daily Telegraph. The title is;
“Why the Climate Change Act must be scrapped”.
As a lifelong Conservative voter who now always votes UKIP, I will never vote Conservative as long as Cameron is leader. I can never forgive him for all the poisonous climate change nonsense spouted by him. But Owen Paterson would certainly get my vote….

Reply to  Chris Wright
December 12, 2015 3:11 am

Cameron is without doubt a consummate ghastly fence-sitting, mealy-mouthed, do-nothing jerk but don’t for a second think he actually believes in CAGW. He isn’t THAT stupid. He will simply sit there forever imagining he’s cunningly playing everyone while dreaming of being a great statesman on the World stage. He truly is THE most nausea-making odious little man.

Robin Hewitt
Reply to  cephus0
December 12, 2015 4:33 am

Absolutely. The sanctimonious swine is keeping all his election pledges and planning a big finale where he gives the UK that long overdue EU membership referendum before standing down because he believes 2 terms as PM is enough for anyone. How dare he.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Chris Wright
December 12, 2015 10:18 am

We’re sort of on the same side. I am a lifelong non-Conservative voter. But like you, I now also always vote UKIP.

December 12, 2015 2:13 am

What an “expected” surprise. Maybe the “Developed Clowns” at COP read the article by Ari Halperin between mouthfuls of caviar and steak as they prepared for their “tough” negotiations. Why do they not just tell it as it is – that the Developed countries have no historical responsibility for the current level of atmospheric CO2 and that much of the current level is down to the Developing countries buying into the Green scams – like Green diesel that pollutes more than gasoline from emissions of particulate carbon and NOx but has increased atmospheric CO2 through the burning of large areas of rain forest in S E Asia and S America to grow Palm Oil or bio-ethanol.

Gloateus Maximus
December 12, 2015 5:34 am

IMO the GOP candidate will run against “climate change” and win, putting at least the US if not the world out of this insane, self-inflicted misery.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
December 12, 2015 6:52 am

Cruz is the most outspoken critic of this silly meme and should be elected based on that alone. He’s also brilliant and honest–rare commodities in the field of politics.

Evan Jones
December 12, 2015 5:38 am

Heck, if I thought we could actually buy off this “problem” (as opposed to CO2 and its various effects) for a mere tril., this wargamer would go for it in a sec.
That would be chump change in comparison with what I think we’re gonna shell out. A measly tril.? That would be comparable to an offer to buy out of WWI in late 1915 for 33 bil. Sign me up.

michael hart
December 12, 2015 5:55 am

They’ll be expecting a tip, as well.

December 12, 2015 6:39 am

Climate deception has a price!
What would really speed the demise of this charade would be the requirement that promulgators pay out of their own pockets.
We’d see them screaming for the exits!

Gloateus Maximus
December 12, 2015 7:43 am

IMO Cruz is fairly honest. He can afford to be or appear true to his conservative principles because being seen so is his electoral schtick.
He is indeed brilliant, but also kind of unctuous. I don’t know if he will come across as an attractive enough figure in our debased, irreal “reality” TV age. At present, Rubio and Carson generally poll better against Clinton than Cruz or especially Trump. But Carson is unlikely to be nominated and if he were, would be savaged and devoured by the media.
All four are against the climate scam, but, as you say, Cruz the most visibly.

Craig Moore
December 12, 2015 9:35 am

The Paris agreement reminds me of the “Pirates Code.” Capt. Barbossa: “…you must be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply and you’re not… the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl…” It’s all about a fight over the treasure.

Craig Moore
Reply to  Craig Moore
December 12, 2015 9:49 am

This agreement has all the effect of writing a never ending series of warning tickets for drunken driving… calling that a victory!!! since everyone agrees.