"Republicans plan multi-billion dollar climate budget raid"

Guest post by David Middleton

climateraid

By Megan Darby in Marrakech

US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January.

Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.

“We are going to cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change programmes and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure,” said President-elect Donald Trump in his 22 October Gettysburg address.1

With a Republican majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, there appears to be little standing in his way.

“That brings a fear to African countries,” Akabiwa Nyambe, a Zambian official, told Climate Home at a side meeting of COP22 climate talks in Marrakech. “We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”

[…]

Climate Home

How mentally deficient does one have to be to refer to the cancellation of billions of dollars of climate-related welfare payments as a “raid”?

Simple Definition of raid

  • : a surprise attack on an enemy by soldiers or other military forces

  • : an occurrence in which police suddenly enter a place in a forceful way to find criminals, illegal drugs, etc.

  • : an act of going into a place (such as a bank) in order to steal something

The ignorance of these people is mind boggling…

Rachel Kyte, head of the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All programme, said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.”

The U.S. has no “climate finance commitments.”  Outgoing President Obama had a commitment.  He made the promise.  These United States did not make any promises or commitments.  The only ways in which this country could have made such a promise would have been through a treaty or legislation.  Furthermore, President-elect Trump has a mandate.

Simple Definition of mandate

  • : an official order to do something

  • : the power to act that voters give to their elected leaders

Merriam-Webster

Having won the Election, President Trump will have a mandate to carry out the duties outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, nothing more and nothing less.

Outside the UN processes, institutional inertia and a measure of Republican support is likely to keep some funding streams open.

[…]

Then there was President Obama’s personal championing of the cause. In 2014, he ordered all international development aid to be climate-proofed – the kind of precaution a sceptic administration could easily reverse.

And he channeled diplomatic efforts into persuading G20 allies, for example, to stump up. “We won’t have that and we won’t really have the administration leadership valuing that part of the picture,” said Peterson.

so-what

 “President Obama’s personal championing of the cause” and his channeling of “diplomatic efforts into persuading G20 allies, for example, to stump up” were his efforts and his alone.  The fact that virtually none of those efforts were sent to Congress for ratification or enabling legislation means that they will be null & void on January 20, 2017.
The Warmunists are literally left with nothing more than a lemming-like chant…
11 NOV 2016: ANALYSIS

What a Trump Win Means For the Global Climate Fight

Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy. With the withdrawal of U.S. support, efforts to implement the Paris agreement and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming have suffered a huge blow.

by David Victor

With the unexpected triumph of Donald Trump, what’s in store for U.S. climate and energy policies?

[…]
One thing is clear: The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president. After the successful Paris agreement last year, that cooperation was finally poised to make progress with decisive U.S. leadership. I doubt that a Trump presidency will kill the Paris process — too many other countries are too invested in its success. But it will shift the intellectual and political leadership of the process from the United States to other countries, most notably China.
[…]
If the U.S. leaves Paris and eliminates its leadership role, that leaves China to steer the ship.
[…]
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Victor is a professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California at San Diego and chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Governance for Sustainability at the World Economic Forum. He is also co-chair of the Brookings Initiative on Energy & Climate. Victor is author of Global Warming Gridlock and numerous essays on climate cooperation.

All that they are left with is, “If the U.S. leaves Paris and eliminates its leadership role, that leaves China to steer” the lemmings off a cliff.
359-black-sheep-lemming
http://justoutsidetheboxcartoon.com/tag/lemming/

Featured image source.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
221 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Barbara Skolaut
November 14, 2016 2:24 pm

“US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January”
We can but hope!

RWturner
November 14, 2016 2:26 pm

I have a feeling that Trump will make investing in America look so easy that the Dems will be in full panic mode in four years.

fthoma2014
November 14, 2016 2:30 pm

Perhaps the EU economy would not be in the ditch the way it is if they had spent that trillion plus dollars they have spent on renewable energy and crippling their industry and impoverishing the citizenry on solving real problems. Trump can legally cancel climate “commitments” made by Obama, and can kill the Iran deal by complaining to the UN about violations of the agreement such as manufacturing too much heavy water. I wonder what future all those bright, gleaming climate mitigation college graduates have now, with the grant money drying up and the subsidies going away. They might have to be like Bob and get a real job.(thanks George Thorogood)

OJ
November 14, 2016 2:40 pm

I drive a Tesla, and would happily buy shares had I had any money left… 😉 Byline: Where is the toot for replication of the climate science on these pages? If you believe half of what you write, and claim that the peer-review has failed (of which I might partly agree), there is only one path ahead: To get free-minded scientists try to replicate the IPCC et Co’s finds – and see where that ends up. Oh, forget it. You all seem as camped up as that other camp. Have a happy camping! 😛

AndyG55
Reply to  OJ
November 14, 2016 8:52 pm

Real Scientists would much rather investigate NATURAL climate change, rather than be forced to hunt for just human causes like the IPCC was by its very inception.
Remember that it was form ONLY to find human causes of the very slight global warming we have thankfully had out of the LIA. Hamstrung into propaganda rather than science, from the very start.

Richard G
Reply to  OJ
November 15, 2016 1:04 am

OJ, you have just made the argument for the sceptics. There hasn’t been proof of CAGW and not one penny should have been spent on mitigation until there was. No one can prove something that doesn’t exists.

troe
November 14, 2016 2:50 pm

Elite European and US College campuses are the the incubators of Green thought. Money flows to poor country elites who use it to pay full tuition for thier children at these same universities. A nice little racket if you can get in on it.
Obama giving press conference now pleading for his legacy. The appointment of Steve Bannon indicates that Obama’s plea will fall on deaf ears.

Gamecock
Reply to  troe
November 14, 2016 5:40 pm

I expect Obama to be very NICE to Trump, as Trump holds Obama’s legacy in his hands, and Obama knows it.

Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 2:53 pm

The Trump administration will inflict more harm on global cooperation around climate than any prior president.

YES!!!

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 6:05 pm

+1000

Bob Hoye
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 10:15 pm

The notion that bureaucrats can set the thermostat of the planet is audacity without precedent.

Tom in Florida
November 14, 2016 2:55 pm

So now it looks like the Hollywood stars, liberals, progressives, the Clintons, Algore and anyone else who have been so comfortable spending OPM will have to pony up their own cash to save the cause they so vehemently support with words.
(Apologies to anyone who gagged so hard that coffee is now on their screen)

Marcus
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 14, 2016 6:06 pm

..Wait, I thought they were all moving to Canada ? ( Notice they didn’t say “Moving to Mexico” ?….LOL

November 14, 2016 3:01 pm

I have seen a lot of debate on how the US can get out of the Paris agreement. What most miss (for the non-natives, an understandable omission) is that since Obama did not want to subject it to debate in the Senate, all it is, is HIS agreement! And is not legally, morally or ethically binding on Trump.
But the important lesson here is that when you become a slave to anyone, you lose control over your welfare. The Climate cabal has been an arm of the Federal government for a long time. Now they have to learn to make an honest living.

Janice Moore
Reply to  philjourdan
November 14, 2016 3:15 pm

Yes, Phil — a false debate contrived to create a false impression.
************************
He’ll just file it under: “Big 0’s Stuff”
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/69636/69636,1266967303,6/stock-photo-hand-tossing-a-crumpled-paper-in-trash-can-47335588.jpg

golf charlie
November 14, 2016 3:14 pm

How are the ruling elite in developing countries supposed to buy European Luxury cars without Climate Relief Aid?

Janice Moore
Reply to  golf charlie
November 14, 2016 3:16 pm

Maybe they can ask for a refund of their Clinton Foundation donation (less a 30% handling fee, of course).

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 7:52 pm

Email requests for refund may be subject to deletion.

Nigel S
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 12:09 am

Handling fee discounted during the fire sale.

November 14, 2016 3:20 pm

This reminds me a bit of this about GW Bush’s tax cuts.

Tax code explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12..
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

The Greens have been soaking up tax dollars for years. Now that those tax dollars they shouldn’t have been getting to begin with may be cut off, they call it “a raid”?!
Any tax dollars that go toward research should go to actual scientific research, not research for “politically-correct science”.
Flagpoles sway. To move the dollars from the left toward the center is not a “raid”.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 3:30 pm

(((APPLAUSE!)))
Now, if the federal government (just around the corner!! 🙂 ) will just repeal “climate ed.”
and replace with Econ 101 and 102 (Macro and Micro),
all the voters would eventually be economically literate and
vote accordingly and
this country will be perpetually GREAT!
🙂
🙂
🙂
Like you, Mikeyj, still smiling!!! 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 4:10 pm

I wish that many of our so called anti-free traders would notice the part about “might even choose to drink beer overseas”.
You want to fix the trade problems?
Step one, stop doing those things that drive companies over seas.

Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 4:17 pm

+10

Reply to  Gunga Din
November 14, 2016 8:22 pm

Gunga Din November 14, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Professor of Economics” well that explains the poor math skills! The original bill is 100 dollars and each are paying in dollars, so they are each paying in percentages* (Per hundred don’t you know!) It doesn’t matter what the total bill is (In any other case, after the initial setup of the story.), the proportion for each will be in exactly the same ratio! So a reduction in the total is a reduction for all, no less! The confusion in this misleading argument, comes from assuming the distribution was fair to begin with! 😉
*A percent is a ratio whose second term is 100. Percent means parts per hundred. The word comes from the Latin phrase per centum, which means per hundred.

Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 14, 2016 8:54 pm

Again, the “trick” here is hide the fact that the original distribution is a percentage. The original 100 dollar amount obscures this somewhat, when in fact is should be a helpful give-away for solving the problem. The second error is in attempting to convert the dollar amounts into percentage savings of the smaller ($80) discounted total. This is how it should look and each save 20% (-20% for those that pay nothing ;-):
1st – 4th 0.00
5th 0.80
6th 2.40
7th 5.60
8th 9.60
9th 14.40
10th 47.20
total $80.00

Janice Moore
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 14, 2016 9:22 pm

Dear Mr. Bennett,
The hypothetical’s facts included this: reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle {not the exact percentages} of the tax system they had been using, . They did not distribute the $20 savings per the original %’s. This was to mimic the new-and-“improved” %’s.
I think the professor’s hypothetical is internally consistent. You make some very valid points, though, about math/percentages.
Anyway. We can, at least agree (I think!), that the POINT of the beer — tax hypothetical was right on the money. 🙂
Janice (still praying ….. and I realize you consider that a waste of time 🙂 )

Bryan A
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 12:15 am

But. But. But. Scott, you missed the point entirely. What should have been done was to pay the $20 to the 4 poor soles who already get the free beer. They get to drink the beer and take home an additional $5 each

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bryan A
November 15, 2016 11:21 am

Bryan, you have described a number of U.S. tax provisions, including the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 1:53 am

Hi Janice,
I’ve never said you are wasting your time, by the way! 😉
“My people suffer from lack of knowledge” is a biblical quote that a like.
And your god – that also made me – would want me speak my truth, wrong or right!
I’m sorry and in the friendliest way possible, I have to say that the “Beer Tax” trope is just a “trick” of poor logic. You are asking me to accept an absurdity! I would not be honest if I did not try to warn people that they are being duped by this math myth!
I should be doing other things, as I’m going OS in a few days for a long time! 😉
I don’t have the time to explicate in english, a treatment that might make it easier to understand.
The point you make: “reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was” is exactly what occurs in very truth!
My figures below lay it out based on the solution that the “tax” is distributed as a percentage. It should be clear that the poorest did get the largest percentage discount contrary to the muddled headed professor (Who I suspect is a myth also, as I’ve seen this math puzzle before!)

 #       $ Paid      % saved    $ paid       % saved        % saved of $20
1st - 4th 0.00    100%
5th    1.00          99%         0.80            99.2 %            19.84 %
6th    3.00          97%         2.40            97.6 %            19.52 %
7th    7.00          93%         5.60            94.4 %            18.89 %
8th   12.00         88%         9.60            90.4 %            18.08 %
9th   18.00         82%        14.40           85.6 %            17.12%
10th  59.00        41%        47.20           52.8 %            10.56%

Peace be with you.
Sincerely,
Scott

Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 3:18 am

Janice Moore
I meant to say: “My people suffer from lack of knowledge” is a biblical saying that I like! (Hosea 4:6)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Scott Wilmot Bennett
November 15, 2016 7:58 am

Dear Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to explain. That was kind of you, especially in view of your busyness right now.
I’ll carefully look it over again, but, I’m seeing that the %’s listed are not a % of the $20 but of each person’s tax bill, thus, the %’s in your table are not what, I think, the “professor,” intended us to use? Well. I defer to you, in the meantime.
And, good! Glad you do not consider my talking to God about you a waste of time. 🙂 Yes, lol, that verse, lifted wholesale out of its context, is, even so, a good one, esp. vis a vis AGW. 🙂
Thanks again for such a courteous and thoughtful reply. What a treat to have someone “talk” to me! May you have a lovely time overseas — then, safely home, once again.
Take care,
Janice

James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:31 pm

Can see it now. 200,000 tonne coal fired aircraft carrier USS D TRUMP.

Janice Moore
Reply to  James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:54 pm

Yes!
And nuclear power plants with “TRUMP TOWER” on them. Like? 🙂
Got the plane!comment image
Oh, boy, oh, boy, oh, BOY! THAT IS AMERICA TAKING OFF!!! (and all the rest of the world, too! — Go Italia! Go, Brexit!)

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 4:56 pm

And “Wait for me!” (a small cry from Australia). “I want to come too…”

CodeTech
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 8:21 pm

Wait until you see the new Air Force 1… they bought three 747-800s that are expected to be in service in 2018. They make the current AF1s look like toys.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 5:33 am

Isn’t that a DC3? I would walk away from one of those…

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 12:28 pm

727

James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:33 pm

Or better still, 250,00 tonne oar propelled aircraft carrier USS D TRUMP powered by scores of naked chained liberals.

Janice Moore
Reply to  James Fosser
November 14, 2016 3:57 pm

lol, the “sustainable” version. Or, bicycle powered. No irons required. Just tell them they are saving the planet by riding their bicycles. And feed them ONLY vegetables. And they will be happy. That’s about all they do now (the true believers, I mean).

MarkW
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 4:11 pm

Feed them only vegetables? Make sure that the ship is WELL ventilated.

Bryan A
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 12:18 am

Just insert the necessary tubing to collect the methane and use it to power the desalination facility

Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 3:47 pm

Note to self (and you, too, perhaps? sigh): do not spell $layer$ properly.

pkatt
November 14, 2016 4:01 pm

We have a procedure for treaties and international agreements.. if it did not follow this procedure then it is a hollow promise with no backing. It does not matter what Kerry is promising, or what Obama has promised the congress did not ratify anything as per our law.

November 14, 2016 4:02 pm

The Left feels it is a “raid” because they feel entitled to whatever funds they demand.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 14, 2016 6:19 pm

They have the same attitude the Russians have: “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”

November 14, 2016 4:17 pm

As a long time observer of the American culture and a longtime believer of never assuming an American that lost will be happy to standby while you celebrate; PlLEASE STOP SPIKING THE FOOTBALL! Pass the problem on to the ACGW, as ladies and gentlemen should, please.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bill Korp
November 14, 2016 5:04 pm

Dear Mr. Korp,
Begging your pardon and asking you to, if you would, please, hold onto your tea cup with both hands,
….. watch out, ‘cuz, cuz (I’m 3/4 English), we Americans are going to keep right on
SPIKING THAT FOOTBALL!!!

Because we are OPTIMISTIC — all will be well!!!
Still as optimistic as all of our immigrant ancestors were,
standing on the decks of all those ships, straining their eyes to catch a glimpse of the east coast;
wiping the sweat off their brows with a grin, yelling, “Wagons, ho!” as the oxen gave a mighty pull and started the long trek across the continent; and
as their descendants were,
gazing up in wonder as as THE ROCKET — TOOK — OFF!
Hold on Tight to Your Dreams!!!

Yeeeee — haw! We — can — DO — it! 🙂
Okay. You can set the tea cup down on the doily, now. 🙂 Enjoy your quieter life over there. Aren’t you glad we left? 🙂
Janice the American (in case that wasn’t clear, heh)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 5:14 pm

And……….. HERE COMES AUSTRALIA! That GREAT land full of hope and hard work and OPTIMISM!

(“Waltzing Mathilda” -rock)
Time to….. DANCE!!! 🙂
Good things are ahead!!!
Your American friend!

Tom Halla
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 5:14 pm

I agree, and it hasn’t even been a week yet. Next year sometime will be an appropriate time to stop the celebration.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 6:11 pm

Tom Halla – Or the year after that. 🙂 And Thanks, Janice! Good stuff.

Reply to  Bill Korp
November 14, 2016 7:15 pm

+1000 on your selections, etc. JPP

Janice Moore
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 14, 2016 8:18 pm

Thank you! (JPP and A.D.) Thanks for telling me! 🙂

Robin
November 14, 2016 4:28 pm

I’ve not seen anything about future funding for NASA (and GISS). How has it been done in the past, and what plans does the administration elect for any changes? Have I missed something important?

Reply to  Robin
November 14, 2016 7:22 pm

I doubt if the new admin will give the Muslims/Arabs/Caliphate/Muslim-Brotherhood any say in what NASA does…
I sure hope so.

Dave Fair
November 14, 2016 4:37 pm

Not just the U.S. liberal elite, but the entire establishment world did not see the American voter moving away from the politically correct meme. The U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, State governors and State houses have been moving conservative/populist for years. It is not like the 2016 elections should have been a surprise, had people been listening to American discontent. Obama policies truly did divide the populace. There was and is an obvious backlash against his social justice and climate warriors.
World governments and NGOs convinced themselves that U.S. climate policy would forever be defined by Obama, his appointees and Congressional and State house fellow travelers. They assumed that American voters would be forever in thrall of globalist ideals. They misinterpreted Obama heartthrob by some for progressive zeal by a majority.
America will not be pulling the CAGW bandwagon for a few years. I doubt China will want to make the substantive commitments required for it to take the lead. The EU is fracturing. Your guess as to the future of “climate commitments” is as good as mine.

Analitik
November 14, 2016 4:55 pm

Like Canada, Australia’s government is forging ahead with committing the country to further debt and reduction in economic activity,
When all those protesting liberal celebraties carry through with their threats to emigrate from a Trump led US, I’m going to look to getting a green card.

Joel Snider
November 14, 2016 5:22 pm

I guess when Barbara Boxer wanted four trillion in carbon tax revenue, that would have been a ‘down payment on the future’.
STOP that payment and it’s a raid.

F. Ross
November 14, 2016 5:57 pm

Rachel Kyte, … said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.

+emphasis
In the history of the world, since when has any politician been held to keep his/her promises. That’s a pipe dream.
I venture, though, that President-elect Trump will do much better in this regard than the outgoing (“…if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”) president.

Janice Moore
Reply to  F. Ross
November 14, 2016 6:11 pm

Yes, F. Ross — AND remember who made the promise the Kyte is screeching about (O, not Trump and not the U.S.A., either — just O).

Richard G
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 1:24 am

Yes and Obama can get his bud Gore and the Clinton Foundation to help him pay for his promises.

Zeke
November 14, 2016 6:16 pm

35% tax reductions for the middle class, I nearly cried when I heard that.
Because before Donald J Trump ever “raids” them of their billions for foreign interests, they raided us of our thousands.

Bob Hoye
Reply to  Zeke
November 14, 2016 10:20 pm

Crying can go with surges of guilt.

Zeke
Reply to  Bob Hoye
November 14, 2016 10:55 pm

I don’t know what that means.

Zeke
November 14, 2016 6:21 pm

“That brings a fear to African countries,” Akabiwa Nyambe, a Zambian official, told Climate Home at a side meeting of COP22 climate talks in Marrakech. “We have been looking forward to the US bringing a lot of funding into projects… It drops our faces.”

Donald J Trump has emphasized that he will negotiate trade deals with individual countries. The UK is also going to be available to trade with the world. Trade, not aid, is much much better for the prosperity of these African countries.

Marcus
Reply to  Zeke
November 14, 2016 6:29 pm

Just think of the billions of dollars spent during this election..how many poor, would no longer be poor if those dollars were redirected.. ?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Marcus
November 15, 2016 11:30 am

Marcus, those billions went into the economy, where they went around and around at least five (5) times, enriching us all. Contrary to watermelon thinking, free economies are not zero-sum games. Watermelons reflect discredited Malthusian thought.

J Wurts
Reply to  Marcus
November 15, 2016 7:54 pm

Zeke
The 2014 midterm election cycle (2016 figures not yet available) is officially the most expensive in U.S. history, an impressive $3.67 billion being committed to both Republican and Democratic campaigns, according to estimates by the Center for Responsive Politics.
And yet U.S. consumers are currently spending about $6 billion annually on just potato chips, with Frito-Lay taking nearly 60% of total market share, according to figures published by Forbes.
“How many poor would no longer be poor if”… we just stopped eating potato chips?
J Wurts

Reply to  J Wurts
November 17, 2016 6:12 am

@J Wurts – Potato Chips are much more productive than politicians. The people making them are earning an honest dollar. And those eating them are getting enjoyment. Neither of which can be said for elections. 😉

J Wurts
Reply to  Zeke
November 15, 2016 7:55 pm

Sorry….should be Marcus

higley7
November 14, 2016 7:57 pm

“Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.”
The good news, but I think they might have a jaundiced view, is that there is no global warming to worry about and thus they do not need all those funds for adapting to something that is not happening. I am sure there will be a stunned silence when they realize that the freebies for no reason are going to stop coming. But, hey, they need to adult up and start working as if they were not dependent on largess.

CodeTech
November 14, 2016 8:18 pm

“A promise made”… you mean like the promise to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until they were stable? The promise not to abandon Israel? Those promises that the 0bama administration abandoned?

Janice Moore
Reply to  CodeTech
November 14, 2016 8:25 pm

Good one, I mean ones, CodeTech. Glad to see you comment. It’s been awhile. Hope all is well up there and the autumn/winter on the pond is as lovely as it usually is.
Sure wish we’d hear from some other “regulars” …. a bit concerned. It’s been over a year since I’ve seen several, including Andres Valencia, Brian H, and Jimbo (guess he’s just gone, now, 🙁 — someone saw him at Climate Audit about 6 months ago, I think). And others, like Pamela Gray, R. A. Cook, and D. B. Stealey (they have appeared within the past month or so, but, sadly, rarely comment, now).

Dave Fair
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 8:35 pm

Maybe, Janice, like Charlie Skeptic, they declared victory and went home to their real lives.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 14, 2016 9:10 pm

Bummer. For ME, WUWT is part of my real life! And a very good part. Well, better that than some of the other alternatives….
Was “Charlie Skeptic” Charles the Moderator?? Well, anyway, I have seen CS here within the past month or so — not worried about him.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 11:15 am

Charlie Skeptic was not Charles the Moderator, lovely Janice.
Charlie Skeptic had fun while conducting guerrilla warfare, especially in pointing out Mr. Mosher’s “Wandering in the Weeds” bad habits.
Charlie Skeptic, after helping win the final guerrilla battle on 11/08/2016 against overwhelming watermelon forces, returned home from his jungle hideout.
Charlie Skeptic resumed his prior identity and now spends a bit of time puncturing inflated CAGW egos.
Charlie Skeptic will, hopefully, not be needed back in the jungle for at least another 8 years.
Charlie Skeptic remains vigilant.
Dave Fair

Dave Fair
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 11:35 am

Janice, you will get a full explanation of Charlie Skeptic once it is out of moderation.

CodeTech
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 15, 2016 4:30 pm

I’ve been around, just not as much. I comment regularly on the facebook posts.