Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.
COUNTRIES APPEAL TO TRUMP OVER CLIMATE CHANGE AS COP22 ENDS
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace have welcomed the united front displayed by nearly 200 countries in Marrakesh in the face of Donald Trump’s campaign threat to quit the Paris accord on climate change.
The UN negotiations concluded in Morocco in the early hours of Saturday with an agreement to hammer out a rulebook by 2018.
Last year’s Paris Agreement left many details vague, such as how countries will report and monitor national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The final text also urges rich nations to keep building towards a goal of providing 100 billion dollars a year to help developing countries address climate change.
But some agencies are disappointed by a lack of concrete targets.
“I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt. This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialise,” said Lutz Weischer, team leader on international climate policy at Germanwatch.
…
Read more: http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/19/countries-appeal-to-trump-over-climate-change-as-cop22-ends
It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.
I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don’t you believe it. They knew alright, and they won’t give up without a fight.
The huge problem that now confronts the UNFCCC is they believed Kerry and Obama last year when they said, “Don’t make the Paris Climate Deal a binding treaty. Keep the written language in it non-binding, else it’ll be a treaty that must be submitted to the US Senate. But don’t worry, Hillary will be the next President to keep the hustle going.”
Obama and Kerry gambled and lost. That is the harsh reality now facing the UNFCCC party crowd.
What was in it for Obama or Kerry?
“What was in it for Obama or Kerry?”
Curious George
They are possibly bought.
Cheers
Roger
“What was in it for Obama or Kerry?”
Power and kickbacks.
Influence
To become the first President and Vice-president of the Peoples Republic of Earth
This is for “Curious George” below (this system doesn’t allow direct replies to replies. Why? I don’t know).
Kerry: He’s a limousine liberal who is married to an heiress, Theresa Heinz of the food company fame.
He’s got a diagnosable serious case of “White Man’s Guilt”. He believes in income re-distribution largely due to guilt (he’s never had a real job in his life) and of course, he’s not exactly the type of “patriot” we think of with the true definition of the word.
Obama:
He too is all about income re-distribution. He sees this as the way to bring down the economy of the USA (his 20 Trillion in debt was a great start) and make the USA a weaker power in the world to allow for more robust competitors in China and Russia, not too mention the third world in general. It’s his way to accelerate the “one world globalist order” (at our expense). Personally, I think he really doesn’t like this nation and he’s done his best to “fundamentally change” it. That “change” was never in our interests.
He believes that Capitalism in the hands of the USA makes us too superior and he desires to make us as “unexceptional” as he possibly can/could. Americans have a unique knack of making things work well when given a chance. Our culture and traditions as well as our “system” (when left alone) is what’s made the world a better place.
Obama does not realize that if the USA is strong and our economy doing well, we are then in a position to truly export technology and make the world a better place for everyone. Especially in bringing cheap energy to the developing world to make clean water and air (yes air – does he think burning dung is good for people in their kitchens?) affordable and available to all.
I believe in a “nutshell” this is the answer to your question.
Trump should submit Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. It will go down in flames and thereby prevent the media from using as a political weapon against Trump. The Paris agreement will be null and void and thus any talk of needing four years to withdraw is nonsense.
svbeachhouse… Agree. Besides being a globalist and wanting to tear the U.S. down, he has also demonstrated that he hates the U.S. and is a closet islamist. This is something the Western Civilizations must come to understand and never let it happen again. The forces of this kind of ‘evil’ are still out there and plotting and we can’t let it stand. Our freedoms came very close to being taken away and shredded.
Ps. You can reply to an individual post, but you have to stand in line for it. Just scroll up to the last post with a ‘reply’ in blue at the bottom and you get your turn in line.
Obama’s several “agreements-which-are-not-treaties” are all worthless. Trump can just ignore them.
Curious G: pay-for-play, kick-backs, corruption, “charitable” foundations, etc … at the highest level of our USA govt? please don’t tell us that it can’t happen here.
Just go have a little sit-down with madame hillary. she’ll tell you all about the birds and the bees.
and, if you do not think that she is telling you the truth just wait for the conclusions of the FBI investigation. yes, that one; the one that is ongoing regarding her criminal crime family foundation, which, i will bet, will show some level of involvement by b. insane obama.
his SOS was not using a govt-secure server; but rather her own personal private server for SOS business — a clear massive security violation — and obama does not know about this? yeah … right.
such corruption will continue until good people put down their collective feet … and tell these immoral politicians that they MUST stop this crap … and there MUST be hell to pay if they don’t.
ps: this is the reason why i believe that hillary must NOT be pardoned: these people MUST be informed of what this witch did by her massive disregard for USA security … and the corrupt politicians must understand that, if at some future date they choose to follow the same path of corruption, there will be serious consequences for their evil deeds against this nation and its people.
Alcheson, November 20, 2016 at 1:00 am
There is no way to prevent Libtards from making a political controversy out of anything they so desire. I think Trump would be well advised to do what he knows best Act as the CEO of the administration. That is undo with a pen what his predecessor(s) did with a pen. Then get Congress to enact the appropriate legislation. I believe that executive orders should be allowed only when Congress is not in session and receive an up or down vote when Congress comes back in session.
Obama and Kerry did it for their legacies as well as for the chance to travel the world to future COPs as unelected members of the parliament of climate change. Furthermore, they were both living within the echo chamber that kept reinforcing the meme that Hillary Clinton could not lose the election.
@ur momisugly Johnny Cuyana
Say it again, Johnny C, …… shout it from the rooftops, loud and clear.
All federal employees should be mandated to “punch” in and out on a Time Clock ….. and if they are not “clocked in” for 40 hours/week …… then their pay/salary should be deducted accordingly. You can force them to be “on-the-job” ……. but you really can’t force them to perform meaningful work while they are physically at work.
Then of course, a big majority of government jobs don’t entail performing “meaningful work”.
I personally wonder how much money came from “Steyer, Soros, the Rockefellers et al cloaked as government money.
With Kerry and Obama they got a lesson like Wile E, Coyote- their ACME product wasn’t approved
by the Senate, now the gravy train has jumped the track and the ACME Safe shadow is getting bigger.. .Unintended Consequences..
Alcheson
November 20, 2016 at 1:00 am
“Trump should submit Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. It will go down in flames and thereby prevent the media from using as a political weapon against Trump. The Paris agreement will be null and void and thus any talk of needing four years to withdraw is nonsense.”
I like the way you think. Keep it legal and keep it constitutional.
svbeachhouse,
Thank you for a concise and I think, accurate explanation of Obama’s actions while president. Angela Merkel is the same.
The sooner we bury this dead horse the better…otherwise it will keep stinking. The only thing we should do is encourage the clean burning of fuels and treating water wastes. Coal powered plants are fine if they use modern combustion technology and scrubbers to eliminate atmospheric soot, which is the main problem in China and India, aside from the dirty water. We in America essentially cleaned up our act by the 1980s, and have since been wasting a lot of money and effort trying to get the last 1%, which is really not necessary.
Curious George November 19, 2016 at 8:13 pm
What was in it for Obama or Kerry?
Paid speeches, AKA Bill and Hillary private speaking fees for their influence.
The other BIG problem for the CAGW-Climate Change Hustle is that the mainstream media in the US has a huge credibility problem now with the American public… for good reason.
We see now that State-chosen electors to the Presidential Electoral College in many of the Red states for Trump are being massively harrassed by Hillary Clinton’s machine. The Clinton’s are are not giving up without a dirty, behind the scens fight.
But for the Climate Change War the Left needs an effective media, a media that is respected and listened to. Doubtful that exists. The main media outlets in the US are still licking some gaping wounds. They are trying to figure out how it lost so badly after doing everything it could to stop Trump. Now do they get behind the Left again in a losing Climate Change message, a message every opinion poll show runs behind “how to get cat hair off your jacket”? (h/t to Jon Stewart who used that line)
At some point the MSM has to decide which side it is on. It’s very economic survival depends on honesty even if it hurts their Leftist ideology. And to be honest Climate Change and AGW are non-problems considering all the other problems facing the Developed countries and Western-style democracy.
MSM pretty much globally, certainly the UK with the BBC, Australia with the ABC and SBS, New Zealand with their national broadcaster (I forget). But there are some who fall for what is published as “science”.
The (once) “mainstream media, if they ever wake up to the fact most people are now getting most of their political views from other people on the internet, and if they try to stop pandering to the minority interests who now support their views and try to “reach out”, will find that they’re trying to bolt the stable door after the horse is gone.
I much prefer reading other news outlets like …. WUWT!
Your last sentence should have ended with “non-problems.” Climate Change is a natural function and AGW is a lie.
Careful Joel,
They are not supposed to take sides. The fact that they are now and have been picking sides rather than reporting balanced news is one of the leading causes of the destructive polarization that exists in society today. Before the networks started treating their evening news hours as profit centers and the press rooms limited their hiring to alter egos there was a wall between the news rooms and the editorial departments. People believed they could count on accurate news from multiple sources and could refer to editorial and commentary when they sought different opinions and interpretations. The MSM today has become another Pravada, a propaganda organ for the elite.
If CAGW is debunked, the MSM will never live it down. Their reputation will permanently go down a notch or two, even among the clerisy.
Their reputation didnt die with acid rain or the ozone hole debacles. Put their spectrum up for bid and test their utility in the marketplace versus cell phone data plans. I’ll know where my puts will be.
“At some point the MSM has to decide which side it is on.”
Joel, I’m afraid you have a misperception of the Leftwing Media. That’s like saying, at some point Obama and Hillary have to decide which side they are on. Obama and Hillary already have a side and know what it is, and the same goes for the Leftwing Media which has the same side.
The Leftwing Media are hardcore Leftists and though there may be some who change their tune, you are not going to find many of them. The rest will just double-down on deluded. Don’t put much hope in the Leftwing Media coming to their senses. It’s not going to happen.
Our MSM wants to be like most of the rest of the world’s media. Owned by their respective governments. That way it doesn’t matter how much money they lose, they’ll get more.
Joe, it has only been in recent decades that the media has pretended to be a neutral observer. Go back and read older papers. They were quite partisan, and openly so.
the united front displayed by nearly 200 countries….
You have to see the humor in this
“World leaders” and not a one with the stature of a Churchill, Kennedy, Reagan, Eisenhower, Gandhi, De Gaulle, or even a Thatcher and Gorbachev. “World leaders?”
actually…I was referring to the 200 countries that get paid
It was all fun and intoxicating with fame and seemingly unlimited money … until they ran out of OPM*.
*OPM: other people’s money.
They ran out of OPM $20,000,000,000,000 ago. Didn’t seem to stop them.
But those are future dollars, so they don’t count. The Glorious Revolution will have happened by the time it has to be paid back.
Yes, and I hear they’ll christen the new country Monopoly so they can use that currency to pay off the debt.
I hope everybody’s ready for a wild ride.
Money better spent building cheap sources of power for those in need, instead of lining the pockets of the corrupt.
The gravy train has ended, please exit at the caboose. I want to see a real debate now, one with the other 97% that are afraid to speak.
“I want to see a real debate now”
That’s EXACTLY what must happen now. Televised internationally world-wide over multiple days.
And with many countries and no politicians.
Senator Ted Cruz holding Senate hearings on ratification of the Paris Climate Treaty, anyone?
Their Go Fund Me Campaign didn’t work?
Does this mean that now all those d*nier cheques will start arriving in the mail?
GreenPiece, WWF, have lots of money..
Let them help out the developing African monarchs..
… or take away their tax-free charity status.
Whoever is still delusional about charities must watch “Death to smoochy” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266452/
It shows charities in their full glory exactly as they are. I worked for UNICEF. I know. I’ve seen them all. They are ugly.
Not all charities are as corrupt as UNICEF. The UN corrupts everything it touches.
So do Gates, Steyer, the Rockefellers etal, let them put their money where their mouths are and let them prove it.
What “Gates, Steyer, the Rockefellers etal” understand, asybot, is how the US federal monetary system works, and the majority of Americans don’t. Americans still think as if we’re on a gold standard, where you need to get income before you can spend etc, and when the federal government would “borrow” money in the money markets to protect the nation’s gold supply (pre-1933). FDR created the middle class by taking advantage of the domestic dumping of the gold standard in 1933/1934, which led to the greatest period of prosperity for the American people. (BTW, if anyone listened to the current William DeVane argument to put his money in gold in 2011, he would have lost 1/3 of his money in the time since, with no guaranteed protection of the prinicpal, and collecting no interest to boot. US treasury securities give you that safety and security.)
However.
All that changed when Nixon took us off the gold standard internationally in August 15, 1971. Journalists didn’t report the profound effect (greatest thing Nixon ever did) it could have on increasing US prosperity. (I say “could” because few know how that works.) First, journalists didn’t understad it. Secondly, journalists were covering Nixon’s upcoming election at the time, then Watergate, and the oil embargo. But international bankers and industrialists caught on. Rockefeller and Rothschild dreamt up the Global Warming scare to take advantage of it, create global governance, eventually get a global currency, and control of world governments because the people would be mewling for protecting the polar bears, etc. or shuddering about CO2. Rothschild was terrified, however, what would happen if Switzerland decided to nationalize the Rothschild banks as they did in France in 1981–what Mitterand did to his cousin Guy–and if it dropped the Swiss Franc and adopted the upcoming Euro. His bank would be finished. Baron Edmond de Rothschild (Geneva) called himself “Mr. Environment,” and David Rockefeller was “Mr. Development.” Wish I could link to an old paper Denver CO article I have with these two describing themselves as such in September 1987 during the 4th Worldwide Wilderness Conference in Denver, where de Rothschild specifically said that they were going to create a Global Warming campaign.
It was a good scam. Done in plain sight. They couldn’t accomplish it during COP19 in 2009. But they proceeded with setting up the legal framework in the interim anyway: TPP, TTIP, TISA. All intended to wipe out national jurisdictions in favor of multinationals operating out of Geneva (where Obama’s current US Trade Representative Michael Froman is ensconced; he was previously in charge of COP19) under the UNFCCC umbrella dictating what the new global rules are going to be, what nations can no longer decide for themselves, and where they get to dictate to the treasuries of monetarily soveriegn countries like the US, GB, Canada, Japan, and Australia, what they have to cough up. The US Treasury dispenses this cash without having to go through Congress. That is what they are biotching about in the leading post above.
But you can’t get people to see this without understanding how US federal accounting works (double-entry), and everyone is still stuck on 40-year-old conspiracies about the Federal Reserve, and fairytales about a London cabal owning it. Anyone who has ever used the double-entry accounting system Quick Books, (not Quicken), knows that you can’t have a debt without an asset. Ever hear the debt-clock hawks talk about the matching asset-clock?
Test. (Posts aren’t taking.)
Ever hear the debt-clock hawks talk about the matching asset-clock?
There are two sides to the ledger, people.
[asybot, in September 1987, Rothschild called what he was planning a “Second Marshall Plan.” That means using government money, not their own.]
The green blob was all in for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and expected a good return on their investment. Instead, they are in the same situation as the Gulf states that made contributions to the Clinton Foundation–sitting around wondering what happened.
I do kind of have to smile at all these so called “smart people” all around the world, investing hundreds of millions of dollars with absolutely nothing to show for it, and the Arkansas Bumpkins walking away scot-free with a huge chunk of it in their pockets.
and if I had a nickel for every wonderful, visionary project which had this as its epitaph:
“it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialize”
As long as we don’t get complacent. Remember, it took darn near the entire nation to offset the so called liberals in California, New York and Illinois in the electoral college.
There are more than 3,100 counties in the US. Clinton won more votes than Trump in fewer than 60. One could easily drive for 1,000 miles and not pass through a county in which the majority voted for Clinton. Yet as the polls began to close the MSM was 90+ percent certain that Clinton would easily win.
There are huge disconnects between perception and reality in the US sociopolitical landscape. The cognitive dissonance is palpable, especially in the quarters where most of the money for climate research is consumed. These are interesting times.
Please be aware that the State of California still has “millions” of absentee ballots to count (according to a recent radio report). I look forward, in February (maybe) getting a fair report of the actual, real popular vote count by county, state and across the entire US, including all the absentere ballots and the provisional ballots.
I was born in and still live here in the brain dead state of California. And I hate to say, I would move to another, more sane State, if I wasn’t tied down here. The average citizens here are like brain dead zombies and simply follow party lines. I did vote, but knew my vote for President would not mean a thing amongst the millions of sheep here. I am a stranger in a strange land.
Clinton only prevailed with a plurality because 1) an estimated 3 million illegals cast a ballot, mostly in California and 2) Johnson’s stupid and arrogant Libertarian run stole votes mostly from Trump.
Many voters that would have voted for Trump simply did not turn out in the large, heavily blue states. The popular vote would have been much closer had they.
Dahlquist in California. If it wasn’t for the high cost of living in costal California I would put up with the zombies to live there. The great weather would be worth it. Those zombies are everywhere.
“Remember, it took darn near the entire nation to offset the so called liberals in California, New York and Illinois in the electoral college.”
Yeah, we are far from safe. We have a four year respite, but we need to get organized now to beat the Left in 2020, because they are snapping at our heels, too close for comfort. And four years is going to go by fast!
A successful Trump presidency will help this effort enormously. And I expect to see a successful Trump presidency.
We got SO lucky this time. And Trump’s competence had a lot to do with it. They knew they were going to win a couple of days before the election took place, according to at least one Trump advisor. They knew something noone else knew.
We have received reports that Hillary got more “popular” votes than Trump. We have also heard reports of widespread voter fraud–votes from illegal aliens, dead people, people voting in multiple states, felons voting (even current prisoners), and other categories. So what is the actual, true count of legal votes by actual, true, living, registered U.S. citizens? I’d be willing to bet that the final figures on that question would favor Trump.
There’s been talk in CA about seceeding.
Perhaps the rest of us can support them in this desire.
+1….but it will never happen.
But remember what happened the last time there was a seccession in the US. California really, really needs reconstruction:-)
+1 It’s the epitomy of a welfare state that gives the middle finger to the rest of the country in its’ quest to become more Socialist than Democratic. (Everyone please spare me the admonition that I don’t know the difference or anything about Socialism and Democracy).
Stole votes from Trump? Those were Trump’s votes? When exactly did he buy them?
From the reports I’ve read, Johnson’s voters were mostly from demographics that Hillary won handily.
Regardless, most of them would have stayed home had they not been able to vote for Johnson.
Just prior to election day in 2000, it was thought that Bush might win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.
When asked about this Gore’s campaign manager replied that had the election been a popular vote contest, both candidates would have run vastly different campaigns.
Popular vote is a meaningless number in our elections. Republicans don’t bother to vote in blue states.
Democrats don’t bother to vote in red states.
However, if the popular vote was so important, Trump would have spent time in California. Hillary would have still won but the vote count would not have been so lopsided.
Its hardly imaginable that groups of environmentalists haven’t yet figured out where the money comes from. Whether the money is for trips, or accommodations, or lobbying this or that governmental official. The money has to come from somewhere, and, if one looks closely, the money comes from others, ie, people extraneous to the spenders. Here is the rub. Keeping the spenders spending without knowing where the money is going. With a complicit media, the information of where the external dollars are going, is not visible.
All of this intrigue doesn’t matter until the money ends up harming people and contributing to the narrative of harm:: “we are from the government and we are here to help you.” Dreaded words indeed. The other harm comes from elections; ie, electing the wrong people for the campaign one wishes to forward. Warmists want a receptive crowd and revenue stream. Cut off the narrative. Show the narrative is flawed, and, the revenue begins to slow, eventually to a trickle.
We are politically in this scenario. Decreased revenue stream for a cause that vilifies most people who wish to live a life, compatible with one’s income. Too low an income, means, too little in the way of a comfortable life.
Middle income represents a comfortable life to most people. Removing job potential by sending jobs off shore, loss of good paying jobs represent a loss on the part of middle income people; or increasing the costs of energy such that energy costs become a burden in one’s way of life, and, the house of cards comes crumbling down. Why is this so strange?
Just simple daily living cost analysis seems to elude the Greens. their fatal flaw.
Let them now travel using their frequent flyer miles.
Curious George commented: “What was in it for Obama or Kerry?”
Obama’s a fellow traveler and Kerry’s a useful idiot.
spot on. And just looking at the money trails, we’ve got to credit the Clintons and Gore as being Grifters Supreme!
If the Dems don’t toe the Green line, the Green party will garner as many votes as Nader did in 2000, spoiling the Dems’ presidential chances. That’s what’s in it for Obama and Kerry.
Well, here’s hoping that 97% of the money disappears…
Q: What’s the difference between ‘rich’ countries and ‘developing’ countries? A: Rich countries have governments that allow people to create wealth and developing countries do not. There are many examples of resource-poor countries that have become rich. N Korea has more natural resources than S Korea for example. More recently, thanks to socialism, Venezuela has turned from being a rich country to being a poor one. And who came up with this ‘developing’ term anyway? Who said that poor countries are developing? They just have governments that suck, and that won’t change as long as rich countries subsidize them.
“Developing country” is a euphemism. “Third World country” was deemed to harsh, don’t ‘cha know.
“Stop trying to help us” was the cry of one (African, I think) who decried how all the “development funds” got bled off as graft, and the remnant did more harm than good.
Jefferson was right.
“Every man wishes to pursue his occupation and to enjoy the fruits of his labors and the produce of his property in peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things are accomplished, all the objects for which government ought to be established are answered.” -Thomas Jefferson
I LIKE the term “Developing Country” after all, in an ambiguous sort of way, the USA is a developing country. We develop many different things that help the world
dan no longer in CA asks,
” What is the difference between ‘rich’ countries and developing countries ? ”
Simple : rich countries have a light switch in every room in the house !
I thought we weren’t allowed to quote Jefferson anymore?
“I thought we weren’t allowed to quote Jefferson anymore?”
That only applies to the Loony Left. Normal people can still quote Jefferson.
Well George, if rich countries have light switches in every room in the house, extremely wealthy people have their lights controlled by their Smartphones
How many resources did Hong Kong have?
” Last year’s Paris Agreement left many details vague, such as how countries will report and monitor national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”
This is how incompetent you clueless bureaucrats are. You’re fired.
The meet , they chat, they party with other peoples money, rack up frequent flyer points and its seems most of the time they achieve nothing and agree nothing , other than work needs to be done in the future and its important that they meet again. Great gig if you can get it.
No, that’s not fair. It had to be written vaguely so that nations who had no intention of following it would still sign on. The illusion of progress is very important to these people.
“The illusion of progress”
‘Progress’ is a nebulous term. Towards what?
“The illusion of competence.” There, that’s better.
Never mind where was the money coming from – where has it all gone? Has there ever been any accountability report? I presume that at least some of the millions extorted over the years was actually paid over. Or was it all in promissory notes?
PowerPoint presentations
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/05/bangladeshi-academics-accuse-the-west-of-blowing-climate-funds-on-powerpoint-slide-consultants/
The UN has massive resources from their charities. UNICEF, Children, …………
I just had an epiphany about white guilt.
The liberal elites think white people, especially white males, are responsible for all the evils of the world. They have the concept of white privilege that they use to explain all the ills of the world.
Here’s my precis of what the liberal elites think.
America is developing a really nasty class structure. Here’s a quote that describes how the liberal elite views the people of Appalachia but these days it applies more generally to the undereducated white working class generally.
… must resist … the … urge … to rant. (smoke issues from ears and nostrils)
Here is an interesting liberal article on White Privilege… Just in case you’re interested. Warning: may cause high blood pressure. 🙂
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
Actually, he’s sort of right.
I have had it easy. I have been lucky so many times. Sure I worked hard but I got so much because of my family and friends. I am the beneficiary of white privilege. Guilty as charged.
On the other hand, some of my (white male) friends have not had it so easy. They have to bust their butts to earn half of what I get for pension. I know female brown skinned professionals who make ten times what these guys earn by the sweat of their brows. For them, white privilege is a joke.
Well, sure. There is always some truth to some stuff like this. The problem is, this kind of stuff gets turned into a stereotype and then everything goes sideways.
Thank God thing for credit cards, eh?
I hope this works from my phone 😉
God, I hate YouTube vids like this one, because they are a fraud. The pea isn’t under any of them, it’s behind. You can only get away with that on a video, so it’s just plain silly. When the trick is done for real, in front of people, it has to be done fast, by sleight of hand – but the pea is always under one of them. YouTube has a lot to answer for, and frankly, people shouldn’t promote YouTube vids like this one.
That was the whole point of cheating and fraud and the green machine finance. Nothing to do with youtube.
A naïve view. You missed the point. Remember nuance and English word eludes me but its not sarc.
Trump needs to explain to the extortionists of Big Green that since borders no longer matter they should address all future requests for money to “the globe”.
But why does it cost anything? Why is there a need for money?
I thought that the claim by greens was that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy, so why does any one need any money?
The greens should forward plans to demonstate how African countries/developing countries can develop without any aid from the West/developed countries simply by African/developing countries using green solutions.
“I thought that the claim by greens was that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy, so why does any one need any money?”
Someone has to pay the Greens to run everything. The Greens have to eat, you know.
Be sure to eat your greens.
“I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt”
How about just build them a bunch of cheap oil/gas/coal fueled power stations then watch them take off on their own.
Nuclear too if they have the infrastructure and skills to run one…
Maybe I’m just a bigot/xenophobe/racist/Nazi………? I am white after all…
Oh, a rapist too since I’m male….
I’m sure Soros, Steyer and the many charities, foundations and trusts (Rockefeller, Hewlitt, Packard, Clinton, Pew, Tides, etc., etc.) could cobble together a billion or two a year for the next decade to promote this idiocy.
Don’t leave Gore out of it. I sure that he can chip in say $50 million each year through to 2030.
The 70s environmental movement related pollution aspects were sidelined by MNCs through UN, Rio Summit. Here global warming versus carbon dioxide was brought in. Since then this tirade is going on in full speed. Now with the Republican President-elect in USA there appears to be some change in global warming; to thwart this now MNCs are directly entered the arena under the disguise of “Climate Smart Agriculture”.
The major initiatives for the agriculture sector that were discussed frequently at COP so far are Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) and Adaptation of African Agriculture (AAA). While GACSA was launched at COP 21 in Paris, AAA has been launched at COP 22 with much fanfare.
Both of these initiatives are being promoted by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) along with various governments, especially African countries. The founding membership and steering committee of GACSA include fertilizer companies, their front groups and partner organizations. Of the alliance’s 29 non-governmental founding members, there are three fertilizer industry lobby groups, two of the world’s largest fertilizer companies and a handful of organizations working directly with fertilizer companies on climate change programmes. This leaves a lot of ambiguity and raise serious concerns. For example, CGIAR, a FAO partner in GACSA, promotes climate smart “success stories”, which promote the use of fertilizers and genetically-modified organisms (GMO), and make no mention of traditional agriculture system. There is a fear that seeds, fertilizers, pesticides promoted by big corporations multinationals will be pushed in the guise of climate smart agriculture. This will make farmers more and more dependent on market forces and hence increase their vulnerability and reduce their adaptive capacity.
With no green fund, MNCs are openly coming up pushing their products. CGIAR has 13 centres over different parts of the globe [one in Hyderabad, India — ICRISAT — to promote MNCs agenda.The target is developing countries.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Do us a favor. Not everyone is familiar with your acronym vocabulary. The first time you use an acronym (unless it is common such as MSM) let us know what it is. MNC isn’t even in my unabridged dictionary.
MNC = multinational Companies
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Dr. Reddy, your “traditional agriculture system” will not feed the globe. For example, less than 2% of the U.S. population now live on farms, yet the U.S. is a major supplier of world foods. We barely fed ourselves when 90% of us lived on farms not long ago. Famines used to control world populations.
Dave Fair — US is producing for export, particularly GM foods. At present farmers in US following mechanised farming using irrigation and chemical inputs. If you look at Mississippi river flows that contain runoffs from the farm fields containing chemical input residues. This created a dead zone in thousands of square kilometers in Gulf of Mexico. Also, the food produced [whether GM or non-GM] contain chemicals. This food created health hazards [new diseases]. Also, FAO says around 30% of what is produced is going as waste — and thus the natural resources used to produce that much –. All over the world farmers groups innovations are out yielding with the chemical input technologies. However, MNCs PR groups thwarting this technology entering the farms through purchasing politicians. In Nepal US Embassy pressurised the government to adapt GMOs — on this stories were published.
Therefore, by reducing wastage, by efficient use of water resources, making animal husbandry as part of farming and adapting farmers innovative technologies, it is not difficult to meet the food needs of the growing population.
Large part of water resources are going as waste water through pollution. We need to bringing down this wastage through proper planning.
India has around 17% of the world population with 2.6% of the land area and 4.6% of water resources. We are meeting the food needs even after 40 to 50% is going as waste in transport, poor post-harvest technologies, poor storage facilities to protect from un-seasonal rains, etc. Here also the fodder produced is going as waste as animal hate to eat that.
Planning is more important. Without that we achieve nothing except creating new diseases, new drug manufacturing industries, hospitals and create more pollution and thus reducing potable water supply.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Who gets to do the worldwide, comprehensive social and economic planning required, Dr. Reddy?
I think it is a great idea for Trump to submit the Paris Agreement to the senate as a Treaty. Once the Senate votes it down in a landslide, it becomes null and void. Also, those few senators that vote FOR it will targeted in the primaries/electrion. A win-win.
Wrong. It doesn’t need to be submitted to the Senate for a vote to be void. Since it isn’t a treaty and was only signed by Obama it is only a valid agreement for Obama. All President Trump has to do is ignore it and it is void, which is the wisest course. Just ignore it, withdraw the finding of endangerment for greenhouse gases and all related regulation, eliminate the subsidies for wind & solar, and with that the international nightmare of the climate change fraud is over.
Thomas we know that but submitting it to the houses totally kills it, withdrawing leaves it open.
Well, you know, there is going to be one heck of a ruckus put up by the Left worldwide over Trump not going along with CAGW, so it might be a good idea to submit the agreement to the U.S. Senate in order to offically terminate it, and spread the credit around to the U.S. Senate and the people who elected them, instead of letting all the vitriol focus on Trump himself.
There is no chance the agreement will pass the U.S. Senate. If the Left pulls some trick to hold up the vote, and stretch things out, Trump can still just ignore implementing it for as long as he wants. Noone can make him implement it, and he can just say he is waiting on the U.S. Senate to vote before taking action, and put the onus on whoever may be holding up the vote.
I suppose it would also be possible for the House and Senate to pass a bill specifically repudiating the Paris Agreement, if there was some reason not to submit the agreement as a treaty to the U.S. Senate.
Lots of ways to kill this thing. We just want to spread that credit around as widely as possible.
This should be in Trumps speech to congress…”this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to increase and America began to heal”.;
Obama and Paris
The UN did not make an agreement with the United States. The UN made an agreement with Obama, who did not have the authority to make such commitments on his own. He knew it, and he was told it needed to go to Congress and get their approval for it to be binding. He did not. This was all out in the open for the whole world to see.
Not only that, but the Senate’s Republicans sent a letter to the Green officials in Paris saying that Obama’s commitment didn’t commit the US.