UN Bonn Climate Conference Demands $300 Billion per Year to Alleviate the Tedium

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The UNFCCC Bonn Climate Conference, due to end in a few days, has accepted a report which demands an additional $300 billion per year on top of the $100 billion already promised by the world’s governments. The cash is to be disbursed via existing green groups, because it is “so tedious” to set up a new UN bureaucracy to spend your money.

Innovative finance needed to find $300 billion a year for climate losses

By Laurie Goering

LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – With money for action on climate change already in short supply, an estimated $300 billion a year needed to help countries deal with unavoidable climate losses will have to come from innovative new sources, such as a financial transaction tax or carbon tax, researchers say.

Funding for such climate “loss and damage” aims to assist people who lose their land to sea level rise, for instance, or are forced to migrate as drought makes growing crops impossible in some regions.

“What stands out most clearly is that there isn’t currently enough funding to even begin thinking about financing loss and damage, with available climate, development, risk reduction and disaster recovery financing all falling short by an order of magnitude,” said researchers at the Berlin-based Heinrich Böll Foundation.

In a report released at the U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn, now heading into their second week, researchers said about $50 billion a year would be needed by 2020 to help people who lose their land and culture or are forced to migrate as a result of climate-related problems.

No new body should be created to handle and disperse the funds, however, they said, with money instead put through existing organizations such as the Green Climate Fund or the Global Environment Facility.

Harjeet Singh, who heads climate change policy for charity ActionAid, also said that setting up a new loss and damage funding body made no sense.

“It’s so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people. It does make sense to use the existing mechanisms to transfer the money,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a telephone interview from Bonn.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-finance-idUSKCN18B21Z

The executive summary and the full report is available here.

I’m lost for words. The staggering sense of entitlement, of people who seem to think that we’ll be OK with shovelling an extra $300 billion into their bank accounts, because they can’t be stuffed to do a bit of extra paperwork to set up a new trough.

The sooner these arrogant parasites are cut off from our money, the better.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert of Texas
May 15, 2017 8:42 pm

Let the Europeans put up the money. Just keep us (the U.S.) out of it. If they really believe their is a huge problem with climate change, they should be willing to put up any sum of money to combat it.

Bryan A
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 15, 2017 10:30 pm

Big Green in charge of green funds make about as much sense as putting a Fox in charge of the Hen House.
I’ll volunteer my services as the Fund Manager for a mere 1% of the annual managed fund balance and a 0.5% charge on all requested disbursements. 1% in and .5% out is hard to beat. And I would require proof of need prior to disbursements. No frivolous requests please.

Reply to  Bryan A
May 16, 2017 2:32 am

I’m quite happy to give whatever is needed to those who are in need and equally happy to see the money disbursed by existing organisations. BUT
I want irrefutable proof that sea-level rise is causing people to lose their property and I don’t care whether the cause is global warming or something else. I want the money for “drought alleviation” to be spent on technologies (desalination, improved crop varieties, irrigation) to ensure people don’t have to leave their land and again I don’t care if the cause of the drought is climate or simply weather. And I want an independent individual in control of that money inside whichever body finally gets the contract which itself will be determined by competitive tender.
How am I doing so far?

Reply to  Bryan A
May 16, 2017 4:29 am

Newminster — the UNFCC is impervious to your (or any reasonable) demands. “Irrefutable proof” is a flexible target. This isn’t a technical plan. It is a political plan. They will distribute the money to nations who pay proper homage to the climatrocracy.
After all, it is “tedious” to be so mighty. We should willingly fan them with giant palms and feed them grapes as they rest on their royal lounge chairs.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bryan A
May 16, 2017 5:36 am

Newminster, you are a generous fellow, but these data adjusters will flood you with any evidence you like.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 16, 2017 5:39 am

And, never be so willing to give any form of potential funding to any idiocracy that has indicated a willingness to create more harm than good or to disrespect your (US) constitutional rights to self governance or freedom of speech.

Reply to  Bryan A
May 16, 2017 5:45 am

I’ll do the same job, only better, for half that amount.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Bryan A
May 16, 2017 9:59 am

UN buys votes from those nations with your cash, these nations vote any way the UN wants on any matter.
and laughably, a 300k population the UN buys a vote from with funding, has the same weight as a US vote with 350? million people.
The UN is a socialist crackpot out of control unaccountable monstrocity

Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 1:47 am

Don’t you remember film from a year or so ago, of a large african gentleman in an impeccable suit saying “They promised us 100 billion dollars. Where is the money?”

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 15, 2017 10:39 pm

Lets set up our own fund managing organization.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander;)

Greg Goodman
Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 16, 2017 9:27 am

… and make sure the money reaches the intended people.

yep that’s always the “tedious” part , isn’t it ?

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 15, 2017 11:29 pm

Oi! Keep us Brits out of it, mainland Europe can stump up if they want (but they won’t), but not us.
These people are clinically certifiable. They can eff off!

Reply to  HotScot
May 16, 2017 4:57 am

I like your attitude, HotScot! 🙂

Reply to  HotScot
May 16, 2017 12:34 pm

I have lots of attitude. My wife keeps telling me so. 🙂

Craig King
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 15, 2017 11:41 pm

Hah, pikers. Why not just round it up to a $trillion and nominate Al Gore to handle its distribution ,less suitable administrative overheads of course.
That’s how you stop ACC, big bold spending of other people’s money.

Reply to  Craig King
May 15, 2017 11:48 pm

$100 Trillion is a rounder number. And if world-wide inflation kicks in, that sum should be mere pocket change.

David A
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2017 4:27 am

Indeed, as there is exactly ZERO increase in the rate of S.L. rise and or global droughts, let alone evidence that any droght or SL rise the world does have is caused by CO2, this demand for funds is exceedingly arrogant and deeply ignorant.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  David A
May 16, 2017 2:30 pm

And the adaptation claims by developing countries are pure bogus:
“the Adaptation Watch 2015 report reviews the adaptation finance claimed by OECD countries for 2012, and finds an overclaim of 400%. That is, of the USUSD10.1 billion claimed by OECD countries in 2012 as development aid with a principal or significant adaptation focus under the OECD-DAC Rio Marker categorization, USUSD7.7 billion was not, in fact, adaptation-related.”
Financing Loss and Damage: A Look at Governance and Implementation Options Page 9

Dave Fair
Reply to  David A
May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Droughts occur every year. Floods occur every year. Coastal storm surges occur every year. Sea level rise occurs every year, without acceleration.
Developed countries take care of their own losses. Third World countries haven’t the resources to respond to droughts and flooding; mismanagement and wars exacerbate natural problems.
The U.S. should administer its own humanitarian assistance, as specific circumstances require. Funding uncontrollable, corrupt UN programs is insanity.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2017 4:50 am

Let the Europeans put up the money. Just keep us (the U.S.) out of it.

As a European, please do not let them do it.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2017 5:39 am

hey man i object! i am european and except for our lefties in the government a lot of people, same like in the USA, don;t believe in the climate fairytales. that’s pure…racism 😉 You euro hater you

patrick bols
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2017 10:36 am

fully agree. Let bankrupt Europe foot the bill. Maybe at some point in time the Europeans will finally wake up to find that their beloved politicians were cheating them out of their money to achieve exactly nothing. But then what else to expect from Marxist inspired politics?

Reply to  patrick bols
May 16, 2017 1:00 pm

Hell no. They are already trying to stiff the UK by charging a huge “Brexit bill” (legally unenforceable. Politically? Who knows…) because they aren’t willing to cough up their own money to fund their projects. This would probably get tacked on.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2017 2:28 pm

Well, look at the bright side, $300 billion a year will buy a lot of conferences flush with hookers and booze.

Dave Fair
Reply to  pyeatte
May 16, 2017 8:27 pm

Booze always helped to ensure I didn’t have to rely on hookers. Vietnam didn’t count.
Been to conferences, got the T-shirts.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 16, 2017 6:52 pm

Robert of Texas
May 15, 2017 at 8:42 pm
“Let the Europeans put up the money. Just keep us (the U.S.) out of it. If they really believe their is a huge problem with climate change, they should be willing to put up any sum of money to combat it.”
Who in Europe will pay?
Britain is exit.
France, Italy, Spain are having a big deficit.
And in Germany we have – thank God – our Treasury Minister Schäuble. He will keep any greedy finger away.
Possibly they get the bucks in Alices wonderland…

Javert Chip
Reply to  Max Photon
May 15, 2017 9:47 pm

Care to let the rest of us in on what you’re thinking?
Oh, never mind…

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Javert Chip
May 15, 2017 10:51 pm

He is thinking that the money could be produced by just printing it. Not evident in the photo is that there was a validity date on those bills – they expired after 5 months!
It is the perfect currency for purchasing renewable energy hardware: it holds lots of promise and expires sooner than you think.
Call them Green Dollars and let them build the Green economy: Use them to pay for food, use the food to pay people, have them grow biofuels, build efficient cars out of aluminum produced using solar panels – the world will rejoice!
People planting malware on your computer to lock it tight will demand payment in electronic Green Dollars – good anywhere on the planet.
The photo reminds me of Pogo’s Puce Stamps and the solid promise, “Absolutely guaranteed worthless”.

Reply to  Max Photon
May 15, 2017 10:06 pm

Bob Mugabe is a very worthy recipient. His Swiss account is now floundering – under US$100bn.

Reply to  toorightmate
May 15, 2017 10:36 pm

Reply to  Max Photon
May 15, 2017 10:35 pm

Reply to  Max Photon
May 15, 2017 10:47 pm

Dont know why they use “Trillion”.
Should rename the currency, like “Zimbabwe New Dollar” and exchangable for One Trillion Old Dollar of course.
Or maybe “Mugabe Dollar”- “Promises to pay on demand the sum of One Trillion Dollars”.
Who said runaway hyper inflations are a thing of the past?
PS Mind you the note looks large enough for one wipe, be cheaper than buying loo paper I suspect. 🙂

Craig King
Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 15, 2017 11:48 pm

At the point of that note being printed the Zimbabwe government had removed 14 zeroes from their currency. So in reality that was 1 with 26 zeroes after it. Madness stalked the land and it has returned with a new “bond note” getting ready to try the African dream again.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 16, 2017 6:52 am

Why not just use exponential notation?

Mike McMillan
Reply to  rogerthesurf
May 16, 2017 9:58 am

Arithmetic is a wonderful thing.

Reply to  Max Photon
May 16, 2017 7:36 am

Good one. We’ll pay them in Zimby Dollars!

Reply to  Max Photon
May 16, 2017 7:43 am

Nothing shows prosperity like a crisp new 100 teradollar note .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
May 16, 2017 8:17 am

Nothing wrong with Terran dollars.

May 15, 2017 8:44 pm

The next innovative source of funds should be a tax on climate research.

May 15, 2017 8:45 pm

I think I’ll get a bunch of my cronies friends to write up a report that says I should be paid a million dollars per year (I’m not too greedy) and I’ll accept it.
What’s my next step after that – any advice?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  PiperPaul
May 15, 2017 9:27 pm

No one cares about a million. $100 billion, that would make people sit up and take notice.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 16, 2017 12:40 pm

@Walter Sobchak
So far, $300Bn doesn’t seem to turn a hair, I’m not sure why $100Bn would bother them.
It is of course to anaesthetise us from the inevitable $Tn they will be asking for shortly.

Reply to  PiperPaul
May 15, 2017 9:29 pm

Yes, say you are doing such good work, but there is still much to do, so increase your salary to 2 million a year….Make sense….to you

Reply to  scottmc37
May 16, 2017 12:23 pm

Especially as a diplomat, which PiperPaul plainly is, you will not need to bother to pay tax on it as [earned] income.
Auto – still amazed that there are folk who haven’t smelled the coffee, assuming the First Daughter stories are unjustified . . .

Reply to  PiperPaul
May 15, 2017 11:33 pm

You’re willing to take a pay cut?
That’s extraordinarily generous of you old chap. 🙂

RobertBobbert GDQ
Reply to  PiperPaul
May 16, 2017 2:09 am

I think your 5 closest friends who conducted all the research that led to the report, stating from the obvious facts, that you must get 1 million per year should be rewarded with 500,000 grants.
US dollars of course.
And your 5 closest associates should be rewarded with 260,000. US dollars of course.
And all of them should get yearly grants of 78,000 and 52,000 for the next 5 years to give us a one page monthly update of all the benefits that your 1 million in Us Dollars, gives to the climate community.
US dollars of course.
And at the end of 5 years I believe we should repeat the grant process to all given the blatant and obvious benefits that shall result.
As such I am happy to receive a mere 5% from all parties for all the obvious benefits this post has brought to the Climate community.
If anyone disagrees with you, and your unbiased associates, getting this essential money I suggest applying for a grant from your local academic organisation, or rent seeking company, that identifies the importance of communicating the information about The Climate Killers amongst us.
There is more than one way to skin,and scam, the Climate Denying Cat.
Give my regards to Bernie Madoff and may the spirit of Arthur Daley (of The Minder series) always be with you.

Reply to  RobertBobbert GDQ
May 16, 2017 12:44 pm

Awwwww……come on. Arthur was a good guy. He was overtly greedy.
This mob claim to want the money for the common good, then squirrel it away.

Reply to  PiperPaul
May 16, 2017 5:28 am

Just be careful not to step on the people around you ROFLTAO.

Andre Lauzon
May 15, 2017 8:50 pm

Trudeau will probably volunteer half of the 300 billion $ if he can get his picture taken and given a seat at the UN Security Council

John F. Hultquist
May 15, 2017 8:55 pm

It does make sense to use the existing mechanisms to transfer the money, …
Of course it does. Why create a new group of skimmers and have to share with them?
My preference: I keep my hard earned money, and if I feel I have an excess I will find a deserving person or need to support directly.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
May 15, 2017 11:50 pm

Nothing like the smell of skimmers skimming other skimmers in the morning. Q: Sugar with that cup of $Billions?

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
May 16, 2017 1:21 am

I keep my hard earned money, and if I feel I have an excess I will find a deserving person or need to support directly.

But John: it’s no longer your money. It’s been claimed; those UN zits are already considering it their money.

Reply to  sophocles
May 16, 2017 3:03 am

Well we all know what you should do with a zit…

Dave Fair
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
May 16, 2017 8:37 pm

The problem is, our betters will take your money, my money and everybody else’s money to fund their preferred cronys’ pet projects (green scams), getting kickbacks whether direct or as campaign contributions.

Tom Halla
May 15, 2017 8:58 pm

The green blob lacks any sense of irony. Gimme money to stop something that is not happening and relieve the dire effects of that occurrence. One does have to admire their gall.

Nick Stokes
May 15, 2017 9:01 pm

“The UNFCCC Bonn Climate Conference, due to end in a few days, has accepted a report which demands an additional $300 billion per year”
I’m reminded of the article a day or so ago saying
“A prime example of why correct facts don’t matter to … “
There is nothing in that report that says that the conference “accepted” the report, let alone is “demanding” 300 billion dollars. The report, written by 2 researchers at the Heinrich Boll Foundation, simply said they thought that would be needed by the countries affected. They “released” the report at the Conference. There is no indication that the conference accepted or adopted it, or said anything about 300 billion dollars.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 15, 2017 9:19 pm

The hubris behind a demand supported only by fake science is what’s objectionable here.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 15, 2017 9:20 pm

So who “demanded”?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 15, 2017 11:52 pm

I’ve never seen this bunch of loons offer to pay going the other way, Nick.
Or are you so blind you think that’s actually happening?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 15, 2017 9:21 pm

If the verb is changed from “accepted” to “allowed the authors to present to a willing audience”, and instead of “demanding”, replace with “proposing to a group of people who will wholeheartedly agree and make then inevitably make the demand”, does it change the conclusions in any way? You are nitpicking. If I wrote a report, I would not have been allowed to present it there, so yes, it was “accepted”. And what else do collectivists do but demand stuff from others? It’s what you do.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  WR
May 15, 2017 9:32 pm

” “allowed the authors to present to a willing audience”,”
There is no evidence that they even did that. “Releasing” a report basically means you put out a press release, probably in Bonn. Anyone could do it. It probably also means that someone in the lobby handed out copies to passers-by.

Reply to  WR
May 15, 2017 9:59 pm

Do you just nitpick on choice of descriptive words in order to avoid commenting on the substance of the matter?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  WR
May 15, 2017 10:19 pm

“to avoid commenting on the substance of the matter”
The substance of the matter is clearly stated in the headline:
“UN Bonn Climate Conference Demands $300 Billion per Year”
In fact there is no evidence that the Bonn conference made such a demand, or accepted the report in any way. What “substance” is left?

Reply to  WR
May 16, 2017 6:28 am

WR, do you expect Nick to deal with the substance of the report?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 15, 2017 9:24 pm

From the report:
“With the objective of having finance flowing by 2020 at a level of USD 50bn per year, and a vision of scaling up to USD 300 billion per year by 2030.”
Sounds like a demand to me. Perhaps by them calling it an objective confused you?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 15, 2017 9:32 pm

“Sounds like a demand to me.”
Not really. But the question was, who is “demanding”.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 15, 2017 9:47 pm

The demand is being made by the authors of this report which by virtue of the UNFCCC accepting it without qualification means that the UNFCCC endorses the ‘vision’. You should read ‘about the authors’ to understand who the authors are, what their motivations are and how little they know about science.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 15, 2017 9:49 pm

By the sound of it, You are demanding, Nick.
But we expect no less.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 16, 2017 1:22 pm

You are on the right track. The “Heinrich Boell Stiftung” is a political think tank that is founded, owned and directed by the German green party. They usually create the Propaganda for the party by initiating pseudo science studies. They have lots of money and are expanding their footprint to spread their extreme ideas. As it seems they are already in the USA. If the NSA should ever run out of spy objects this would be the perfect candidate.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 15, 2017 9:29 pm

The report clearly is making statements that quite clearly amount to demands that the money be made available. No one said the conference accepted the demands that were being made. Let’s just say that the conference presented no objections to the content of the report, which is bad enough. The report is making false claims about sea level rise issues that no empicial data can substantiate, far from it. As well as claims that global warming is causing droughts, a lie that no one of competence on either side of the issue
believes. Amazingly, the report actually thinks it can estimate the amount og money needed for events which it cannot in any conceivable sense even predict.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  arthur4563
May 15, 2017 9:34 pm

“No one said the conference accepted the demands that were being made.”
The headline
“UN Bonn Climate Conference Demands $300 Billion per Year…”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 15, 2017 9:58 pm

The problem here is that this report is from Reuters, which puts all of its authority and worldwide reach in unquestioning support of this most absurd “research finding”. There is not a lick of doubt in the Reuters release–in fact, the author went to lengths to find positive reinforcement of the “researchers'” findings from the next charity representative in like me at the Bonn buffet.
Now the entire world, right down to your local town newspaper readers, will have the full weight of Reuters confirming the validity of the loss and damages shakedown, complete with a starting price tag.
Mr. Trump, why is the USA still playing in this game??

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2017 12:10 am

Nick Stokes, the retarding element.
Taking care of us like a good mother should do.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2017 12:43 am

Did anyone at the conference speak against the “suggestion” of paying 300 billion per year?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 16, 2017 12:55 am

“Did anyone at the conference speak against the “suggestion” of paying 300 billion per year?”
There is no indication that the researcher’s report was mentioned at the Conference in any way, and I think it is most unlikely. The relevant session is here. It is a conference of government organisations. Neither the report, the authors or the organisation are mentioned in the program. The Foundation was one of 429 registered observer organisations. They can observe.
“Nick Stokes, the retarding element.”
I am again reminded of that WUWT thread
“A prime example of why correct facts don’t matter to … “
Don’t retard us with facts.

tony mcleod
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 16, 2017 4:11 am

More fake-news drivel from Worrel.
Really Eric? You must actually be putting quite a bit of time into concocting this crap.

Reply to  ptolemy2
May 16, 2017 6:29 am

Ah yes, any news you don’t like is fake.
Got it.

Reply to  ptolemy2
May 16, 2017 11:10 am

Poor Nick. The pathos of watching you scrabble around for semantics to help duck the issues is like watching a homeless person foraging for cigarette butts.

Reply to  ptolemy2
May 16, 2017 12:59 pm

Nick and Tony, do either of you support the authors demand for increasing climate reparations to $300 billion per year? Complaining that there was no demand is not an appropriate answer to this question.
If you do agree with them, please enumerate the precise ‘damage’ that would support as little as $1B per year in climate reparations and cite some undisputed science to support your claim.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 16, 2017 2:54 pm

“Nick and Tony, do either of you support the authors demand for increasing climate reparations”
So this story has come down a long way. The headline (still) blares that the UNFCCC in Bonn has demanded $300Bn per year. But there is no reason to believe that the conference had anything to do with the suggestion. Now we’re all supposed to be up in arms because two researchers for a green group have speculated on possible funding mechanisms for repairing climate damage in 2030. I think the world can work that out at the time. I do think it is reasonable that if damage needs to be fixed, citizens can think about how the funds might be raised.

Reply to  ptolemy2
May 16, 2017 3:47 pm

The fact that anything as ridiculous as this has ever seen the light of day is testament to the failure of climate science. If climate science didn’t deny the power of falsification, the UNFCCC, IPCC and associated organizations wouldn’t even need to exist. If you can supply evidence that the UNFCCC doesn’t support the recommendations in this report to diffuse the fact that the report was specifically associated with them, only then will I accept your argument that this is not what they demand either explicitly or implicitly.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2017 12:45 am

Poor Nick. His Asperger’s kicks in and he confuses obsessive deconstruction for substantive analysis. Catch your breath and try actually reading the report in whole. You can do it.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 16, 2017 1:38 am

There is no indication that the
conference accepted or adopted it, or said
anything about 300 billion dollars.

Details, mere details.
If a far-fetched and exaggerated claim written
by an insurance company PR hack who claimed
therein that AGW was causing extreme weather
way back in 2001 can be turned into a “Sky-en-triffic
paper” and be “pal” … ah … “peer reviewed” with
no supporting evidence whatsoever and in the
face of the IPCC itself whose writings at the time
said there was no evidence for it, then why should
you be so concerned about hundreds of billions of
dollars not being “accepted or adopted?”
It’s been said , that’s enough.
We are dealing with … ah … being dealt to by
an organisation of ‘exemplary transparency’ so
as soon as someone spots the lack of documentation,
it will be supplied, with all `demands’ bolded
and the ‘i’s crossed and the ‘t’s dotted. History
will rewritten wherever necessary.
Stay tuned and watch it happen.

May 15, 2017 9:31 pm

The problem with this request is that the money is obvious, in the past it hasnt been that obvious that its all about the money, follow the money. Of course its not just money, its power too…

May 15, 2017 9:34 pm

The USA cannot afford to pay any of this money because of our huge federal debt, huge annual deficits, and huge annual trade deficits. We are a debetor nation and before we even considering helping out with something like ths our federal government needs to pay off all of its debts and we need to start generating trade surpluses. Our federal government is still spending much more money then it is suppose to. Our past leadership came up with a plan that called for matching tax increases with spending cuts. We saw the tax increases but have yet to see the spending cuts. Accordingly our federal government is suppose to be now spending less, not more. The way things are going it will be more than 200 years before the USA is in any possition to help out with something line this. They should try to get the extra money from countries like China and Saudi Arabia and not from debetor nations like the USA.
It seems that the real problem is out of control human population in countires that might be affected by climate change. Climate change has been going on for eons and will continue to go on whether Mankind is here or not. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control so there is nothing that we can do to stop it. Even if we could stop climate change, extreme weather events and sea level rise will continue because they are part of the current climate. The real problem is a too high human population that causes people to live in areas subject to the ravages of climate change. How is this additional money going to be used to solve the real problem?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  willhaas
May 15, 2017 10:57 pm

“The USA cannot afford to pay any of this money because of our huge federal debt”
Debt, schmebt…
Just print it! What’s the worry? We are not stealing our children’s inheritance, they can just print it too!

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 16, 2017 2:00 am

You would think that other nations would become worried about the giant debt owed by the US. But no, the American greenback (USD) is still, by far, the world’s most important reserve currency.
The world loves the USD and pours its money into the USofA whenever it looks like there may be trouble. China is an important creditor nation and yet its importance as a reserve currency is less than that of Canada.

Reply to  willhaas
May 16, 2017 12:47 am

…there is actually no problem with population either. There is a problem with NGOs becoming unaccountable parasites.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
May 15, 2017 9:34 pm

Clearly it’s not enough that these oh-so-green climateers have succeeded in damaging so many world economies via wind turbines and other assorted green dreams.
But this “$300 billion per year on top of the $100 billion already promised” is peanuts compared to now former UNEP head honcho Achim Steiner’s pre-Paris 2015 “case” for the need for trillions:

The trillion-dollar question: How do we create sustainable development?
We need, instead, a very much ‘business unusual’ approach to find and invest the estimated US$90 trillion required between now and 2030 for critical infrastructure in countries that are modernising their economies.
We will also need tens of trillions more annually to invest in people, and the millions of small and medium sized business that represent the world’s primary source of employment.
To reach this goal, we must bridge a very wide gap. The UN Commission for Trade and Development estimates the annual financing gap for developing countries is at least US $2.5 trillion

For more gory details see: UNEP’s trillion-dollar questions

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
May 15, 2017 11:03 pm

For a start they can get the companies like Apple and Google to pay income tax on their expatriated profits. I figure Apple Corp owes Uncle Sam about $75 billion at the moment.
Read “The Panama Papers”. It will tell you about the trillions stashed away in shell companies. They do not need a carbon tax or any other tax. All they have to do is make all investments traceable to their beneficial owners. An annual 20% tax on any increase in net wealth and you have your trillions without taking a dime from the ordinary working Joe(sephine).

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 16, 2017 1:24 am

This assumes that government can/would/will spend the money more wisely than the corporation.
History shows that is seldom the case.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 16, 2017 8:21 am

1) Geoff, you are too optimistic.
2) Crispin, would you be willing to give refunds for any drops in wealth? Or is your greed tax one way only.
3) What is this expatriated profits nonsense? Why do you believe that Apple etc, have an obligation to bring their over seas profits back to the US so that Uncle Sugar can get his cut?
3) I love the way so many people want to solve all problems by increasing the taxes on other people.
4) I love the way so many people assume that the wealthy don’t work, which is how they justify their desire to take the money earned by the wealthy so that it can be spent on them.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 16, 2017 9:02 am

And why should Apple owe Uncle Sam another dime?

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
May 16, 2017 9:15 am

$400 billion is peanuts, indeed. In April 2014 (or 2015 – I couldn’t find the exact article on Goggle; maybe someone else can) at the annual UN, World Bank, IMF (the usual suspects) meeting in New York City, a budget of $90 trillion to be spent over 15 years was proposed to fight climate change.

Reply to  Jan Christoffersen
May 16, 2017 9:39 am

A UN agency stating they need $90 Trillion over 15 years?…. Yes I think we need an authoritative link.
$6 Trillion Dollars per year… ABSURD !!

May 15, 2017 9:36 pm

This need for new cash comes from “Researchers”. If I dispute their “finding” that we are supposed to shovel cash handouts their way does that make me a Science Denier?

May 15, 2017 10:08 pm

The fact that Nick Stokes makes a supportive comment about this fiasco simply highlights the ineptitude of Nick Stokes.

Reply to  toorightmate
May 15, 2017 11:10 pm

While Nick did have a point about the headline being misleading, he seems incapable to control his trollish behavior, making complete fool of himself, again.

May 15, 2017 10:45 pm

How brilliant plan to make the calculations for the cost of the climate catastrophe to meet the numbers in reality.

Reply to  Letraxus
May 16, 2017 4:53 am

Well, you got it first.

Science or Fiction
May 15, 2017 10:52 pm

By its charter United Nations was supposed to:
1.1 To maintain international peace and security…
1.2 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people
1.3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
1.4 To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961
Unfortunately, article 1.3 gives a very wide mandate. In particular as it is interpreted as a mandated to prevent future imaginary problems, or a mandate to strive towards an ideal society in the eye of the bureaucrats. Article 1.3 is the root cause of noble cause corruption.
“The Utopian attempt to realize an ideal state, using a blueprint of society as a whole, is one which demands a strong centralized rule of a few, and which is therefore likely to lead to a dictatorship.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
“It can’t happen here” is always wrong: a dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography
“You cannot have democratic accountability in anything bigger than a nation state.”
– Vaclav Klaus

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Science or Fiction
May 15, 2017 11:05 pm

“You cannot have democratic accountability in anything bigger than a nation state.”
You can if you shrink the world into a neighbourhood.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 15, 2017 11:54 pm

Ah, your friendly neighborhood Carbon College of Collectivism. The only thing real about it is the money they demand.

May 15, 2017 11:01 pm

Relieve the tedium?
I get pretty bored sometimes, Can I have a couple of billion?

Reply to  RoHa
May 15, 2017 11:14 pm

I’ll relieve my tedium for half that!

Reply to  Merovign
May 15, 2017 11:56 pm

Not me–I’m easily bored; I require twice as much (I’m beginning to like this climate theft).

Reply to  Merovign
May 16, 2017 7:14 am

Let’s not start a race to the bottom. We have to maintain some standards!

May 15, 2017 11:42 pm

With the world’s population expected to hit 11 billion + by 2100 , biggest increases seen in the 3rd world countries, I can’t see where the climate losses are.
Since the 1920s deaths from extreme weather have decreased by 95%.

Reply to  richard
May 16, 2017 7:17 am

Yeah… third world population set to boom, so the west has to cut back on everything and fund these coming screaming hungry mouths via money masquerading as saving the planet.
Makes total sense.

Reply to  richard
May 16, 2017 8:24 am

I wish I knew who keeps putting out these fantasy population numbers.
Even the overly pessimistic UN is predicting that the world’s population is going to peak out by 2050 at not much more than 9 billion souls.
A more realistic number prediction is for the population to peak by 2030 at not much more than 8.5 billion.

May 15, 2017 11:44 pm

“The UNFCCC Bonn Climate Conference, due to end in a few days, has accepted a report which demands an additional $300 billion per year on top of the $100 billion already promised by the world’s governments. The cash is to be disbursed via existing green groups, because it is “so tedious” to set up a new UN bureaucracy to spend your money.”
Look up google maps “Bonn, Nordrhein Westfalen to Bielefeld, Nordrhein Westfalen”
That’s that ” UNFCCC Bonn ” – and here’s the last election in Nordrhein-Westfalen:
You’ll see the Greens lost from roughly 12% to roughly 6.5% – they won’t be in the next administration
and have no more staff at all !
So they dearly need Money, Money, Money with next Check or electronic bank transfer – don’t hesitate, just send !

High Treason
May 15, 2017 11:45 pm

What a racket all the climate stuff is. The so-called “rich” countries, which are living high on the hog on money borrowed from the so-called “poor ” nations giving that borrowed money to questionable recipients. It is all an exercise in income redistribution. Only problem is what happens when those working to support the ungrateful hordes get sick of supporting the ungrateful hordes. The massive downing of tools will be the most apocalyptic downfall of humanity-far more than the undebated “global warming” or “climate change” scare.

Reply to  High Treason
May 16, 2017 12:09 am

Well, THIS “rich” country is living high on the hog using money borrowed from a private bank (lender) that hasn’t got it but will certainly charge interest in perpetuity for it.
The bank even uses the assets of the borrower as collateral for their digital loan–imagine that. And if the borrower even tries to become its own bank, agents for the lender will assassinate leaders of the borrower to maintain this “world order”!
No bigger financial scam has ever been perpetrated on humanity.

Reply to  RockyRoad
May 16, 2017 8:10 am

If you want to see who is behind it all in Canada, check out Ecofiscal Canada membership.

Reply to  High Treason
May 16, 2017 8:27 am

I thought the problem with poor countries was they didn’t have any money, so how are the rich countries borrowing it?

Science or Fiction
Reply to  High Treason
May 16, 2017 9:15 am

“But 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 any more.”
Ottmar Edenhofer
About Edenhofer: (From 2008 to 2015 he served as one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III “Mitigation of Climate Change”. Among other functions, he is a member of the OECD Advisory Council “Growth, Investment and the Low-Carbon Transition”, a member of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, a member of the Advisory Committee of the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP), and a member of the German Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech). -wikipedia).

Ron Williams
May 15, 2017 11:50 pm

This is the equivalent of extortion and once you start paying the racketeers, it will never end. The entire premise is a fraud to start with, and these people in charge of doling out the money will steal half the money off the top and waste the other half on pork barrel projects that support their thievery. It is a no win situation once you embark down this path, so it would be best to call a spade a spade and exit stage right ASAP.
This was all laid out as has been noted since day one, that this is a wealth redistribution program that many current NGO’s support including the late Maurice Strong from the Club of Rome/UN infamy who explicitly stated “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
This needs repeating often, and best to do it loudly in the face of these ignorant liars that it ain’t going to happen. Not by these people under false pretenses for trying to destroy the world that we have worked so hard for so long to build up.

Ron Williams
Reply to  Ron Williams
May 16, 2017 7:53 am

Furthermore, it is Taxation Without Representation the way it is currently set up. Let’s not even talk about this hypothetical $300 Billion but lets talk about the $100 Billion already approved under the Paris Agreement. That is the foot in the door to continue the robbery, and increase the amount at every opportunity. It is foreign aid run amok by NGO’s and Environmental movements that will spend/waste the money the way they see fit, not the way an individual country would allocate its foreign aid program. It is a slippery slope to erosion of and finally loss of Sovereignty. Just say No to this type of autocratic trans nationalism.

Reply to  Ron Williams
May 16, 2017 9:20 pm

You’re absolutely correct in identifying the genesis of this scam. It’s amazing how easily the masses can be stampeded over the cliff. We MUST stop this scam pronto.

Chris Hanley
May 16, 2017 12:09 am

I hazard a guess that the Heinrich Boll Stiftung Foundation (child of the German Green Party) would likely benefit greatly from helping to ’channel’ $300 B raised by taxes on financial transactions, fossil fuel extraction taxes, air travel taxes and the like by 2030.
As Nick Stokes suggests it is an ambit claim but the purpose of ambit claims is to subtly shift the Overton window from unthinkable -> acceptable -> policy.

May 16, 2017 12:38 am

The banality of the NGO arrogance is infuriating. Exactly where in the world are these “losses” taking place? Nowhere. So where is the money going? More importantly to whom is this huge amount if money going? NGOs are anti-democratic parasites and the climate mania is their great feeding trough. Please Mr. Trump audit this. Follow the money.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
May 16, 2017 1:09 am

A useful start would be to start demanding that NGOs, which have grown into what effectively are massive corporations exploiting well meaning zero hour contract volunteers with no employee protection rights , need to be held to the same standards as any other large employer. The really big NGO corporations, like Greenpeace, need to have their charitable status rescinded since they are political campaigning organizations and a class action launched by the victims of their vile opposition to golden rice and other life saving innovations. They should also be compelled to hold elective procedures since they claim to act on all our behalf so that any interested person can stand or vote for membership selection to their executive committee.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
May 16, 2017 7:23 am

Greenpeace is serious difficulties at the moment as it is being sued for libel and extortion by Resolute, a Canadian forest products company.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 16, 2017 1:30 am

So simple – they’re possessed by Magical Thinking.
Probably caused by something they ate.
Back in the Real World, would it be possible that any one of these people, in any one of theses reports/press releases/whatever/blahs blahs actually explain the mechanics of this green house gas effect.
Thought not.
Also, in the Real World, what will they buy with this money? You can certainly go the a shop and get a head-ache pill or a sticky plaster, but where exactly does one go the buy a Climate Change Repair Kit?
Are they really so removed from reality not to know that plenty charlatans and general Smooth Talkers will sell them a shed load of whatever they think they want. And those goods/services will be at vastly inflated prices because everyone will know that these folks (the buyers of climate tat like windmills and sunshine panels) have a nearly unlimited pot of money. An unlimited number of open hands will appear to relive them of their ‘burden’
How is it possible they don’t know this?
Can you come up with any better answer than to suggest their thinking has been ‘damaged’ by a mind- altering substance and what could that substance be?
It has to be ‘legal’, very widely available and consumed in copious quantity by almost everyone.
Lets hear it….

May 16, 2017 1:32 am

You should have seen the despicable propaganda on Irish TV last night. Some climate catastrophe disciple showing a farmer a graph of CO2 levels when his grandgather was farming of 300ppm CO2 “Normal” and coloured green, then a graph of today’s CO2 at 400ppm, coloured red and “critical”.

Reply to  Me2
May 16, 2017 3:54 am

HAH !!!! What color will 5000 ppm be:
“A recent report from researchers at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom says that unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (one of the primary “greenhouse gases”) will rise to 900 parts per million by 2100. If emissions remain unchecked until 2400, the concentration could rise to 5,000 parts per million. Such an increase would result in global temperatures higher than anything seen in the past 420 million years.”
This was from a formerly respectable Chicagoland meteorologist.

May 16, 2017 2:45 am

Sounds like taxing poor people in rich countries to line the pockets of rich people in poor countries (like much foreign aid).

May 16, 2017 2:53 am

In my area (I live in Denver, CO) a lot of people start using solar pannels. Solar panels can help to produce renewable energy and hence to limit the warming of the climate. I don’t think that climate change is a myth. At my house I also decided to install new heating system from denver heating and air service http://www.summitheatingco.com/ in CO. I think people should do all possible to mitigate global warming by lowering the emission of greenhouse gases.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  alanz
May 16, 2017 4:10 am

Based upon what scientific evidence that Human emissions of such gases is causing, has caused, & will cause the Earths atmosphere to warm, especially considering that there has been no significant globul warming for nearly 20 years, & even the UK’s Wet Office has stated on record that the Earth is heading for a cooling period for about 35 years due to reduced Solar activity, implying that the Sun can actually do what they’ve told us can’t do for the last 20 years? CYA anyone? PS, don’t rely upon UNIPCC evidence, it isn’t a scientific body, it’s a political body, the clue is in the title!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 16, 2017 4:49 am

I don’t think the Met Office said that Alan:
“Scientists show a decline in solar activity could not halt global warming
Jun 23, 2015 2:36 PM
Return of ‘grand solar minimum’ could affect European and eastern US winters – but wouldn’t halt global warming
A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn’t halt global warming, according to new research.”

Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 16, 2017 11:02 am

Yes Griff and the MO are notoriously reliable in all of their predictions huh?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  alanz
May 16, 2017 6:09 am

Please take the time to go to the nearest international airport and sit there all day for several days. Once you begin to realize the amount of traffic and energy used just by that one airport, then think about the hundreds of airports around the world, you may begin to realize your folly in thinking that your solar panels will have any effect on climate. Life is short, stop worrying about things you cannot change and enjoy it while you can.

Reply to  alanz
May 16, 2017 7:34 am

Do whatever you want with your own money. If you save some cash and it helps you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about “saving the planet”, good for you.

Reply to  alanz
May 16, 2017 8:32 am

The heat generated by the sun hitting those solar panels will cause more warming than the electricity produced by them will eliminate.
I personally couldn’t care less what you think. What I care about are the facts, and the fact is that CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas that is pretty much played out already.

Robert of Ottawa
May 16, 2017 3:26 am

The quoted article is by Goering. How appropriatee.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
May 16, 2017 7:47 am

Writing from one of his/her namesakes’ friends:
Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

May 16, 2017 3:48 am

““It’s so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people. It does make sense to use the existing mechanisms to transfer the money,” ”
The Iraqi “Oil for food program’ unavailable for comment.

Tab Numlock
May 16, 2017 4:30 am

The fossil fuel industry should put a surcharge on their products for the increased crop and forest yields produced by their products as well as the milder weather.

Tom in Florida
May 16, 2017 4:33 am

“The cash is to be disbursed via existing green groups,”.
But the real question is to whom will they distribute the cash? Most of us probably know, it ain’t gonna go where it’s supposed to go.

Bob Lyman
May 16, 2017 4:33 am

There is a deliberate tactic that the CAGW folks use repeatedly and on which they are rarely challenged by a non-critical, non-thinking media. They ask for the stars. Thus do they demand emission reduction targets of 30, 50 , 80 or 100 percent from ever shifting baselines. Thus do they demand billions and trillions of dollars in funds for mitigation and adaptation, all to be paid allegedly by the OECD governments or the businesses in those countries to the cabal of dictators in the developing countries. Just a year ago, the G20 Finance Ministers agreed that $90 trillion would have to be “mobilized” to decarbonize the global economy by 2030 (I.e. $6 trillion per year), with no estimate of what would have to be paid after that. The Government of India has formally stated that the $100 billion per year that is allegedly promised to the Green Climate Fund will not be enough, as India alone wants over $1 trillion. No one seriously thinks that the OECD countries, whose taxpayers are already over-burdened paying for the excesses of spendthrift governments, will pony up this much cash. The environmentalists don’t even believe it. They just think that, if you ask for the stars, someone may be foolish enough to give you the moon.

Keith J
May 16, 2017 4:40 am

How is the UN’s record on humanitarian relief? Rwanda? Somalia? How about murderous dictators? Pol Pot comes to mind. Famine in North Korea?
The UN is corrupt. A good intention which paves the road to hell.

Reply to  Keith J
May 16, 2017 4:51 am

UNEXIT – the sooner the better.

May 16, 2017 4:52 am

From the article: “Funding for such climate “loss and damage” aims to assist people who lose their land to sea level rise, for instance, or are forced to migrate as drought makes growing crops impossible in some regions.”
When that happens, you come see us and we’ll talk. Until then, don’t bother us your delusions.

May 16, 2017 4:58 am

They could just deduct it from Angela Merkel’s salary and Superannuation.

May 16, 2017 5:07 am

I have yet to see, heard or read of any “loss and damage” that can be conclusively tied to climate change, zero, nada, zip, not one. Maybe I missed it. Does anyone have a clear example?

Reply to  CNC
May 16, 2017 5:35 am

“Does anyone have a clear example?”
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say *noone* has a clear example of human-caused climate change being real, or that damage from human-caused climate change has occurred.

May 16, 2017 5:18 am

We could use $500 million to help build refugee camps for Venezuelans fleeing the Maduro dictatorship. It’s a real need for real people running away from Castromadurism.

May 16, 2017 5:27 am

Legalized theft and extortion.

May 16, 2017 5:37 am

There’s 300 billion more reasons for President Trump to dump the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC.

Reply to  TA
May 16, 2017 8:12 am

Just the idea that these people consider or even have such thoughts is reason to dump the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC. The UN in general has passed its expiration date. It is a cesspool.

May 16, 2017 6:09 am

This makes a great bullet point for dumping the Paris Agreement now!

CD in Wisconsin
May 16, 2017 6:09 am

“……Funding for such climate “loss and damage” aims to assist people who lose their land to sea level rise, for instance, or are forced to migrate as drought makes growing crops impossible in some regions……”
If the subtle implication in the statement above is that droughts are getting worse because of climate change, well the graph below says in fact that they are not.
And, from my one reading of the issue, it appears that what appears to be sea level rise in some areas is actually in part land subsidence for a number of reasons. Removing water from an aquifer faster that Nature can replenish it is one of them.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 16, 2017 9:15 am

Things don’t have to get worse. There are droughts at various places on earth every year/decade. They have an army of politicians and academics ready to declare that these naturally occurring events are happening more rapidly than expected. Their statements don’t have to be true. Just last week Obama was in Europe flat-out lying about world agriculture. He can’t possibly be wrong – he was the POTUS! The next IPCC report will certainly double down on all the climate change “events”.
The Syrian migration already has been assigned to drought, and the fund will go Turkey for assisting the mass migration. It is a never-ending circular game that is well-established and designed to continue. Maurice Strong laid it all out decades ago, and PM Trudeau is a big fan of Strong. Canada has already given $2.5B. Not only the adaptation payments, but also the West is expected to absorb millions of “climate refugees”, house, educate and feed them. Billions more spent. France just jumped off the cliff. Australia is doing its best to ruin its economy. Canada is on side. Only Britain and America have a chance of plugging the bucket owing to the size of their economies. Putin and China are laughing.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  R2Dtoo
May 16, 2017 10:50 am

China, especially, since the ‘Finance’ mentioned would only apply to ‘Developing’ countries.

Patrick B
May 16, 2017 6:25 am

List of attendees – 300 pages, includes 7 from the US government – why are we spending money to send these people? why are these people not re-assigned to the Fargo office of paper shuffling? http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2017/sb/eng/PLOP.pdf

May 16, 2017 6:28 am

anyone who still has investments in European companies needs to get their money out of these markets pronto

William Astley
May 16, 2017 6:43 am

We cannot spend money which we do not have.
The socialistic idiots have gotten elected by promising to spend more and more money which we do not have on schemes that do not work.
If we absolute must send an ever increasing portion of our hard earned GDP money to black hole organizations to spend on green scams that do not work, we must spend less money on health care, education, and infrastructure.
i.e. zero-sum gain and lose-lose
The US and almost all of the other developed countries have been running an ever-increasing deficit year by year by year.
Japan and Greece are the deficit winners.
Accumulated Debt in Percentage of GDP (70% was once considered the limit of what a country could manage)
Japan, 250.40
Italy, 132.60
United States, 104.17
Spain, 99.40
France, 96.00
Canada, 91.50
United Kingdom, 89.30
Euro Area, 89.20
India, 69.50
Brazil, 69.49
Germany, 68.30
Netherlands, 62.30
Mexico, 43.20
China, 42.90
Australia, 41.10
South Korea, 37.80
Switzerland, 34.40
Turkey, 28.30
Indonesia, 27.90
Russia, 17.70

David S
May 16, 2017 7:06 am

If they want more money they should get a metal detector and go to the beach.

Bob Kutz
May 16, 2017 7:09 am

This funding needs to stop.
We are giving money to people who marvel at the effectiveness of Hugo Chavez’ regime and who hate capitalism on every level.
Their foray into environmentalism is nothing more than another attempt to destroy freedom and enslave the peasants in the name of equality.
Tell me Al Gore and Hillary Clinton aren’t well aware of this.
Yeah, Spicolli and Michael Moore are probably too stupid to have a clue, but any Democrat or Socialist with an official government position is well aware and on-board with the program. Perhaps pogrom would be a better word.
Frighten the people into surrendering every last morsel of freedom; be it commercial, be it privacy, healthcare, a right to be secure in their own home, whatever. Convince them to give those rights over to a “beneficent” government through fear and, if need be, intimidation.
If 300 billion would cover it, so be it. But its not. Asking for 300 billion is just their way of getting us to open the tap a little further. Unfortunately, this tap is (figuratively) part of the rube goldberg machine that is designed to bring about the socialist utopia that people like Hillary, Castro and Chavez dream about.
Stop the funding.
While we’re at it; kick the useless, corrupt and anti-west/anti-American U.N. out. Make them find somewhere else to spread their filthy leftist dogma and harbor their corrupt socialist leaders.

May 16, 2017 7:30 am

Meanwhile the crematoria at the Syrian prison camp stays hot. Shame on the UN.

May 16, 2017 7:50 am

“…to help people who lose their land and culture…”

Culture? I have a culture of generally trying to be sensible and truthful. That culture already appears to be extinct at the UNFCC, and seems threatened in many other places. Who do I apply to for compensation?

May 16, 2017 8:01 am

My girl friend kicked me out. She was irritable because of the changing climate. Where do I apply for my relocation funds?

Berndt Koch
May 16, 2017 11:05 am

I’m now convinced UNFCC stands for United Narcissists For Climatechange Corruption
(Apologies in advance for having to make Climate Change one word to fit the acronym)

J Mac
May 16, 2017 11:09 am

Think of this as your financial support for the Green Party, to give out Green Stamps to their ‘customers’ as a ‘non-profit’ sharing plan for the AGW believers.
“…A foole and his money is soone parted.” – Dr. John Bridges 1587

Barbara Skolaut
May 16, 2017 12:40 pm

“demands an additional $300 billion per year”
Not only NO, but HELL, NO. Raid your own damned pockets.

May 16, 2017 1:55 pm

Why not keep it simple and just give the $300 billion to Al Gore ?

Climate Heretic
May 16, 2017 2:22 pm

Ristavan (hope I got the name right. Described how to get out of (Paris agreement) UNFCCC via the Palestine clause. I just read an article along similar lines, it did not cover this particular point.[1]
Question is, has anyone sent Trump or his advisers this particular information on withdrawing from this agreement (Paris and UNFCC)?
Climate Heretic
[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwj-sKWxpvXTAhVEVrwKHSuQATMQFgguMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.c2es.org%2FdocUploads%2Flegal-note-could-future-president-reverse-us-approval-paris-agreement.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGFy1VRQPlmLWqAD45eUmtXXU2now&cad=rja

May 16, 2017 3:22 pm

” $50 billion a year would be needed by 2020 to help people who lose their land _and culture_”
If they’re passing out bucks for loss of culture the U.S. should be first in line.

May 16, 2017 7:05 pm

No press coverage of this meeting here in Germany. Had even Problems to find it with Google.
So far on a Bonn City Council website:
8. bis 18. Mai – Jährliche Tagung des Klimasekretariats
Zur Vorbereitung des Weltklimagipfels dient die jährlich in Bonn stattfindende Klimatagung der sogenannten Nebenorgane des UNO-Klimasekretariats. Zur Bonn Climate Change Conference im World Conference Center Bonn werden auch in diesem Jahr wieder rund 2800 Delegierte erwartet.
Yes, it exists, but nobody cares.

May 16, 2017 8:07 pm

There should be specially printed paper money for climate dollars. Make it very thin, soft, and absorbent. Place it on thin cardboard cylinders that unroll the dollars a sheet at a time, … place these rolls in all the bathrooms of the world, and observe as it is flushed down the waste pipes.

May 16, 2017 9:02 pm

The hat’s over the wall, they’ll never get their sticky mitts on the money now.

Warren Blair
May 17, 2017 2:47 am

Solomon Islands and Nauru should provide some of the 300 bn by way of return of climate mitigation funds fraudulently obtained in the past decade. Sea-levels for both are trending down as recorded by satellite altimetry verified sea level data from the past 5-years.

John the Econ
May 19, 2017 12:27 pm

These AGW confabs are nothing more than “spoils conferences”.

Verified by MonsterInsights