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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Newminster, you are a generous fellow, but these data adjusters will flood you with any evidence you like.
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.
I’ll do the same job, only better, for half that amount.
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
Mark
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?”
Lets set up our own fund managing organization.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander;)
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
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!
I like your attitude, HotScot! 🙂
TA
I have lots of attitude. My wife keeps telling me so. 🙂
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.
$100 Trillion is a rounder number. And if world-wide inflation kicks in, that sum should be mere pocket change.
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.
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
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.
As a European, please do not let them do it.
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
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?
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.
Well, look at the bright side, $300 billion a year will buy a lot of conferences flush with hookers and booze.
Booze always helped to ensure I didn’t have to rely on hookers. Vietnam didn’t count.
Been to conferences, got the T-shirts.
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…
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-06/11/CnbbeeE003002_20150611_BNMFN0A001_11n.jpg
Care to let the rest of us in on what you’re thinking?
Oh, never mind…
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”.
Bob Mugabe is a very worthy recipient. His Swiss account is now floundering – under US$100bn.
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?
Cheers
Roger
PS Mind you the note looks large enough for one wipe, be cheaper than buying loo paper I suspect. 🙂
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.
Why not just use exponential notation?
Arithmetic is a wonderful thing.
Good one. We’ll pay them in Zimby Dollars!
Nothing shows prosperity like a crisp new 100 teradollar note .
Nothing wrong with Terran dollars.
The next innovative source of funds should be a tax on climate research.
I think I’ll get a bunch of my
croniesfriends 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?
No one cares about a million. $100 billion, that would make people sit up and take notice.
@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.
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
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 . . .
You’re willing to take a pay cut?
That’s extraordinarily generous of you old chap. 🙂
Piper,
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.
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.
Just be careful not to step on the people around you ROFLTAO.
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
“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.
Nothing like the smell of skimmers skimming other skimmers in the morning. Q: Sugar with that cup of $Billions?
But John: it’s no longer your money. It’s been claimed; those UN zits are already considering it their money.
Well we all know what you should do with a zit…
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.
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.
“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.
The hubris behind a demand supported only by fake science is what’s objectionable here.
So who “demanded”?
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?
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.
” “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.
Do you just nitpick on choice of descriptive words in order to avoid commenting on the substance of the matter?
“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?
WR, do you expect Nick to deal with the substance of the report?
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?
“Sounds like a demand to me.”
Not really. But the question was, who is “demanding”.
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.
http://us.boell.org/2017/05/09/financing-loss-and-damage-look-governance-and-implementation-options
By the sound of it, You are demanding, Nick.
But we expect no less.
@co2isnotevil
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.
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.
“No one said the conference accepted the demands that were being made.”
The headline
“UN Bonn Climate Conference Demands $300 Billion per Year…”
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??
Nick Stokes, the retarding element.
Taking care of us like a good mother should do.
Nick
Did anyone at the conference speak against the “suggestion” of paying 300 billion per year?
“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.
More fake-news drivel from Worrel.
Really Eric? You must actually be putting quite a bit of time into concocting this crap.
Ah yes, any news you don’t like is fake.
Got it.
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.
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 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.
Nick,
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.
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.
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.
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…
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?
“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!
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.
…there is actually no problem with population either. There is a problem with NGOs becoming unaccountable parasites.
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:
For more gory details see: UNEP’s trillion-dollar questions
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).
Crispin,
This assumes that government can/would/will spend the money more wisely than the corporation.
History shows that is seldom the case.
Geoff
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.
And why should Apple owe Uncle Sam another dime?
Hilary,
$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.
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 !!
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?
The fact that Nick Stokes makes a supportive comment about this fiasco simply highlights the ineptitude of Nick Stokes.
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.
How brilliant plan to make the calculations for the cost of the climate catastrophe to meet the numbers in reality.
Well, you got it first.
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.
However,
“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
“You cannot have democratic accountability in anything bigger than a nation state.”
You can if you shrink the world into a neighbourhood.
Ah, your friendly neighborhood Carbon College of Collectivism. The only thing real about it is the money they demand.
Relieve the tedium?
I get pretty bored sometimes, Can I have a couple of billion?
I’ll relieve my tedium for half that!
Not me–I’m easily bored; I require twice as much (I’m beginning to like this climate theft).
Let’s not start a race to the bottom. We have to maintain some standards!
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%.
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.
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.
“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:
http://m.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/a-1146673.html
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 !
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.
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.
If you want to see who is behind it all in Canada, check out Ecofiscal Canada membership.
I thought the problem with poor countries was they didn’t have any money, so how are the rich countries borrowing it?
“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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Greenpeace is serious difficulties at the moment as it is being sued for libel and extortion by Resolute, a Canadian forest products company.
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….
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”.
HAH !!!! What color will 5000 ppm be:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/weather/ct-wea-0508-asktom-20170507-column.html
“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.