One graphic $ays it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund?

Yeah, this is why President Trump said 

“We will cease honoring all non-binding agreements”, and “we will stop contributing to the green climate fund”.

“I can not in good conscience support a deal that harms the United States”.

“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.

“This agreement is less about climate and more about other countries getting a financial advantage over the United States”.

The United States contributed $1 billion to the global Green Climate Fund, but the world’s top polluters contributed nothing, David Asman reported.

via Fox news here

Advertisements

246 thoughts on “One graphic $ays it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund?

    • The world DID love us, until Trump cut off the gravy train. I think maybe you can buy love!

      • We don’t need that kind of fake love. What we need is respect. But if we can’t get that (from the likes of North Korea, Iran, etc.), fear will do.

      • ‘The world DID love us, until Trump cut off the gravy train.’

        I disagree completely – the attitude was more like ‘I can’t believe you haven’t given us more… what a @#$%%!!’

        I tried to explain Progressivism to a friend’s college-age kid. I had him give me $20 out of his wallet, and then I gave it to his sister, and said, “See? HE wasn’t going to give it to you! What a jerk!”

        Then I turned to his sister and said, “You’re welcome.”

    • China and India, as least, expected to be recipients of funds from the Green Climate Fund, along with at least 68 other nations in the Group of 70.

      Too bad. So sad.

      • I doubt China — the world’s leading emitter of CO2 — ever expected to get a single yuan from the Climate Fund. I think they are mostly trying to deflect criticism for their contribution to rising CO2 levels for as long as possible. Given luck they may be able to get away with that for a couple of decades. By which time, they will be running out of coal and will be able to point to their then declining CO2 emissions (as a result of running out of stuff to burn) as a sign of their commitment to saving the planet.

        Not a criticism of China or India BTW. I think they are doing what any sane national leadership who cared about their people would do given the enormous problems they face in increasing the standard of living of their vast and largely impoverished populations.

      • Concerning adaptation, the group focuses on the challenges that its members are facing in adapting to a changing climate and calls for support from the developed countries for loss and damage. G
        -77 and China see financial support, technology transfer and capacity building
        as important pillars of the international response to climate change.

      • “Concerning adaptation, the group focuses on the challenges that its members are facing in adapting to a changing climate and calls for support from the developed countries for loss and damage.”

        Oh really! What challenges are those? What loss and damage can anyone attribute to ‘climate change’, much less ‘man-made climate change’? There is no change in the rate of sea level rise. There is no change in the frequency of severe weather of any kind. Growing seasons are slightly longer and the increased CO2 in the air is making the planet greener and increasing crop yields.

        Making false damage claims to an insurance company is illegal and a form of theft. Sometimes, making false claims can be ridiculously funny.

      • Don K — China’s goals in the Paris Treaty are very clear. They want to embrace all of the industry which has to close down in the West so that they can export the products to the West without any ramifications in the treaty.

        In other words, they want to be able to produce wind turbines at the lowest cost and sell them to any nations who are receiving money from the Green Climate fund.

        When they have obligations under the Paris treaty, they will probably simply back out (or they will ignore it.) As long as they are in the treaty, they get to be the “good guys”, even though the goal of participation is to screw over the rest of the world.

      • List of expectant climate welfare recipients: https://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/countries/nda-directory
        List of climate welfare contributors: https://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized

        China and India expect to receive welfare. Russia is on neither list.

        Total pledges to date: $10 billion. The way contributions will be “enforced” is through peer pressure. Which means that those not living up to their “fair share” pledges will be publicly shamed.

        No doubt the welfare spending will be accounted for in accordance with UN standards. In other words expect massive waste and corruption.

      • Well one of the problems of both of those countries can be seen quite visibly in Silicon Valley; particularly Sunnyvale. You seldom see younger women from those countries walking down the Streets of Sunnyvale, without a baby carriage, often with two occupants. They are quite commonly seen in pairs walking together. They of course are circumventing the intent of the H1B visa to provide a limited time work project in the USA, followed by a return to where they came from, after performing the job the company told the Feds, that they couldn’t fill with an American worker.
        Well I can’t fault the individual for doing what is in their own self interest. They of course bring their parents and their grandparents, who then become Social Security recipients from a fund they never paid a dime into.
        But the USA, and a lot of other countries are simply vast unpopulated areas for the continuation of the behaviors that have created poverty and misery in the third world to begin with.
        Elimination of the H1B visa should be a trump goal as well.
        I have no problem with replacing H1B visas, that are given to companies; NOT individuals, with a regular green card immigration visa that is given to the individual, so they are not working as indentured slaves, afraid to complain they cannot afford to live in Silicon Valley.

        G

      • China, with Mongolia next door, is not going to run out of coal for a few centuries.

    • But what are the contributions to date of the EU countries? Canada? Japan? Australia? New Zealand?

      I’d be particularly interested in the contributions of Germany, France and Italy.

      • I see that the US has pledged $3B of which $.5B has been paid. The remaining $2.5B is “subject to the availability of funds”. Has Trump reneged on this amount or does he intend to pay it?

      • scraft1 June 3, 2017 at 2:42 pm
        I see that the US has pledged $3B of which $.5B has been paid. The remaining $2.5B is “subject to the availability of funds”. Has Trump reneged on this amount or does he intend to pay it?

        No. Trump hasn’t reneged on anything.
        OBAMA pledged that amount
        Send him the bill.
        I’m sure the Clinton Foundation will be more than happy to cover what he reneges on.

      • scraft1,
        To be clear, the US will not contribute the remaining 2.5 billion dollars that was ‘pledged’ by the previous President. The Paris Climate Agreement is just that; a ‘handshake agreement’, with photo op and press release (!), that has no weight in law. For this agreement to be considered a ‘treaty’ with the force of law, the US Congress would have to ratify it as such and that did not happen. This also means that any suggestion that the US is restricted from withdrawing for 3 (or 5) years are false. We can walk away at will and apparently just did.

      • Scraft … “Has Trump reneged on this amount or does he intend to pay it?”

        Well my guess would be that you already have your answer.

      • Amount pledged is a lot different than actually give. In fact, it’s typical to get a small fraction of what was actually pledged. Scraft, Trump is under no obligation to give anything as it wasn’t a treaty under American law. In fact, Obama had to legally defend his actions in giving that first group, as it was of questionable legality.

      • scraft1 June 3, 2017 at 2:42 pm
        I see that the US has pledged $3B of which $.5B has been paid.

        My reading is that a second tranche of $0.5B was paid a few days before Obama finally left office.
        Sort of furtively.
        Geoff.

      • ” Has Trump reneged on this amount or does he intend to pay it?”

        A guy’s wife signs an agreement with her lovers pledging to give them so much money per year, and actually does give them a huge amount out of the couple’s joint bank account. The husband finds out and divorces her.

        Is it clear yet?

      • The contribution of New Zealand, would of course include providing food towards those impoverished third world countries so that they don’t have to address their basic problem, which is over population.
        And NZ is a net carbon sink; not a source. So is the USA. So NYET on Paris Swilling.

        G

    • Ammo for Trump administration – Greenhouse gas effect not valid
      file:///C:/Users/Shawn/Downloads/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

      • Yep, it’s even worse than Trump portrayed it. As far as I can tell, the scam is that the U.S. borrows the money from China, sends the money to Europe, they skim money off for “administrative services”, and use the rest to build solar panels –bought from China– in Africa for electricity to be sold back to Europe. Sounds like a win, win, win for China, a win, win for Europe, a win for Africa, and a loss, loss, loss for the U.S.

        How 44 got away with this is the perplexing part.

      • “And given to the UN without the approval of Congress.”

        And now you see the similarities of Brexit and the new POTUS.

        The EU is just the testbed for The UN. Both now formally rejected by ‘The Anglosphere’.

  1. $500 million of the US $1 billion was illegal. It violated PL 103-236 passed in 1994, because the UNFCCC (Green Climate Fund is under UNFCCC) recognized Palestine as a member state in April 2016.

      • Withdrawing from UNFCCC on one years notice is the only way to exit the GCF as Trump promised. GCF is under UNFCCC separate from Paris (Korean HQ was set up in 2010). And Article 25 section three, as well as Paris Article 28 section three, both make clear that UNFCCC exit is automatically also Paris exit. One year from written notice to UNFCCC. Not the near four years of Paris Article 28 sections 1 and 2.

      • The president has suggested that ‘Paris accord’ could be renegotiated in order that the USA economy is not penalised unfairly and out of all proportions .
        On the other hand the President may not wish to blatantly break off from an international agreement entered into by the previous democratically elected president.
        One way out of this could be:
        a) Make it known that it is up to the U.S. Department of Energy, as it sees fit, to ‘follow’ the CO2 reduction directive for the period of the notice (one year?)
        b) Immediately defer any future payments to various related funds until the new agreement is reached.

        Europe & China said they are not interested in renegotiating the ‘Paris accord’ and that is fine by the President.
        If renegotiations are opened at some future date it might take years to come to any agreement, by then Trump may well be into his second term. It will be up to the (very sensible) current vice president Pence to conclude and implement any new accord, if elected to the office in 2024, that is.

      • Why withdraw from one UN scam, why not withdraw from all of them? We could send them packing and give the building to Trump so he could turn it into condos.

      • TA, good question. The answer lies in UNFCCC Article 4(3), pursuant to which the GCF was set up at the Copenhagen COP. 4(3) says that Annex 2 countries SHALL provide new and additional funding to cover developing country climate change costs (google UNFCCC text and you can download the text in several languages including English). So funding is mandatory under international law, in a convention approved by US congress. So Tuvalu and Kiribati can sue the US in federal court to demand money.
        Now this section does not say how the Annex 2 countries split up the ‘bill’, but it does say the developing countries can present one that has to be paid. And Paris Accord, while not mandatory, says the bill is supposed to be $100 billion/yr by 2020. And US as largest Annex 2 economy by far, would undoubtedly mean footing the by far largest portion of the bill. Trump’s team undoubtedly knows this. Which is why he pulls us out. The mechanism has to be exiting UNFCCC.

      • “The mechanism has to be exiting UNFCCC.”

        Well, now you have me thinking you are right. It’s looks like the U.S. could at the least be hauled into court over this and probably be found liable. We don’t need any of that stuff. We’ve had enough bad experiences with courts in the past.

        This will be interesting. I want to see how Trump juggles the GCF and the Palestinian issue.

      • Ristvan. “So funding is mandatory under international law, in a convention approved by US congress.” What convention is that? Is it separate from the Copenhagen and Paris mechanism?

        In any event, I assume payment can be avoided by exiting UNFCCC. That’s the whole point of Trump’s action.

        If there’s a formal mechanism for exiting and thus avoiding legal responsibility for payment, then we shouldn’t feel morally obligated to do anything. But are we “morally” responsible for $2.5B?

      • Scraft1, the UNFCCC convention to which the US is a signatory was ratified by Congress as a Congressional Pact under Bill Clinton on 24 March 1994. Google is your friend. Those facts took about 30 seconds to research. And the internet is why warmunists cannot win in the end.
        Separately, the 4(3) provision says SHALL. That is a legally binding obligation under both international and US law. See explaining comments just a bit upthread in this comment stream for details. Please learn this stuff, skeptics. I get tired of repeatedly teaching facts with references.

      • As for being hauled into court by Tuvalu, if we formally exited an arrangement that was never be ratified by Congress, I don’t see how we can be legally responsible after we exit.

        I’m still stuck on Ristvan’s comment that we owe money under an approved convention. I assume that doesn’t apply if we exit UNFCCC.

      • Scraft1. If we remain, we owe. If we exit, we do not. Reason is, UNFCCC WAS approved by Congress under Clinton. So yes, the only legal avoidance mechanism is to exit UNFCCC. Which will send warmunists even more apoplexic than just exiting Paris. Trump was very clear and precise once you understand the specific legal background. Most do not, yet. They will, hehe.

      • “Please learn this stuff, skeptics.” I dunno, Ristvan, I like having you as my lawyer. And you’re doing a good job.

        But seriously, folks, the “shall pay” obligation would appear to apply only to the remaining $2.5B U.S. pledge, and that would be limited to the “funds available” language of the pledge. I would expect that we will consider these funds “unavailable”.

      • “For the US, it came into force 4 Nov 2016:”

        Only as an excuse for the sitting president to direct funds to it through various mechanisms. That IMO is why the EU is so cheesed that Trump refused to sign it. If was already in force, why would the sitting president need to sign it?

      • Notice that the day “of force” is Nov 4, which is the day the US elects its president. Why they didn’t choose inauguration day when a new president assumes power, I don’t know.

        Also, notice that the accord (supposedly) remains in force for exactly 4 years, the term of a US president.

      • Well the democratically elected President, who made this deal without the Congress, was replaced by an equally democratically elected President, who was given a mandate to undo all of the Scorched earth policies of his predecessor.

        Check the USA red/blue map colored by COUNTIES.

        G

      • Cleanest is to demand the money back. Next cleanest is withhold $500 million from rest of UN 2017 funding and let UN sort it out amongst themselves.

      • I like that approach best, ristvan. Meanwhile, I believe the Trump administration is evaluating all other deals in which the UN is holding a knife to our collective throats.

    • Any way Obama could be made personally responsible for this? Clearly inappropriate, personal spending of public money!
      I am not an American and don’t live in US, but I happen to own a small part of your wonderful country, and I have on and off made substantial investments in the IRS, and to me his latest payment appears absolutely reckless!

      • RPT, dunno cor sure. Have not researched it, but pro Sitting presidents are immune save for impeachment (Arricle 2 section 4 of Constitution) and at the time he was sitting president. Too late for impeachment as a high crime or misdemeanor, even tho ‘stealing’ $500 million probably qualifies.

      • Ristvan, but Obama is no longer a sitting President and what he agreed to bind the nation to was never presented to the Nation’s elected reprsentatives for approval.
        The present President has said “Nuts” to it.
        Same Executive Branch “authority” Obama which has been abused for scores of years to “just say ‘NO!'”

        PS it would be nice if Trump used the abuse by the Executive Branch of the “Balance of Powers” to right the balance then closed the loopholes that allowed it to happen in the first place.

        PPS Most think there are 3 branches that are to rule the US Government. There are really 4, the 4th being the original Bill of Rights.

      • Wow. Messed up this sentence.
        How about:

        “Same Executive Branch “authority” Obama used, which has been abused for scores of years, Trump used to “just say ‘NO!’”

  2. Way to go Mr. Watts! I can say how thrilled I am at some kick-ass behavior by our president. Got myself yelled at as a “Republican propagandist” for even mentioning a win for science…by a Brit lefty!!!… told her “HARD SCIENCE IS HARD SCIENCE” no matter what you call me, it’s not ‘consensus’, and sent her the link to Michael Crichton’s 2003 talk, AND posted your site pages on this topic. She will never will read it.

      • I’m sure there must be a “Moscow” somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.
        (If not, time for an adjustment to the records!)

      • The global warming scientists have a terrible record with predictions, but occasionally they will be right, much as a broken clock is right twice a day.

      • Hey kokoda, when did you get picked as most deplorable? There’s a bunch of us that were hoping to get that tattooed on our derrieres.

      • probably an Aussie with that handle…..they are pretty deplorable, you will need to dig deep :-)

  3. President Trump will go down in History as the most significant,Successful President In History.
    Thank you Mr President Sir.

      • Trump’s Aims:

        Anti-terrorist, anti-Communist, anti-Progressive, anti-Leftist, anti-Globalist.

        Those 5 items will Make America Great Again, although the list could be expanded greatly.

        (Let’s just say just about everything Obama did will be countermanded, including denigration of our police force.)

    • “President Trump will go down in History as the most significant,Successful President In History.
      Thank you Mr President Sir.”

      ROTFLMAO…here in reality it will be closer to the exact opposite.

  4. One trillion of the four trillion-dollar US federal budget is deficit spending or borrowed. Congress and administrations have shirked their duty, ie passing balanced budgets instead of continuing resolutions, Taxpayers would never have voted for four trillion dollar budgets, so our out of control central regime merely made up the “money” out of thin air, or borrowed it. This is robbery of the citizens elected officials are supposed to serve.

    It’s why the federal debt doubled under Obama to a staggering $20 trillion. Thus federal spending must be cut by a trillion dollars a year, taxes raised by that amount, or some of each.

    We can start by ending subsidies for “renewables” as well as the good first step of pulling out of the Paris accord.

    • Gabro, you hit the nail on the head. Our debt/deficit is the number one problem facing America. Yet the national discussion focuses on irrelevancies like Russian hookers, Russian interference, and transgender bathrooms. Responsible adults need to take over management of our nation. Trump is off to a good start. Hopefully, while the media is off chasing rainbows and Russians, that Trump can actually get his agenda through.

      And how in the world does it make any sense for American to borrow more money from China, just to give it back to China under some misguided climate agreement?

      • Yup, the insanity has to stop. And it will, one way or another. Pay me now or later. Either we start getting our fiscal house in order with minimal pain now or suffer crash and devaluation later.

        As the world’s reserve currency, the dollar’s collapse will drag everyone else down with it. We’ve held up better than some other currencies during the race to debase only because we’re slightly less indebted than some and because of our reserve status.

      • Gabro, Simple pass a law that taxes Congressmen and Senators at 100% on all earnings if they fail to pass a balanced budget when required, until such time as they pass a balanced budget. It puts some ‘skin in the game’.

      • Ian,

        That would be the civilized way to go. Better than shooting them if they fail to do so, I guess.

      • Agree Gab/Koz. And it’s interesting the two communist countries with the largest armies–China and Russia–are getting a bye amid the big fleece This Paris cluster is all about impoverishing America and using the nation’s dollars to do it. You know, an insider’s joke to titillate the boys behind the curtain. The City, who owns/controls the fed and the UN (and another 150 other fed’s located in resource-rich countries around the world that print the same kind of paper-whatever’s for those countries) and their banker-controlled dollars to convert the U.S. from a capitalist country to a communist country. Figaro or whatever her name is that was in charge of the UN’s climate something said it outright. Meanwhile everyone continues to separate fly specs from pepper, sand from salt ARGUING ABOUT A SCAM. Soros Inc., dearly departed David R., THE GOLDMAN SACH’S, Chase’s, et al are foot soldiers for the London Bankers who own the feds, D.C., the UN, and the Vatican, and who, it’s estimated, control two-thirds of the world’s wealth. Struck me odd that Goldman went down and covered communist Venezuela’s bonds? And how/why Castro stayed in power so long with billion or so in walking around money? But maybe Fidel caught a break when the mission to take his six plane (or whatever) Cuban air force out a day or so before the ex-pats hit his beach that left them and their supply ships with no air cover was cancelled, thanks to “an unintended decision” from the bowels in Washington.

        President Trump knows the tracks are being removed. Getting the train stopped in time will be a tougher and greater achievement than any other president ever faced, IMO. He has millions supporting him that are plugged into the bigger picture now, Anthony, thanks to you and the readers at this site.

    • UNEP

      ‘Feed-in Tariffs as a Policy Instrument for Promoting Renewable Energies and Green Economies in Developing Countries’

      PTC vs. Feed-in Tariffs as methods of accomplishing the transition to green economies.

      The U.S. adopted the PTC/Production Tax Credit as means of accomplishing this goal and Ontario adopted the Feed-in Tariff to accomplish this.

      Document has a history of Feed-in-Tariffs along with an explanation of what the PTC is.

      122 pages at:
      http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/submissions_from_parties/adp/application/pdf/unep_us___ws2.pdf

    • @ Gabro “One trillion of the four trillion-dollar US federal budget is deficit spending or borrowed. Congress and administrations have shirked their duty, ie passing balanced budgets instead of continuing resolutions, Taxpayers would never have voted for four trillion dollar budgets, so our out of control central regime merely made up the “money” out of thin air, or borrowed it. This is robbery of the citizens elected officials are supposed to serve.

      It’s why the federal debt doubled under Obama to a staggering $20 trillion. Thus federal spending must be cut by a trillion dollars a year, taxes raised by that amount, or some of each.”

      Actually it’s not why the national debt increased under Obama that was a direct result from the economic downturn in 2008 which then turned into a global recession. Had you actually studied global financial crisis history you would have learned that countries that experience major financial crisis see an increase in the national debt on average by 50% in the years following the event. It’s not an anomaly but a economic fact and has been documented and witnessed in EVERY SINGLE country in the world that has experienced such. And if you think that reducing federal spending during the deleveraging process is a good idea there’s no hope for you.

      That being the case the increase in the debt would have occurred regardless who or what party has control of the WH or Congress as it’s not a function of policy in terms of over-spending. From 2001 to 2009 the unfunded liabilities exploded from over $60T to over $220T.

      • Oh but what is the actual number?

        The per person figure is disengenuous. It attempts to claim that the US is not actually paying our fair share . Only look at the population of Sweden, Luxembourg, and Norway. Those three counties have tiny populations and that means the actual amount each country pays is not that much.

        I would like to see the times post a graph showing actual dollar amount contributed.

      • If the Germans fully funded their military would they have $420 million to donate?

        that is if the Germans had not cost shifted the burden of the maintenance of NATO to the U.S. would they have anything left over to virtue signal with?

      • Who cares about the per-person numbers? We’re “donating” twice what the next largest “donor” is giving.

        And how the heck did Obama manage to ALREADY send them $1 billion? That ain’t chump change. How did he get the money?

      • LAMONT

        As a Norwegian I am thrilled to see confirmation that the Swedes are as always the even bigger fool (marginally though!), but as I also pay tax in US, from a personal perspective I feel even more stupid.

      • Thanks Gabro for providing the above “Gullibility Graph”, I see here in the UK we’re the 5th most gullible nation! The main thing that worries me – is there an audit trail? Where has the money gone and who has received it? You will probably find that a “Gullibility Graph” of nations for the Nigerian prince email scam would probably produce the same results with the money going to similar recipients!

      • How has the Green Climate Fund monies been spent? What are their internal budget numbers? How much are their executives and consultants paid? How much money is the Fund “donating” to NGOs?

        Translated, “Follow the money?”

        This agency is ripe for either a GAO audit (assuming that that the GAO still has the capability of doing an independent audit after 8 years of the previous administration) or some solid investigative reporting. The problem with the latter point is that the MSM is sorely lacking in the will to do serious reporting and and are staffed by opinion writers masquerading as journalists.

      • How have the funds been spent? Mercedes sales have increased dramatically in many African recipient nations.

      • Hot under Collar, google GCF and then go into GCF details. As of now, of the about $7 billion actually given GCF, about $6 billion has been spent estabishing the GCF, offices, and staffing up, and about nothing yet has been spent on climate mitigation. You cannot make this stuff up. Google GCF and check it out yourself. Its all on their website if you dig deep enough.

      • Do your back of the envelop math for that graph. US population is ~323 million, at $9.41/per person it come out to 3 billion. The numbers are not adding up.

      • Darrin,

        It’s the amount pledged, not delivered to date. US pledge was for three billion USD. Obama actually gave one third of that total.

      • “As of now, of the about $7 billion actually given GCF, about $6 billion has been spent estabishing the GCF, offices, and staffing up, and about nothing yet has been spent on climate mitigation. ”

        Incredible. They are almost as good as Oxfam at deviating funds.

        Bureaucracy at its best.

      • Ristvan , I cant see any breakdown of budget on the GCF site, although the number of conferences, symposiums and workshops is mind boggling as the the description in some of the recruiting. It is a full on snouts in the trough fest.

      • Americans are stingy warmongers, while the Swedes are peace-loving, generous and really care about the environment, huh? WRONG!

        This graphic is fake news. Sweden can only afford to put $59/person into this environmental bucket because they have always refused to put their share into the defense bucket, and the United States picks up the slack for them and almost every other EU country, and many other countries around the world.

        I ran the numbers from a set of data between 2001-2012 and found that Sweden ran an average annual defense deficit of 0.575%.* In just those years, Sweden shorted the defense fund by over $61 billion, or about $6,000 per person. THAT’S OVER 100 TIMES WHAT THEY DONATED TO THIS ENVIRONMENTAL FUND!

        And that just represents 12 years of theft. We Americans have been footing the bills for Sweden and almost all other European country for many generations. And it’s high time we stopped.

        *Source: militarybudget website

      • Oops! I was unclear.

        When I said that Sweden ran a defense deficit of 0.575%, what I meant was that they should have paid 2% of their GDP but only paid 1.425%. Sweden shorts their defense obligations by about 29% every year.

        Here’s another way to look at how “generous” Sweden is. In just the next 6 weeks, they will short their defense obligations by more money than the total amount they paid into this environmental fund.

        IS IT ANY WONDER THAT EUROPEAN LEADERS WERE CURSING AT TRUMP FOR SAYING THAT AMERICA NEEDED TO STOP PAYING THEIR BILLS?

    • “Gabro June 3, 2017 at 11:10 am”

      Based on per-capita figures are misleading given the fact there are only ~65 million people in Britain and ~350 million in the USA.

      • I know. But you can multiply to get the whole amount.

        Or look at the link I posted later as to various nation’s pledges.

  5. Graphics are almost always biased. While true, it would be more informative to note other contributors, not second world economies. Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not Wisdom. Seek wisdom.

    • Note the craziness. Peru, Bolivia and Argentina are natural gas-rich. Nigeria is oil-rich. India is a major CO2 producer.

      Zany.

    • I don’t think that map is complete. Obama sent something like $50 million to Asia right before he left office, to fix CAGW there.

      • TA it was $500 million and it went to Korea because that is where the GCF is headquartered. And as noted above he did it in violation of a longstanding 1994 US law prohibiting it after April 2016 when UNFCCC recognized Palestine as a full member of the Convention.

      • The $500 million is a different expediture, Rud.

        Here is the expenditure I was referring to:

        http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/millions-more-for-global-climate-change-in-obamas-final-months/

        “The Obama administration is attempting to slip in another pricey climate-change initiative before Donald Trump takes office, potentially costing U.S. taxpayers another $90 million if it survives its unveiling – in Asia – next month.

        And that’s just the newest attempted infusion of cash to climate-related programs, several of which hang in the balance as the administration continues to review industry bids on separate projects launched in recent months.

        The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, on Dec. 13 released a draft document governing the latest proposed program, which aims to help the region to “mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses caused by climate-induced events.”

        USAID Resilient Cities Asia, as the initiative is known, would add yet another layer to the many dozens of U.S.-funded climate-related programs already under way in nearly 50 nations.”

        end excerpt

        I don’t know if any money was actually spent on these projects or if Trump managed to stop the spending. Will have to look a little deeper.

  6. Is there any reason why a private citizen couldn’t contribute to the Green Fund? If not, what is stopping our rich alarmists?

  7. When half of the Indian population has to ‘go’ in the fields it would seem obvious that climate is the least of their worries.

    “Just building toilets is not going to solve the problem, because open defecation is a practice acquired from the time you learn how to walk. When you grow up in an environment where everyone does it, even if later in life you have access to proper sanitation, you will revert back to it,” says Sue Coates, chief of Wash (water, sanitation and hygiene) at Unicef.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27775327

    Bad habits abound.

    • Your link is from June 2014. A lot has happened since then …

      But giving people access to toilets isn’t enough. You also have to persuade them to use the toilets. That’s the second key to Clean India, and in some ways it is even harder than the first. People can be reluctant to change old habits.

      Clean India has ingenious ways of tackling that problem. In some communities, groups of children band together to call out people who are defecating in the open and encourage them to use public toilets instead. In a pilot project that will be expanded next year, the government worked with Google so users in 11 cities could search online for the nearest public toilets, get directions, and read reviews by other users. On streets throughout the country, billboards remind passers-by of the mission. Stars from Bollywood films and cricket teams speak out on TV and radio. Even India’s currency features the Swachh Bharat logo.

      The hard work is paying off. Today more than 30 percent of Indian villages have been declared free of open defecation, up from 8 percent in 2015. (You can track the progress on this handy dashboard.) http://sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/Default.aspx

      https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Indias-War-on-Human-Waste

      This video says it all.

      • They’re using U.S. currency for toilet paper because it keeps arriving by the boat load!

      • I remember a cultural adjustment seminar where we were briefed on cultural sensitivity of visiting Indians (outsourcing deal) with specific mention of toilet habits. One attendee asked if the Indians were getting cultural sensitivity training as well……crickets

      • “In some communities, groups of children band together to call out people who are defecating in the open and encourage them to use public toilets instead.”

        So one of the “ingenious ways to tackl[e] that problem” is having children form gangs and publicly shame their neighbors. Sounds a bit like bullying to me…

        In all seriousness, I do think that open defecation is a problem for a multitude of reasons. I am not sure that public shaming of individuals is a good way to get the masses on board. I suspect actual education that addresses people’s concerns would be more effective. (I have read that one reason people resist using toilets/latrines is a belief that it is unsanitary to have so much human waste in one confined place.) If no one bothers explaining why public toilets are a better option and the negative effects of open defecation, people are not going to change their habits. “Because I said so” generally only works for parents, and even they do not always win.

    • Any country where the prevailing religion worships a cow and the government proclaims it to be a crime to butcher one for food, the people should go hungry and live without modern western sanitary facilities. Otherwise change the government or religion.

      • Any country where the prevailing government allows the practitioners of a religion to drink the blood (vampire) of their god and eat the body of their god (cannibalism) should be abolished. Otherwise change the government or religion.

      • The Pope and the Church of CACA both favor child sacrifice. They are the enemies of humanity, with the blood of millions, if not tens of millions, on their filthy hands.

      • eyesonu, in India you can see numerous cows in the cities literally eating garbage. Believe me, you would not want to eat the meat from such an animal.

  8. As usual, follow the money. No wonder there’s so much hootin’ and hollerin’ from the green side.

  9. As with most “dogooder” programs, a considerable portion of the funds involved are sure to stick to the advocates and administrators of the programs.

    • Might more appropriately be spelled “dog odor” programs, Tom. But you are right. As with all contributions to the U.N. and other foreign programs and charities, you can count on the first 75% to 80% (if you’re lucky) being skimmed off the top.

  10. “The United States contributed $1 billion to the global Green Climate Fund, but the world’s top polluters contributed nothing, David Asman reported.”

    The world’s top polluters? Someone tell him that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

  11. I get a kick out of the cities that say they are committed to remain in the Paris Agreement
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pittsburgh-mayor-pledges-to-adhere-to-paris-agreement/article/2624732

    So if Pittsburgh wants to carry on its commitment what would that be? Well the US, through Obama, pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund and to date the US has paid $1 billion so that leaves $2 billion remaining.

    If we allocate the remaining portion to individual cities then Pittsburgh’s obligation based on their population would be, according to 2016 census data, $1.9 million. (305K Pitts to 322M US) They can make their check payable to the Green Climate Fund. I’m sure the voters will appreciate it.

    The city must also make its best efforts to close all the coal mines it can. That should go over well too.

    • Under the Constitution, Article I, Section 10 specifically prohibits States from entering into foreign treaties. Because States do not have that power, it seems logical that cities which receive their charters from their respective State, do not have that power either. However, as the Constitution no longer means what it says, it appears that cities can do whatever they please these days.

      Jim

  12. Wow, what a stark example of progressives mendaciously overvaluing intentions.
    The US contribution balances with the China, Russia and India intentions?
    Progressive math.

  13. China and Russia have failed to pay up breaching the Agreement . The USA tax payers are owed a full refund and then shut down the Green Climate Fund globalization slush fund . Who is siphoning off that fund now . Lets see there audited books. The Obama bandits spied on USA citizens then stole $1 Billion dollars of tax payers money to support a massive fraud .
    Sue the Green Climate Fund if they don’t return the money immediately . By the way where is that cash anyway ?
    Singapore ? South Korea ? Who has authority over it ? The Tax payers rights have been ripped off by this fraudulent scheme and the culprits need to be charges for wire fraud .

  14. It’s funny how if you go around giving away money, everyone thinks you are a great guy and a great leader. If you don’t, well then you are a bum. Go figure.

    • It’s redistribution of wealth. The Pope says it’s good.
      Take money from poor people in rich countries and “redistribute” it to rich people in poor countries.
      If you are against wealth distribution then you are a r@cist.
      Got it?

  15. China is making its contribution outside the GCF. The amount is larger than the US pledge:

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/china-climate-change-finance-obama-xi-pledge

    EU wants India to contribute(India hasn’t yet)

    http://www.livemint.com/Politics/Nb1BnGE06tuW2E4FMjjzPN/EU-wants-India-to-contribute-to-the-UN-Green-Climate-Fund.html

    Russia is on the board of the GCF and has said it will contribute(hasn’t yet)

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/rus/05r.pdf
    https://sputniknews.com/environment/201412151015878709/

    Here are GCF’s pledges and contributions:

    http://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

    Total disbursement to GCF to date is about $85B. Japan’s is particularly large – about $77B of that.

    • Thanks for the posting. I was wondering what that whiny sound emanating from Western Europe was, and now I know: it was the medieval double-reeded, hurdy-gurdy-like instrument called the “sanctimonium” – the one popularized by itinerant jongleurs and acrobats who performed standing on their heads to draw a crowd before the shoeless black friars would stand up and orate upon the people’s heretical undercurrents.

      Indulgences sold on admission; redemptions sold at the exit.

      • JohnMacdonell June 3, 2017 at 10:45 pm

        I wasn’t sure if you understood the content of your own post or I would have spoken more to the point of Japan’s contribution (i.e. $77 B? / 7 B? / 700 M?), still outsized by any measure.

      • Yeah, I goofed on Japan’s contribution – but I have it right now.

        I agree Japan’s contribution is pretty big given its size/population.

  16. Apparently the newly-formed US Climate Alliance intends to fight “climate change” on their own. Talk about ultra virtue-signalling and Greenie delusions of grandeur. They really have gone down the rabbit hole.

    • “Apparently the newly-formed US Climate Alliance intends to fight “climate change” on their own.”

      ************

      The most potentially dangerous and costly thing about being in a religious cult is not realizing that you are in one. The genetic wiring or programming of one’s brain and lack of wisdom would preclude one from coming to this realization.

      In the face of President Trump’s announcement, these states and cities reaffirm their faith in climate alarmism with this “Climate Alliance” they have created. It causes me to keep thinking back to that deadly day back in November of 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana. From what I have learned about him, Jones seemed to preach an ideology which was as much socialist or communist as it was anything else. This was in spite of him passing himself off as a clergyman. He made an audio recording in the final moments of that deadly day, and it is still haunting to listen to today.

      Cults have always been and will probably always be the antithesis of science. Those who are reinforcing this observation are the ones who ignore, suppress or attack the scientific issues with the CAGW theory that make it dubious.

  17. We will continue to give aid, but I hate bills like this that now give an expectation that other countries can free load off of us.

  18. ‘Trumpnado Touchdown’,…6 points or flattened building?…TRUMPS DEAL: recoup $0 and the world’s wrath on $1B investment. You call that performance ART?

    • Investment noun
      1. the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
      2. a particular instance or mode of investing.
      3. a thing invested in, as a business, a quantity of shares of stock, etc.
      4. something that is invested; sum invested.

      Please explain in what way the $1 billion to the GCF represents an “investment.”

  19. China seems to get a bye because much of the country is still developing. That’s fine but China already has a middle class that outnumbers the American middle class and it’s growing fast. link

    China is wealthy and should start paying its own way.

    • The Chinese first came to Australia to work in the goldfields. Now they come with their dollars to buy real estate. Last year they represented 80% of the foreign investors who spent $8 billion on one in every five new homes sold in NSW and Victoria. If you are lucky enough to have won Lotto and are in an auction to buy an apartment in Sydney, chances are you will be outbid by a Chinese buyer.

    • If someone has not yet understood hat: the Paris deal is dead. China and also other countries will pay nothing at all. The reason is quite simple. The US is a global player, the only world power to be represented on all seven seas, and has the world’s largest military service. Now, if this power says that the Parisian regulations are not valid for them, no power dependent on the US will officially and unofficially contradict the American President. Therefore, the Paris agreement is dead.
      In addition, the four-year term for the withdrawal for the US is not binding. This would have been the case only if the treaty had been submitted to the Congress and adopted. Then this period would have been binding. Foreign law can never bind domestic law under the UN Charter. The situation is different in the case of communities such as the EU, whose charta is partly different and which also have their own courts to settle disputes. Once again, Obama had no legitimacy through national law. Therefore, Trump does not need to fear the four-year period. A judgment of some US federal judge or federal court in that Trump is forced the four-year period would be an enormous precedent, which would probably be collected immediately by the Supreme Court. There is no need for a Gorsuch, this would so be also under the old Supreme Court.

      • 100% hogwash. Other countries, including staunch US allies like Singapore and Australia, have issued statements reconfirming their commitments to the Paris Accord.

      • Chris June 4, 2017 at 7:51 am

        100% hogwash.

        I don’t think we’ll see China coughing up much money. Clearly, some countries will continue to pay. Others aren’t now paying and will not change.

        Anyway, most of what Hans-Georg said wasn’t about the donations of other countries. He had more to say about the legal status of the Paris Agreement in the US.

    • Textbook example of how to brainwash kids. Hook their emotions first. Then it’s like candy from a baby.

    • Ummmm….teaching the kids…what?
      I read the entire article, hoping to see a teacher giving BOTH sides of the situation, but what I came away with was the opposite feeling.
      ” “how do we take the same science and use the English language to state it without triggering defensive, dismissive reactions?””
      THAT kind of sounds like a person going about a subject with a VERY devious and deliberate agenda.
      I’d wish to be proven wrong in my analysis of that article, but fear I will not.

      • And….
        “Many students’ parents don’t believe in climate change or think it is a problem. (Rajah Bose/For The Washington Post)”
        So…the teacher has created a teaching style to circumvent the students reluctance to challenge their parents (wise) views on the subject.
        Now the students have been indoctrinated against their parents views with “facts”.
        Now, while arguing against a parents view MAY well be a good idea sometimes, doing so in a covert manner such as this, and portraying it as virtuous, is tantamount evil.

    • I get a kick out of the student pulling out Mann’s hockey stick and thinking she has dumbfounded disbelievers.
      Her next assignment is to contact a geologist and ask for a graph of the paleoclimate over the last 5,000 years (which is STILL a drop in the bucket.)

  20. Here is a supporting graph that would make a nice compliment to the posted graph:

    Big CO2 emitters (2014):

    (Source: epa dot gov)

    And another for when the AGWers breathlessly say in response, “Oh, but, over the years, like since the 1750’s or so, cumulative CO2 emissions are by FAR the fault of the U.S.”

    CO2 residence time in atmosphere (less than 10 years):

    (Source: http://notrickszone.com/2015/04/01/co2-emissions-and-ocean-flux-long-term-co2-increase-due-to-emissions-not-ocean-temperature/#sthash.B78PnWBn.dpbs )

    Bottom line:

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    Game over, climate punks.

    • Janice, residence time is not the correct sink metric. Pulse half life or efold time is. Willis had a post on the difference~2015, ‘The secret life of half life’ or some such. Hot linked in my recent Salby guest post.

      • Janice, the efold time is about 52 years. Trivial difference. The big problem is that any skeptic mis-states the core underlying science, all warmunists cry ‘flat earther’. One political angle is to never mis-state or misunderstand. On that, I agree with Mosher. Please revisit the Salby post for possibly educational details.

      • In science, e-folding is the time interval in which an exponentially growing quantity increases by a factor of e; it is the base-e analog of doubling time. link

        It isn’t a violation of any science to choose one or the other. There are often a bunch of ways to express the measurement of a given parameter. Sometimes it’s a legacy issue, for instance the choice of conventional current or electron flow. Actually electron flow predominated when vacuum valves were the main active devices.

        Sometimes it’s a matter of convenience based on the measuring instruments used. If I have a power meter, I’m probably talking SWR. If I have a VNA, I’m talking S parameters. There must be ten ways to express the same thing.

  21. This over-the-top reaction to President Trump’s announcement by the progressives and other lefties, (basically, that the world will end), has been constantly repeated throughout the long years of their global warming catastrophe nonsense. They have all along been using the same scare and intimidation tactics they used in the early years of the 20th century to promote their Eugenics agenda. Even though any science behind Eugenics fell apart in the 1930s and 1940s here in California they were still sterilizing the so-called ‘feeble-minded’ into the 1960s. I fear we have some time to go before our governor and his ilk give up the fight.

    Also, President Trump should have used the lack of science behind AGW as well as the economic aspect as a reason to exit the Paris Treaty. He should perform the exit in the way Ristvan suggested, through the UNFCCC, the most expeditious way possible.

    • “This over-the-top reaction to President Trump’s announcement by the progressives and other lefties, (basically, that the world will end), has been constantly repeated throughout the long years of their global warming catastrophe nonsense.”

      The Left threw a fit when the U.S. would not go along with the Kyoto treaty, the U.S. Senate voting 95-0 against the Kyoto treaty (sense of the Senate), and the Left and world elites had all sorts of dire consequences they claimed would happen because of the U.S. refusal, and of course, nothing happened. None of their dire predictions came true.

      http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/02/deja-vu-outrage-over-trumps-paris-decision-is-identical-to-bushs-rejection-of-kyoto/

      Déjà Vu: Outrage Over Trump’s Paris Decision Is Identical To Bush’s Rejection Of Kyoto

      “China called it “irresponsible,” Europeans said there would be “political implications” and environmentalists said the world faced a “climate disaster” and “the world would pay the price in tears” for the president’s decision.

      Sounds a lot like the reaction to President Donald Trump’s decision to exit the Paris climate accord, but these were actually statements made by critics of former President George W. Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.

      About 16 years ago, Bush announced that he would continue opposing the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s first binding global warming treaty, largely on the grounds that it would hurt the U.S. economy and allow China and India to continue emitting greenhouse gases.

      ”The world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China,” Bush said in June 2001. ”Yet China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet India was also exempt from Kyoto.”

      Bush also said the Kyoto Protocol would ”have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers,” the New York Times reported at the time.

      Outrage ensued. China’s foreign minister said Bush’s decision was “irresponsible.” China joined the Kyoto Protocol as a developing country, meaning they were not committed to reduce emissions. Neither did India.

      European leaders criticized Bush and urged him to do more to fight global warming. Europeans also reaffirmed their commitment to following the Kyoto Protocol without the U.S., even though they admitted it would be less effective.

      “It is important that the US accepts its responsibility for the world climate. They are the biggest economy in the world and the heaviest energy consumers,” European Union Commissioner Margaret Schröder told the Los Angeles Times in 2001.”

      end excerpt

      Sounds just like now, doesn’t it. The same hysteria. The same kind of delusions.

  22. Let’s not criticize China or India. They have solid plans to develop their economies, and there is no way they will sacrifice their development – given they both don’t really believe that there is anything catastrophic about a tiny bit of manmade global warming.

  23. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize their dishonesty in pretending to go along with the CAGW ideology. They are liars, and that will ultimately backfire on them.

    • Lying is business as usual in India, the would be genuinely confused and shocked by repetitive honesty.

  24. Maybe I missed it but I have not seen a graphic showing the income to nations from the Green Climate Fund. The most interesting metric would be the net transfer of funds rather than just the “contributions”. Does anyone have that available?

  25. Good for Trump for calling the leftist on this economic, socialist tyranny. Too bad the leftist are so entrenched in Canada for the time being. With this development our economy will start to whither. Hopefully Canadians start to connect the dots between distorted climate science, resulting distructive policy and economic ruination.

  26. It was announced that Michael Bloomberg, billionaire Mayor of New York, will donate $15 million to the UN from his foundation to make up for the loss of U S taxpayer funds that will happen form Trump withdrawing from the Paris accord. So you see, he could have done this all along. So could have all his rich liberal friends. They just didn’t want to.

    As has been posted before, the decision by Trump in no way prohibits anyone from donating their own money to their favorite cause. Now, my bet is that the rich liberals will make token donations but secretly hate Bloomberg for now forcing them to spend their own money to look like they really care.

    • The Mega-Rich need to save us all from Climate Change by spending all their money on fixing the problem. Surely, being broke is better than dying in an overheating world. Besides, they can make another fortune after they have fixed the climate.

  27. You missed the second and third parts of the suppressed ‘Green Fund’ scam.
    P.S. The ‘Green Fund’ scam is a big, fairly easy to explain, undiscovered story, that has legs.
    Hmmm,,,, Why is it legally important for the US and all of the Developed Countries to quit the Paris Accord (PA)?
    The ‘Green Fund’ was created to pay for past CO2 liabilities and the liability of being a developed country.
    Wait a minute. Liabilities? What for? Who pays? What the heck did we sign? Why the heck did we sign it?
    The past liabilities are the theoretical effects of all of the CO2 emitted in the past by the developed country in question.
    Do you remember some of the idiotic graphs CO2 Vs Temperature the IPCC has issued? Do you remember the idiotic predicted future rise of the ocean was?
    How large could Green Fund liability be? As big as fake science will allow.
    Trick question: What country has the most liability for the ‘Green Fund’?
    Bingo: The US.
    The Beneficiaries of the Green Fund scam are the undeveloped countries, the NGOs and the UN departments whose jobs will be to collect and distribute the money.
    It is difficult to imagine the amount graft, waste, and corrupt science such a scheme could generate.
    The Beneficiaries’ plan is to make the Green Fund payment legally binding.
    There are obviously to two separate classes in the PA (Paris Accord): Developed Countries (The Suckers) and Undeveloped Countries (Corrupt recipients of the suck).
    The ‘estimate’ for what should be the Green Fund liability, obviously the UN stated, this is only a starting point for the next climate summit discussions, $200 billion/year and ramping up as quick and as high as the recipients of the scam can get.
    The UN has already stated the $200/billion will need to be raised to $1 trillion to $2 trillion.
    Note the ‘Climate Summits’ are scheduled every year.

  28. It’s wasn’t just the USA, Canada and other gullible 1st world nations being ripped-off by the CAGW industrial complex. Those 3rd world countries were cheated by the CAGW scammers too, as the poor countries expected plenty of easy money to come their way.

    • “Those 3rd world countries were cheated by the CAGW scammers too, as the poor countries expected plenty of easy money to come their way.”

      More than likely, it is the Third World leaders who were looking forward to that easy money. Their people won’t be seeing much of it, even if it was sent.

      • Financial re-distribution defined:
        Confiscate money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.

  29. Here’s a list of projects being funded by the Green Climate Fund

    http://www.greenclimate.fund/projects/browse-projects

    E.g. there’s on in Ecuador for “Reducing deforestation in Ecuador by investments to support sustainable agricultural production and conservation of forests.” I guess that CO2 must have caused the deforestation. Certainly Ecuadorians did it to themselves, that wouldn’t warrant a bailout, right?

    • In reply to Ric Werme.

      You are missing a couple of key points which determine the potential magnitude of the scam and the risk to those unfortunate countries that being scammed.

      The Green Fund is a scam. See my above comment.

      The Green Fund is to pay the Developing Countries for the theoretically estimated effects of the past CO2 emissions of the Developed Countries and of course to pay for our being a developed country.

      What the Developed countries chose to spend the Green Scam fund will of course include the cost to electrify with green scams and compensation for extreme weather and funds.

      The problem is the estimation for theoretical liabilities is the IPCC fake science. Do you remember the ridiculous Temperature VS CO2 IPCC graphs? The ridiculous Ocean Level vs Temperature levels?

      How large could the Green Fund Liability be? As large as fake science and those benefit from the scam can get.

  30. In the irony of all ironies involving the Paris Climate Accords is that the actual date that the U.S. will be officially out of the climate agreement is one day before the 2020 presidential election. Should Trump choose not to run (he’ll be 75 years old) or if he loses, the next president might begin putting us back in just two months after we get out!

    • I repeat: If someone has not yet understood hat: the Paris deal is dead. China and also other countries will pay nothing at all. The reason is quite simple. The US is a global player, the only world power to be represented on all seven seas, and has the world’s largest military service. Now, if this power says that the Parisian regulations are not valid for them, no power dependent on the US will officially and unofficially contradict the American President. Therefore, the Paris agreement is dead.
      In addition, the four-year term for the withdrawal for the US is not binding. This would have been the case only if the treaty had been submitted to the Congress and adopted. Then this period would have been binding. Foreign law can never bind domestic law under the UN Charter. The situation is different in the case of communities such as the EU, whose charta is partly different and which also have their own courts to settle disputes. Once again, Obama had no legitimacy through national law. Therefore, Trump does not need to fear the four-year period. A judgment of some US federal judge or federal court in that Trump is forced the four-year period would be an enormous precedent, which would probably be collected immediately by the Supreme Court. There is no need for a Gorsuch, this would so be also under the old Supreme Court.

      Trump did not mention the four-year period even in his exit speech. This is only an invention of left-wing media and activists. His whole arrangement for the strengthening of the fossil energies could not be enforced by the court in the case of a contract. So he starts from an immediate exit.

      • A paragraph of his speech says it all:
        “Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”

  31. One ice core says it all … 420,000 years of evidence includes ancient temperatures. Listen to what Earth is telling us and please, spread the word. https://youtu.be/GxERTlbAo7g

    Harvard awarded $20 million to block the sun, based on omissions [genetic engineering, chemicals discharged from aircraft world-wide], incomplete science, false narratives about global warming/climate change; false narratives that unleashed a carbon control matrix money grab, land grabs, more taxation, UN Agenda 21 and 2030 enslavement, etc.

    Public silence is tacit or implied consent that makes us complicit. http://themindunleashed.com/2017/03/official-sky-will-sprayed-geoengineering-experiment-blocking-sun-climate-change.html

  32. If anyone took the time to actually read the Paris Discord and understand what it does they should be appalled at the inconsistencies. China deemed a developing country and immune from CO2 reduction when it is almost the largest economy in the world? (save me the disclaimer and read it again, they are targeted as reparation receivers). The UN as the gatekeeper for climate ‘reparations’ when they are committed to a policy of financial opaqueness? Literally charging nations for being successful by claiming their prosperity is the result of taking advantage of non industrialized countries? Does anyone believe that crap other than those steeped in far left ideology?

  33. As an Australian I provide the following Government press release from Dec 2016.

    “Australia has been re-elected unanimously to lead the Green Climate Fund Board in 2017. The Green Climate Fund is the world’s primary fund for addressing climate change in developing countries including those in our region.
    “As 2016 co-chair with South Africa we oversaw the first year of operation and increased the focus on climate finance needs in our region. Samoa and Australia jointly hosting the Board’s first Pacific meeting in Samoa this week, the largest climate financing meeting ever held in the Pacific.
    “The 15th meeting of the Board approved USD98 million for climate change initiatives in the Pacific including:
    USD23 million to strengthen climate information in Vanuatu’s tourism, agriculture, infrastructure, water and fisheries sectors with the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme;
    USD58 million for integrated flood management in Samoa with the United Nations Development Programme; and
    An initial USD17 million for the Asian Development Bank’s Pacific Renewable Energy Investment Programme, which will begin with a project in the Cook Islands.
    “Green Climate Fund resources approved for the Pacific now total USD165 million, with further Pacific proposals expected to come before the Board in 2017.
    “Australia’s engagement with the Fund has been instrumental in gaining approval for major climate resilience investments in 2016, totalling USD1.3 billion. Australia looks forward to working with incoming co-chair Saudi Arabia in 2017.
    “The Australian Government has committed $200 million to the Green Climate Fund over 2015-18.” (end) . http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2016/jb_mr_161216.aspx

    I have spoken to many who consider this Green Energy Scheme as treasonable or near to it. Whom among us, as voters, was involved with notification and approval of, or a chance to modify, this largesse to the green side of politics?
    Who did not realize that studies of sea level change consistently indicate no or trivial harm from observed sea level changes in the Pacific? How many other dollars are handed out to unstated recipients when the science said to justify contributions is wrong?
    Geoff

    • Geoff, SOMEONE has to pay for the brand new hotel the Maldives just erected 100 yards from the shoreline.
      And how about the scuba equipment so their government officials can continue to legislate under water?

      Sheesh!, you inconsiderate Australians.

    • More fools you? Well, maybe a few Swedes will be invited to some of the parties – assuming they don’t just blow it all on one last blast before flying off to somewhere without extradition treaties.

      • Bless those Swedes. Their(there) virtue signalling is a national thing. Just look at their masochistic refugee policy.
        (The large fraction of those “refugees” are military aged men.go figure.)

    • That’s not correct. According to the source you referred to, Sweden has pledged 4b in SEK which equals 581 millions in USD. You need to read the table more carefully.

      • According to the table, the Swedes have pledge 6 times more than U.S. per capita (60,54 vs 9,3 USD), making the Swedes the second biggest fools in the whole world, only beaten by Luxemburg (93,6 USD per capita) and closely followed by the Norwegians (50,56 USD per capita). The Swedes and the Norwegians love to show their “progressiveness”, so no surprises that they raced for the title of the biggest fool.

      • Ahh you are right, I misread that. But still the article above cherry picks to confirm own viewpoints. Also I agree that it is a complete waste of money, but thats not the issue here. What is anoying is that the above article does exactly the same as sceptics accuse warmers and mainstream media of doing.

      • Care to explain what you mean by “cherry-picking”? The numbers of this post are spot on in terms of U.S., China, India and Russia. The topic of this post was payments by the top polluters, not the payments per capita.

      • Choosing the countries that dont contribute is like choosing only Arctica claiming that the temperatures are rising despite knowing that Antarctica is flat or dropping in temperature. By only mentioning the Arctic I can just like you do write the following: “Care to explain what you mean by Cherry picking? The topic of the post was the most important region that reacts first to global warming not whats happening in Antarctica”, I object to focusing on only part of the picture blowing it out of proportion to make it seem like the whole picture.

    • “Sweden pays 120 times more per inhabitant than the US. ”

      The per capita method proves that it is not about CO2 at all.

      • Wrong. It’s a commonly used tool when countries with vastly different populations are making contributions. For example, NATO contributions are expressed as a % of GDP, which links fairly well to populations in 1st world countries.

      • The theory that CO2 affects global warming has nothing to do with a per capita ratio. It can only involve the quantities of CO2 that are better quantified per area land mass multiplied by eaches CO2 source/sink ratio.

        CO2 production per capita is just a “social justice” construct, and thus political science.

  34. DJT has determined the money point the political win for the moment. UN corruption is culturally normal as well.

    It’s actually the leftist politically manufactured junk science link that is core. No one cares what MSM “journalists” get paid but they hate their agenda dressed as news. The same logical conclusion must tear down mainstream climate “science” which is the actual fraud motivation the media is defending 24/7. “The science of climate change.” Team DJT should be all over this, where is the skeptic team?

  35. There’s a place in Worksop. Its along Queen Street, where the bus station is and also a little car-park I use.
    Maybe 20 years ago, one of the residential houses was taken over by a (Council organised) charity. It was a ‘Hub’, a drop-in point for tramps, dossers, hobos, rough sleepers etc to dispense advice guidance on how to claim benefits, get free food/shelter/clothes/cardboard boxes whatever.
    So far so good you say.

    This ‘hub’ now extends to 3 adjacent buildings. Each was a semi-detached, so in total it now occupies 6 homes, each probably was 3 bedroom. Just for the offices of this hub.
    Meanwhile, every morning at its 8AM opening time, a crowd of said dossers arrive. Drunks, loud, stupid and spend the rest of the day hanging out in what was the front gardens of these houses or huddled in secretive groups under the trees surrounding the car park.
    They are constantly smoking (cigs come in at about £8 for 20 here) and drinking (strong cider at 8 or 9% ABV), shouting at each other and at passers by.
    Other residential houses along the street have For Sale signs up.
    (There is wicked side of me that says this is one place a terrorist suicide bomber might actually be welcome and useful)

    What I describe of Queen St is what the Victorians found in England when they set off to do ‘good works’
    You can NOT go around handing out free money (free anything for that matter) as it will create a demand, an insatiable demand for more & more and ever more.
    See Bob Geldof and Live Aid from 1985. 17 million starving Ethiopians has now become 80 million starving Ethiopians in a land now denuded of trees (it was 40% forest in 1985) and in permanent drought even though the annual rainfall is the same.

    And so it would be with this Climate Fund. Shed loads of free money will create more demand, more people, more demand ete etc utterly unsustainable.
    Heartless and cruel though it may seem now, but Trump is actually doing all these (imaginary) victims a HUGE favour by not helping them. As there were around London last time I was there – notices at bus-stops and the like advising people NOT to give money to the beggars and tramps.
    In the long run, it actually helps them – charity might be considered as yet another corrosive agent in the ongoing and ever repeated Erosion of Civilisations. Good intentions and all that?

    • I have no problem with charity, as long as it is for infrastructure and not to “persons”, because as you say the demand just expands to meet the amount of cash available.
      Dams, reservoirs, wells, clean drinking water, clean cooking, modern farming utensils and cheap power are all the things that improve the lives of those living in poverty.

      • True. There has never been and there will never be enough welfare money available. Demand will ALWAYS outpace supply, When it comes to welfare. Individual welfare, corporate welfare international welfare, all of it, there will never be a surplus..

    • “Shed loads of free money will create more demand, more people, more demand ete etc utterly unsustainable.”

      Well said. It disengages the clutch called personal initiative.

  36. “I Came I Saw I Left June 4, 2017 at 5:16 am
    “For the US, it came into force 4 Nov 2016:”

    Only as an excuse for the sitting president to direct funds to it through various mechanisms. That IMO is why the EU is so cheesed that Trump refused to sign it. If was already in force, why would the sitting president need to sign it?”

    From this it appears the sitting president doesn’t need to sign it:

    http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Domestic_Processes_for_Joining_the_Paris_Agreement.pdf

    US is category 1.

    “1. Executive, either the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet
    or Monarchy (Executive) (e.g., India). ”

    “United States 1
    Executive
    The President directs foreign policy, engaging as appropriate representatives from relevant United
    States government agencies, and negotiates, concludes, and signs international treaties and
    agreements. United States law distinguishes among treaties, congressional-executive agreements,
    and sole-executive agreements. Article II, Section 2, Clause Two of the US Constitution gives the
    President power to make or enter into treaties with the “advice and consent of two-thirds of the
    Senate.”18 Congressional-executive agreements go through the normal legislative process and
    therefore require approval by the ordinary majorities in both houses of Congress before being sent
    to the President for approval. Sole-executive agreements are those that can be entered into by the
    President. All three classes are considered treaties for the purposes of international law.19 The US
    has joined the Paris Agreement as a sole-executive agreement.20 “

    • This suggests US legally joined the Paris Accord, especially since it is not legally binding:

      https://www.c2es.org/publications/legal-options-us-acceptance-new-climate-change-agreement

      “The President would be on relatively firm legal ground accepting a new climate agreement with legal force, without submitting it to the Senate or Congress for approval, to the extent it is procedurally oriented, could be implemented on the basis of existing law, and is aimed at implementing or elaborating the UNFCCC”

    • “All three classes are considered treaties for the purposes of international law”

      Per international law. I seriously doubt per US law.

  37. My theory… was the “green fund” for the global south just another resource extraction scheme for Wall Street like the world bank and IMF? That might explain why we are the only ones paying for it: American imperialism.

  38. This is a great example of how Fox News lies. At the same time that the US announced it would be contributing to the GCF, China in a joint news conference with the US announced it would pledge to make available ¥20 billion for setting up the China South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to support other developing countries to combat climate change, including to enhance their capacity to access GCF funds. Going forward and through these steps and other actions, the two sides were determined to work constructively and cooperatively together and along with all Parties to the UNFCCC to support developing countries to transition to green and low-carbon development and build climate resilience. China also is focused on fixing its own problems and will invest $360 billion in renewable technology by 2020. Per capita the US ranks 11th on the list of GCF contributors after Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Monaco, Brtiatin, France, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan. Kudos to those countries that recognize helping poorer countries means greater stability. The war n Syria was precipitated by climate change when a massive drought forced many people from rural areas into cities to survive. To believe that instability elsewhere does not effect us is pretty naive.

    • This is irrational. A few days ago, Merkel’s meeting with China’s Prime Minister revealed great differences. A shoulder closure in climate issues fell due to “alleged” differences in economic and trade questions. The Paris agreement is as dead for china as for President Trump. Here, too, the conservative wing of Merkel’s party demanded a radical reversal of environmental policy in view of the minimal effects of all the actions taken so far and planned for the earth’s temperature. One should rather use the money to dampen the effects of warming economically and not damage Germany’s economy by overpriced CO2 reductions. The economy is already damaging: the nonsensical reduction of CO2 emissions in diesel and gasoline vehicles is fueling the output of NOx. Somewhere the O-atom must bind itself during the combustion process. If not at C, then at N.

  39. It’s not about the climate; it’s about taking money from the US and giving it to everybody else.

  40. Please, please, please Mr. President get our billion dollars back; the Paris Agreement was never ratified by the U. S. Senate; Congress never authorized the expenditure; the money will fund enemies of America.

  41. Lets get this straight the United Suckers Of America were supposed to pay $3 Billion , double the amount of the next highest donor , and apparently of the approx. 200 countries in the world there appear to be only 15 that are “developed ” countries ? China free pass , Russia free pass and not because they aren’t 2 of the biggest polluters but because they just aren’t stupid enough to be played for suckers by globalists .
    Funny if you still watch or read MSM the money never comes up .
    It’s clearly not about the planet having a fever or even a sniffle it’s about setting up a self perpetuating global meddling bureaucracy and neither China , Russia or India are going to sit around and be lectured to by preachy globalists . Now if you want to throw some good old $ USD well great ,it helps pay for the all expense conferences to save the planet .
    How in the world did the USA bureaucrats pull off the issuance of $ 1 billion in cash to the fund when it was never approved .
    Are they going to try and pull the same stunt with President Trump ?
    Count on it . The swamp runs deep . Start by firing everyone who facilitate that $billion dollar heist happen .
    When I watch these Government Department Heads appear before elected officials surrounded by their politically correct support group it is clear the contempt they have for the elected officials and the
    Constitution .
    Clean house President Trump and the sooner the better .

  42. Another graphic to go with the $: how many tons of pollution each country releases into the environment. That does NOT include CO2, as some trillion living things on this big ball happen to use as food.

Comments are closed.