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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘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.”
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.
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.
Nonsense is nonsense, pointless trying to validate it.
Here is how one teacher is using math and science to indoctrinate his high school junior student classes:
How to teach kids about climate change where most parents are skeptics
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-to-teach-kids-about-climate-change-where-most-parents-are-skeptics/2017/06/03/1ad4b67a-47a0-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na
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.)
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):
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Summation-Half-Lives.jpg
(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.
Mr. Istvan:
1. The residence time is relevant and not an “incorrect” metric, per se.
2. Your distinction, for THIS purpose (responding to the AGWers’ hypothetical whine above) is without a significant difference: ~40 years (estimated folding time) since around 1750 versus ~10.
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/co2-residence-time-said-to-be-40-years-not-1000-as-noaa-claims/#comment-2079759 )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
And what does the Green Climate Fund spend 38% of its huge pile of do$h on? ADMINISTRATION
http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/Pages/gcf.aspx
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.
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.
Fools and their money Tom…..fools and their money……
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.
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.
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.
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!
we are out today, we were never in … its an un-ratified Treaty …
180 mayors adopt Paris climate accord after U.S. pulls 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.”
Russia China and India are not Annex-1 countries and have no financial obligation under the UNFCCC.
Annex 2 is crucial. Otherwise, you are correct. Snookered is still snookered.
TRUMP’S PARIS AGREEMENT DECISION TAKES EFFECT ONE DAY AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-paris-agreement-decision-takes-effect-one-day-after-2020-election-619326
Only on one pathway. Others posted above are much faster.
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
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?
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.
Actually sweden pays 4 billion, US only 1 billion. Sweden has a population of 10 million, US a population of 300 million so Sweden pays 120 times more per inhabitant than the US.
https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19
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.
eaches’ in case there are any grammar nazis lurking.
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?
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.
Only 43 countries have contributed to the Green Climate Fund. https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19