Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens are complaining that lack of US financial support is impacting progress. But a closer look at Green Climate Fund documents in my opinion opens serious questions about how that money was being spent.
How Trump Could Slow Climate Change Projects Around the World
Justin Worland
Much of the fallout from President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has centered on the symbolism of losing the world’s largest economy and second largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions as a leader in the fight against climate change. Now, scientists, advocates and officials around the world are becoming increasingly concerned about the tangible effects it will have on the rest of the globe.
In addition to pulling out of Paris, which will not take effect until 2020, Trump has reneged on $2 billion in unpaid commitments to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which was created in advance of the Paris Agreement to support projects to address climate change in the developing world. Climate finance experts fear it could be a sign of further cuts to other programs that depend on American resources.
“There’s a whole slew of things where the U.S. has become such an important supporter of other countries,” says Rachel Kyte, CEO of United Nations-backed initiative Sustainable Energy for All and former World Bank climate envoy. “Certainly there will be cuts. Exactly where the cuts call will be is something we don’t know.”
…
For many countries, losing funding means the difference between an aggressive and a limited effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly 190 countries representing more than 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions submitted plans to address climate change in advance of Paris Agreement negotiations. Developing countries by and large offered two commitments, one of which was contingent on financing.
…
U.S. withdrawal has not led other countries to pull back on their GCF commitments—at least not yet. “We’re on track as long as everybody sticks to the commitments that they made,” says Leonardo Martinez, global director of the sustainable finance center at the World Resources Institute. “We still don’t know what percentage of those commitments is going to be in jeopardy.”
Read more: http://time.com/4813115/paris-agreement-climate-change-trump-green-climate-fund/
Why am I concerned about how Green Climate Fund money is being spent? Page 12 of a green climate fund progress report (2016) contains a list of countries titled Annex I: List of countries with national designated authorities/focal points. The list includes Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria – countries listed in Executive Order 13769 – President Trump’s Travel Ban.
Eric! Are you questioning Ayatollah Khamenei’s commitment to fighting climate change? Surely not!
The Ayatollah has consistently wished the free West to hell. Now that would be a temperature rise to worry about!
You should be mroe worried that the money is not even going to where it is intended to be going. Recent comments here indicated that $6bn out of $7bn had been wasted in overheads.
$100bn a year fund without any proper oversight of legal accountability ( any UN officer has total diplomatic immunity from any legal action in any country of the world ) makes it the biggest target for corruption in the history in the world. EVAH.
Then there is this tidbit
Where as Contingent on Financing can also br understood to really mean Contingent on Extortion payments
Can we just say that “without US funds global socialist progress will slow” and be happy about it?
Some folks think America gives way too much foreign aid which is what the climate money is. link The writer of the linked article worries that America will end up like Sweden. link
I’ve seen arguments advancing America’s interests with foreign aid. link
Personally, I think the climate money would be much better spent getting some of our homeless veterans off the streets. link
Agreed about the vets but “foreign aid” is never aid, it is a way of buying influence and exerting pressure.
” buying influence and exerting pressure.”
Which, if done wisely, can be a good thing.
If we are spending money to buy influence and exert pressure, let’s at least do it efficiently and put foreign politicians directly on the payroll.
Greg
All foreign aid ‘helps’. The question is, who gets helped?
The only people foreign aid helps are those in Government’s that do the distribution. $8 for me $2 for you…
I would say, If you want US involvement ($,$$$,$$$,$$$), then give US the control over how and where the ($,$$$,$$$,$$$) is spent, It is after all mostly our $,$$$,$$$,$$$ that would make up the fund. That way it wouldn’t be paid to the moner grubbing dictators to pocket or to corrupt politicians form any country, but to the workers that do the installations and the companies that produce/distribute/ the products and supplies needed for individual projects.
@ Bryan A, that just shifts the shark frenzy to the US bureaucrats from the foreign ones. Buying influence is the liberal approach. Investing in the people on a local level (mostly in education and living conditions) is what benefits the developing world most.
Don’t ship in token amounts of food just big enough to destroy the local market, teach modern farming and develop innovative solutions to boost the local productivity. Our Democratic ways (and their self-serving leaders) have kept the 3rd world nations from achieving self-sustenance and gaining affluence.
And if done through the UN and especially others, is not a wise thing.
Buying Influence? – just call it what it is – Bribery.
With “foreign aid,” a nation can hope to have some influence on the government or governments being supported, with significant exception being a nation in the middle east. With green fund money, it is more like tossing the money in the air and seeing where it lands. You can also expect to have no influence on how it is used. I might support direct funding of programs to help nations improve their survivability, but I don’t believe in blindly dropping cash down a rat hole.
Indeed, like old Bjorn Lomborg carries on about – if we put all the money that the Greens are keen on spending on nebulous climate policies, we could actually SOLVE a bunch of real-world problems and the world would be better off for it in reality!
Yes, yes, I know Greens are not about solving issues. Solving problems fixes them and thus no-one can complain about them anymore. It’s much better to bang on about problems that have no solution and be perpetually upset.
Spend a 100 billion a year on contraception. That ought to solve a whole lot of problems.
Except there is no evidence that spending on contraception causes a decrease in population growth.
“you can lead the horse to water…”
Always someone who wants to reduce world population. But funny thing, they never want to lead by example.
Lee L
Spend that sum on female education, and the birth rate will tumble.
Contraception will happen – or – ‘Say “No!”‘
Auto
Actually the best way to limit population growth is through economic development. With improved GDP you get better education, improved living standards and, unless severely hindered by religion or culture, reduced birth rate.
I forgot to add that economic development requires cheap, inexpensive energy.
Think about what Mr Trump has actually done here.
Like DJT I’;m gonna catch a load of flak too but…..
He’s taken/made one very tough decision. All the other countries, that would be on the receiving end of US financial largesse, are effectively beggars. Tramps you would meet on the street. Of course every single one of them will put a heart-tending argument up about why you should give them ‘charity’ – money most obviously.
But as England’s Victorians discovered when they did good causes and charity work, it becomes a bottomless money hole for the charity giver and makes the receivers ever more dependant on that charity and less able/willing to ‘get off their ar5es and actually help themselves.
It is a complete lose-lose situation.
Then many people, trying to ingratiate themselves with you, will say ‘Oh but you can afford it, you’re well-off, rich and have a comfortable life. Give them just a little’
People like to be ‘rubbed up’ the right way.
Every one likes to hear those words, or do they? Where is the sceptisim that sees an ulterior motive, that sees the lies?
What sort of people like those kind of compliments if not the weak-willed, muddle headed and especially those lacking their own self-confidence. People without clear minds and lacking the ability to make difficult decisions correctly, quickly and thenceforth be able to defend those decisions. Those are the kind of people who panic easily also. people who think they can tell lies and get away with doing so.
Now does it sound like catastrophic AGW?
It is patently driven by dull minded people who cannot think their way out of a wet paper bag the science so so ‘funny’ it has ceased to be funny. It is sad beyond belief.
Driven by people who want to pass the buck, People incapable of looking after themselves.
IOW, people who want to be permanent children.
Did all these other countries always behave like that?. What happened to be like that now? Why are they running to a big mother/protector figure screaming, pleading and hiding under her proverbial apron just because the think they’ve seen a monster in the back-yard?
What changed. What went wrong?
In a nutshell, Donald is telling these people that they are sad pathetic losers – and to “Get A Life”
Surprise!!! They don’t like it.
They are so dull they cannot even handle surprises any more which just then forms a nice little positive feedback loop…..
Innit A Mess
Excellent pair of posts!!!! And yet the leftist press runs all over with headlines such as “214 countries agree with Paris accord, only Trump walks out!” or some such.
When the real story is “214 countries say yes, they want MO MONEY, MO MONEY, MO MONEY!!! but the one guy who is supposed to pay for ALL of it just walked out.”
Which brings us to today’s story: Now that the One Guy who was supposed to pay for ALL of it has walked out, guess what? It ain’t so important to get any of that done anymore!!!
The EU can’t afford to take up the slack……it’s over
The climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control so the Paris climate sgreement will have no effect on climate. The USA has a huge federal debt and huge annual trade deficits. They have to borrow just to make ends meet so they have no money to spend trying to reduce so called greenhouse gases. Get the money from countries who have it like China.
The CO2 increases are being caused by environmental destruction tho. They *are* concerning and need to be slowed or stopped.
…like the hormones and crap in the water we drink…..
There is no real evidence that CO2 affects climate and plenty of scientiic rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity is zero. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.
IF ‘Nearly 190 countries representing more than 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions’ Then the US isn’t really contributing all that much to the ‘problem,’ is it?
But is the richest to steal from!
I should also add that if the United States would just STOP FEEDING HALF THE PLANET, then our ‘per capita’ CO2 emissions would fall substantially.
That kind of accounting trickery can work both ways. Do you want to take on half of China’s CO2 emissions on the basic that you import the goods?
Just pick the figures which fit the argument you want to make and ignore the rest. That usually works fine.
The GCF has now a capital of 10,1 bn dollars, but that amount is defined as “announced and signed”, including 3 bn from the US. Only 1 bn, IMO, har been actually transferred to the fund by Obama, which leaves a big hole of ca. 20% in the 10 bn, if Trump withholds the other 2bn.
http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized
But even this si just peanuts compared to the “promised” 100 bn dollars EVERY YEAR from 2020. I see no signs of such pledges being fulfilled, nor any concrete plan for this vast funding. No doubt the UN and the MSM would have gloated over such announcements, had it happened. That is the real giant elephant in climate funding.
Henning, the $100B/yr will come via high carbon taxes and other taxes. A dime at a time. It adds up quickly.
When I have a lot of money, I tend to give to several charities, and respond positively to calls fir contributions. I also tend to give to homeless beggars.
When I don’t have much, I don’t.
I really don’t see how a country with a huge national debt can just doing money at beggars, however deserving they may be. Those who feel otherwise should stump up the cash themselves instead of insisting that others are forced to.
IIRC Trump just *increased* defence spending by $50bn, no idea what total is. So the $2bn is pocket change. I’m not saying I think Trump is wrong to pull, fair game to him. But poverty argument really does not work.
But I don’t advocate throwing money down a crapper every time some one-world socialist yells that “’tis but pocket change”
By the same token, the US budget is over a trillion dollars. $50bn is pocket change.
Spending $500 on groceries doesn’t make the $20 you’d give a panhandler “pocket change.”
Where do you get off saying two billion dollars is “pocket change?” No body likes the increase in defense spending but with the situation with North Korea building nukes and missiles, with the threats from Iran and with Russia invading Ukraine the increase in defense spending is needed and prudent. Spending two billion on the green climate fund on the other hand is just plain crazy. For two billions dollars we could for example end the student loan problem, fund a high risk pool for medical insurance, build new high schools all over the country, help end homelessness, or simply pay down the national debt. If you don’t want the two billion dollars then give it to me.
If its just pocket change, I would’t mind it if you put it in my pocket! 🙂
“A billion here, a billion there, and before you know it, you’re talkin’ real money.” Sen. Everett Dirksen
Marty, the rationale for increased military spending is as flawed as any ‘green’ carbon (dioxide) project funding. Why would you believe for a minute the propaganda spewed by the military industrial complex and their MSM accomplices? Russia did not ‘invade’ Ukraine’ and has no designs on Poland, the Baltic States, etc. On the contrary, after NATO (the U.S.) betrayed the James Baker / Mikhael Gorbachev agreement that NATO would not move one inch eastward if the (then) USSR would accommodate the re-unification of E&W Germany, where the Soviets had 30 divisions, every member of the Warsaw Pact got swallowed up by NATO. Then the US starts setting up radar stations and antiballistic missile sites in these nations, on the transparent lie that they are to protect Europe from rogue nations (Iran, etc.) nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
With the US promoting color revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and Victoria Nuland proudly reporting spending $5 Billion ‘promoting democracy’ in Ukraine, is it any wonder that Russia balked upon the coup that overthrew Yanukovic and promoted the restoration of Crimea to its historic national ties? An analogy might be the Cuban missile crisis. False flag incidents such as the downing of MH17, the gas attacks on civilians in Gouta (Damascus, Syria) utterly fail the cui bono test, yet are broadly and repeatedly asserted by officials and MSM in the west. Meanwhile the US directed overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, and the shooting down of the Iranian civilian airliner have fallen into the memory hole.
WIth over 900 US military bases in 130 countries around the world, with the obvious lie of WMD in Iraq (as denied by UN Chief Weapons Inspector (and former US Marine) Scott Ritter, is it no wonder that some countries are suspicious of US motives? None the less, Iran is signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and has complied with inspection requirements and recent negotiations resulted in agreement to even more restrictive requirements, yet the demonization continues. Contrast this to the situation vis a vis Israel, which not a signatory of the NNPT and which is known to have hundreds of nuclear missiles (compliments of Mordecai Vanunu) plus the means to deliver them. And for a little hint at the integrity of this country, particularly poignant on this 50th anniversary, check out the story of the June ’67 attack on the USS Liberty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZluFfyQ7sAI
Wow Greg, you really have drunk the kool aid haven’t you.
It’s all a conspiracy by the military industrial complex and Kim and the Imam’s are in on the scam.
Gotcha.
Senator Everett Dirksen is alleged to have said, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Anybody who has ever run a solvent business (like DJT, and which the federal government is supposed to be) can identify with that.
Greg Strebel June 14, 2017 at 11:41 am
Thanks for a new-speak version.
Crimea – Ukraine (well, it was).
Now occupied by Russian forces.
Even some other parts of the ‘mainland’ [my word] Ukraine are under ‘foreign’ [Russian? – well, they speak Russian, write Russian, and act like Russians; if it walks, quacks and floats like a duck, it probably IS a duck. Comprehension test to follow] control.
And MH17 – the missile apparently came from a very Russian area [Independent analysis (Dutch, I believe, haven’t checked sources tonight, so open to correction. My memory is human and fallible.).]
The Iranian airliner was a mistake, certainly, but the Iranian authorities had been warned, following suspicious activity. I doubt – but could be enlightened – that the Iranians would have let a plane – mostly Iranian passengers – be, well, sacrificed. I doubt. I certainly do not know, but think it unlikely that Iran would have done such a thing.
And, yes – follow my own code – Do NOT feed the Troll.
Sorry – I have, but some rewritings of history are so obscene, egregious and utterly foul, that I simply could not resist.
Auto, ready to restock my vocabulary if needed.
The second week into our marriage 45 years ago, I told my wife I wanted her to cut my hair (rather than spend money at a barber shop). Over those years I figure we averaged about 10 haircuts a year since I was in the military part of the time, followed by the era when long hair was popular, and now ending with a haircut about every 6 weeks for the last half of our marriage. And, supposing the average cost of a haircut at a barber shop over those 45 years is $10, I have saved 10 x 10 x 45 = $4500.
MarkW & Auto, I hesitated to continue on the OT note, however I cannot overlook the opportunity to compare your responses on this subject to those of the CAGW camp to the skeptical camp, of which I am solidly a member, subject of course to revelation of verifiable facts which would support a changed conclusion.
I am always conscious of the confirmation bias tendency and make deliberate efforts to understand opposing arguments, having in times past been faced with compelling evidence that my former opinion was incorrect or at least too simplistic. I do not assume that anyone who has a different opinion on any one matter is automatically a troll. I look for substantive evidence or a pattern of behaviour that indicates whether or not a sincere effort to approach the truth is being made. Disparaging people for expressing opinions with which you do not agree before conducting some research ones self does not speak highly of the process by which one develops his own opinions.
Marty
First lets not call it defense spending. Call it what it is; offense spending. If you want true defense cut the military budget in half. Then maybe you’d get systems that worked rather than cost a bunch. Lockheed used to engineer airplanes. Now Lockheed is very adept at engineering profits.
If the ‘others’ can be bothered to stump up the ‘missing’ money, well then their commitment to the cause can’t run very deep, can it?
DELINGPOLE: Ship of Fools III – Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/13/delingpole-ship-of-fools-iii-global-warming-study-cancelled-because-of-unprecedented-ice/
And the ice is unprecendented…
Ask yourself: how did it get there?
Freeze there? Or drift/get blown from somewhere else?
It didn’t freeze there: it comes from the central arctic where a warm winter/storms have broken up an ‘exported’ the ice. It is a symptom of a warming central arctic.
In Griff’s world, this is the first time that sea ice has EVAH moved.
Keep Griff away from ball fields.
Griff, from this quote I think this ice is in Hudson Bay …
“contributions of climate change and regulation on the Hudson Bay system.”
Maybe you can explain how the ice got from the central Arctic into Hudson Bay. LOL.
The wind was so strong it blew the ice clear over the top of Baffin Island …
Seems to me this happened in early 2016 as well … Ice breakers diverted to Igloolik
Dang wind.
Wait up the ice is thicker Griff was banging on about some wiggly line on a graph and the ice was all going to be gone.
I am struggling with how it can be all gone but now it’s thicker … or is this a Griff Fact ™. Griff Facts ™ have little or no likeness to real facts.
Obviously the freezing point of water has risen to keep apace with global warming.
Griff,
Considering practically ZERO (<5%) Arctic area Sea Ice is currently sitting in the exact same place that it initially froze, your arguement has no legs on which to stand. Either by Wind or Ocean Current, the Sea Ice Floes!
Excellent point Ed. Time people who want to spend our taxpayer funds, dip a little deeper into their own. Funny that most of EU can’t meet their NATO obligations but have funds for crazy global warming theories.
Last I read was that ONLY the US contributed real cash, when zer’O shuffled/stole/diverted $1B dollars to UN coffers, as he was slinking out the door. Our “partners” have contributed only pledges for some vague time in the future. If you are an eco-chondriac, please hold your breath very thightly until we are provided answers to where and to how those taxpayer funds were used.
“In addition to pulling out of Paris, which will not take effect until 2020, Trump has reneged on $2 billion in unpaid commitments to the Green Climate Fund (GCF),”
Trump did not renege on $2 Billion, Obama promised the money without authority. Send him the bill and let him beg from Bloomberg and his rich elite friends pay the bill for Obama false promises.
Regardless, keep in mind that the money that Obama promised was OPM, (Other People’s Money.) I found it astounding that the American people “tolerated” the skinny little crook for eight years — But then such as Obama is what we have come to expect from the strange little parasitoid foreign country that’s called The District of Columbia. Even if Obama was really gone — which he’s not — the federal swamp that was made deeper during his terms in office is still there and is even more wasteful and useless than it ever was.
The problem is that with most democracies, you quickly reach the point where the number of people getting free stuff from government outnumber the number of people who have to pay for it.
Mark W
You are right – especially if those who know about magic money trees can see their path to power this way.
Exhibit one – the promise to cancel huge student debts [now they are probably at a wholly unrealistic interest rate. 6.1% – utter madness. Bank of England base rate is 0.25% – so twenty-plus times base rate.
That is real pay-day loan gougers’ country.]
Jeremy Corbyn probably won a dozen student swing-vote seats on this alone..
Why did nobody in the Magic May Circle spot this and nix it?????
Auto
Sorry,
I followed the 1964 Election here (and AuH2O’s in the US), and I have to add this was the most inept campaign I have ever witnessed, by – it seems – a long way.
Michael Foot, in 1983, and Ted ‘The Traitor’ Heath, in 1974 (February and October) -campaigns that were, shall we say, able to be improved . . . . . . . .
But May 2017 – an utter (let me be polite) SHAMBLES. At best.
I try to appreciatethevicar’s daughter – but, heavens, it is not easy nowadays.
Auto
The US pulling out of the “agreement” is its death-nell. They can pretend and put on a brave face all they want, but Paris is dead. COP 22 will be a farce to end all farces. There isn’t enough lipstick in the universe to paint that pig.
knell
literary
noun
1. the sound of a bell, especially when rung solemnly for a death or funeral.
A church deacon was standing outside his parish one day when a young man approached him and asked if he could apply for the job of bell ringer.
The deacon asked the man to demonstrate his ability at bell ringing.
The young man climbed up to the belfry and proceeded to strike the bell with his face.
The bell then rang out with the most beautiful sound the deacon had ever heard. So he called out to the young man and told him that if he could do that again he had the job.
The young man enthusiastically backed up so that this time he could get a running start.
Ran towards the bell, and missed. His momentum carried him out of the belfry and he fell to the ground and was killed.
A crowd ran up to the deacon to ask what had happened.
Who is that young man several asked.
“I don’t know” replied the deacon, “but his face sure rings a bell”.
A few days later, the deacon was again approached by a young man asking for the bell ringer job. The deacon was taken aback because this man looked exactly like the man who had died earlier.
When asked, the man replied that he was the twin of the earlier applicant.
Same story, man climbs tower, rings bell with face (apparently the this skill runs in the family), gets over enthusiastic and falls to his death.
Again the crowd gathers and asks the deacon who the man was.
The deacon replies “I don’t know, but he’s a dead ringer for his brother.”
D’oh! I new that!
“… Keeping time, time, time,
As he knells, knells, knells,
In a happy Runic rhyme,
To the rolling of the bells–
Of the bells, bells, bells–
To the tolling of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells–
Bells, bells, bells–
To the moaning and the groaning of the bells.”
(Edgar Allan Poe)
It’s just other people’s money. It grows on socialist trees.
Unicorn ranching is also becoming a popular fund raiser for the left. It has the advantage of an abundant co-product useful to fertilize all those pretty green socialist trees.
No surprise here. This was all about money and power from the get-go. I would bet that M. Mann never really believed that CO2 was going to fry us all anyway. (if you could get an honest answer out of the old liar)
Yeah – just like all the others – e.g. James Hansen & Tim Wirth, who turned off the air conditioning before testifying before congress about global warming.
Oh no. Third world dictators may have to cut back on their Bentleys and London prostitutes.
“Climate finance experts fear it could be a sign of further cuts to other programs that depend on American resources.”
1. What the freak is a “climate finance expert”?
(Perhaps better questions are: How do I get to be one and how much does it pay?)
2. American resources = American MONEY. (It sounds less greedy to say resources.)
It’s not just money they want, it’s free transfer of IP too.
Just think of those very deserving environmental economics majors who will lose their jobs at the NGO’s. A group every bit as pitiful and useful as the WaBenzi in third world countries who will not be getting a new car this year./s
It is darn hard to find out any actual information for the Green Climate Fund. Most links are dead. Links that take you anywhere are a bureaucratic nightmare process document.
Not a single dime was given to any project up to the end of 2015. Quarterly financial statements are not available.
Reuters reports yesterday, that the Green Climate Fund has only disbursed $13 million to projects so far (2016 I imagine)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-fund-idUSKBN1940K9
This is looking more and more like a slush fund that managers and board members are slow-walking in bureaucratic nightmares while they figure out ways to get their own “commissions” out of the projects.
$1 million given to a Mongolian commercial bank? Does that sound like something on the up and up?
$1 million to protect the Peruvian rainforest? How would that project actually work?
Oh and here’s one for you.
The adjusted administrative budget for 2017 is $46,784,071 .
Really. That would bring the administrative costs up to $100 million in its first 4 years and only $13 million spent on projects.??
Sounds like they share an accountant with the Clinton Foundation.
Yes, globalism spawns fraud on a global scale. With every country around the globe in on the fraud, there’s no one left to oversee or prosecute.
Like other readers,I am trying to find out what my country’s ” international obligations” actually are under the Paris Agreement.
I know what the emissions targets are but it is difficult to ascertain how much money we are obligated to pay to the Green Climate Fund now that the US has departed.
Australia appears to have paid or committed to pay some A$ 200 million.
Frankly I suspect that the Australian government does not presently know the extent of its monetary obligations but am happy to be proved wrong.
Better pay up. They want their money:
Let me get this straight “Climate progress” won’t slow because the US isn’t cutting CO2 emissions, it will slow because the US isn’t sending money to other countries.
Wish I was smart enough to figure out the message in that statement.
Now I get it… ISIS, Hezbollah and all those Islamic Terrorist are just fighting Climate Change by reducing the Global Population that are causing Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Now I get it… ISIS, Hezbollah and all those Islamic Terrorist are just fighting Climate Change by reducing the Global Population that are causing Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Progress is unqualified monotonic change.
Interestingly, I cannot seem to easily find information that says clearly, in a straightforward manner, where exactly Green Climate Fund money might be destined to go, once it is contributed. I find this strange, since all manner of links lead to clear information about who is GIVING money to the fund.
I found an even more detailed listing (than the contributing author gives) of (what I think) are designated potential receivers of the funds. Here’s that link: https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/318991/NDA_and_Focal_Point_nominations_for_the_Green_Climate_Fund.pdf/eeace75b-aa59-489c-8914-c0940debe01f
And yeah, notice specific contact emails for the troublesome countries that the contributing author mentioned.
There seem to be so many ways the money could get mishandled that I cannot imagine who, in their right mind, would give a dime to the damn thing. Okay, say, by some chance, a designated amount makes it to the contact in Syria. Do you REALLY feel comfortable that the money would be used for its formally designated purpose? … Now multiply this uneasiness, especially when it comes to countries in Africa — the most politically corrupt continent in the world.
What’s WRONG with people ?!
Time got it wrong about timing. The only way to escape the Green Climate Fund obligations under UNFCCC Article 4(3) is to exit UNFCCC. That is 1 year under UNFCCC Article 25(1) and (2). And by Paris Article 28(3), that is also an automatic exit in 1 year.
OR
… totally ignore it all and do absolutely nothing in regard to it. What are they gonna do? — arrest a whole country? There are no formal sanctions, as I understand it. Just do nothing. And we’ve already indicated why we would be doing nothing — because we plan to be/ will be formally out of the thing in a few years. Meanwhile, I say again, we simply do NOTHING.
But doing nothing might be grounds for green groups to sue the administration for non-compliance. Formal withdrawal might be needed. What do you think, Ristvan?
But doing nothing might be grounds for green groups to sue the administration for non-compliance. Formal withdrawal might be needed.
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican?ID=59BD6386-5E65-4A22-81BE-352770A6FFCB
“The news remains the same. This agreement is no more binding than any other ‘agreement’ from any Conference of the Parties over the last 21 years. Senate leadership has already been outspoken in its positions that the United States is not legally bound to any agreement setting emissions targets or any financial commitment to it without approval by Congress.”
That being said, assuming this is a solid claim, compliance does not seem to be written into any American law; hence, I’m finding difficulty in seeing where any litigious green group would have a leg to stand on.
As for any chance of messing up our international reputation, which seems to be a major contention by those opposing withdrawal, I think this is bunk. If anything, we are setting a higher standard upon which international law should be based — science, NOT mythology based on “fruit salad” data handling.
I believe that you hit the nail on the head with “Exit the UNFCCC”. Since the UNFCCC has recognized Palestine as a member Nation, and since the USA CAN’T be a party to any organization which recognizes Palestine as a legitimate government entity, the USA MUST exit the UNFCCC
RK and RK, I actually researched this as a lawyer. The UNFCCC Pact was approved by Congress under Bill Clinton in 1994. It is legally binding on the US until we exit. The GCF was set up under UNFCCC Article 4.3 in 2010. It is separate from Paris. Article 4.3 MANDATES that annex 2 countries (developed, US representing about 25% of annex 2 GDP) SHALL pay all ‘climate damages’ of the rest. Damages include adaptation and mitigation costs plus climate ‘harm’ whenever the rest present an accounting. All Paris did was estimate the bill to be $100 billion per year by 2020– US on hook for ~$25 billion/year. The only way to prevent Tuvalu suing the US for desalination units (mitigation) alleging its fresh water problem is ‘climate related’– and winning— is to exit UNFCCC.
As per the UN Climate Change Newsroom from Dec 2015
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/state-of-palestine-joins-convention/
Then in March 2016 from Climate Policy Observer
http://climateobserver.org/depth-palestines-full-membership-unfccc/
Then this from the WAPO back in April 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/palestinians-trigger-federal-provision-for-defunding-of-u-n-climate-organization/?utm_term=.a781d3e3cd8c
So, as per
The US is required to immediately defund both the UNFCCC and the UN
With all due respect, ristvan, I think that you might be overlooking this:
http://www.childrightscampaign.org/why-ratify/how-does-the-united-states-ratify-treaties
The President…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur … Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2
_______________________________________
http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php
The United States of America is officially listed with an (A), which means “Acceptance” of the Paris agreement, which although an extension of the bigger, Senate-ratified UNFCCC, does NOT appear to indicate formal “ratification” of this particular EXTENSION of that treaty, which the United Nations obviously indicates a separate need for its “ratification”, as well.
The language of the Paris Agreement clearly speaks of “ratification” with respect to this specific “Paris Agreement” extension of the UNFCCC.
Why is the Paris Agreement extension of the UNFCCC treaty NOT ratified by the indicated (A)=”Acceptance”? — because, if you read the United Nations definition of “Acceptance”, then you will see a critical requirement noted:
Acceptance and Approval
The instruments of “acceptance” or “approval” of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.
[Arts.2 (1) (b) and 14 (2), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]
See the key phrase? — when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.
United States constitutional law requires, BEFORE the “head of state” can ratify a treaty, two thirds of the Senate must agree to allow the ratification. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN, and so the Paris Agreement is NOT LEGALLY ratified by the USA.
____________________________________________________
Note how the United Nations specifically defines “Ratification”:
https://treaties.un.org/pages/overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml
Ratification
Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.
[Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]
See the key phrase here? — The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.
Well, in the case of the Paris Agreement, no such time frame was allowed to seek the required approval on the domestic level nor to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to the treaty, since the Senate was NEVER approached to give the “ratification” legal meaning by USA law. Rather, the president (Obama) acted independent of the Senate, thereby NOT following USA ratification procedures as dictated by law. Hence, the Paris Agreement was and is, for the USA, just that — an AGREEMENT — which does NOT have the binding effect of a RATIFICATION.
Wikipedia flat out contradicts itself about the Paris Agreement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement?sample_rate=0.01&snippet_name=6746#utm_source=desktop-snippet&utm_medium=snippet&utm_campaign=learning-area&utm_term=6746&utm_content=rel
First, it says, This structure is especially notable for the United States — because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an “executive agreement rather than a treaty”.
Then, in the very next sentence, it says, Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.
But an “agreement” is NOT a treaty, Wiki, so why are you speaking of the UNFCCC treaty as if this “agreement” that is NOT a treaty IS a treaty or part of a treaty that needs no further ratification?
Again, the language of the United Nations, in relation to this Paris whatever, distinguishes the word, “agreement” from the word, “ratification”. The word, “ratification”, in USA law involves the Senate, which the Paris Agreement did NOT.
The United Nations obviously thinks the Paris whatever requires “ratification” to be legally binding, and yet people are trying to confuse the issue (as if the UN hasn’t confused it enough) to make it look as though the AGREEMENT is more legally binding for the USA than it actually is.
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/276668-president-obamas-signing-of-the-paris-agreement-is
I keep finding stuff:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/withdrawal.pdf
I hope it becomes clear to all Americans that:
1) All the Nouveau Monde neomarxbrothers international orgs are aggressively anti
-American and always have been.
2)The Democrats in recent decades have sought to curry favor and dissociate themselves from the internationally perceived bumpkin, uncultured, uneducated American (never mind that they won 80% of Nobels in science, literature, medicine, economics, peace.. ) . They lost themselves in the effort to be loved going so far as to become anti-American, too – “We aren’t like those deplorables, dahling. We know what you mean!” Their constituency is now outside the US. And, Republicans we’re already beginning to follow suit.
3) Now it should be clear that the world is absolutely dependent on the US. The US are the enablers of unsustainable persistent иеомагжisм around the world.” Sophisticated” Europe is run by no better talent than the leaders of the other 170 countries. UK Brexit was a step out of the world’s basket cases, but only by a couple of percent and it looks like they are doing their best to bu55er it up.
4) Trump is going to fix the rest of the world that can fix itself up by forcing them out of the enabled style they have become used to.
Perhaps studies designed to fuel alarmism will slow as well.
And perhaps in another generation or so, people will have just forgotten all about it, other than to remark how ridiculous OUR generation to get ourselves in such a twist.
Perhaps it might even become a generational lesson as to how paranoia can create monsters that only exist in the mind… or virtual reality.
It might even head off the next big psychological scare before it happens.
One can hope.
Without my money my spending will slow too. What a discovery!
But what will the 45 million citizens of the U.S. that are below the poverty line do now that $2B isn’t being sent to Western European aristocrats to be spent on projects in Libya and Iran? Surely we’re killing poor children and puppies, and soon there will be no unicorns left.
Trust me, it’s for the good of the planet.
It’s always about the money.
How much money do they figure they need to make the climate stop altogether?
$50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 give or take over the next 83 years to stave off .2C by 2100
It is like the “if a tree falls in the woods…” thing –
if we get rid of all the people, no one will notice if the climate changes.
/grin
China has all of our money, why are they not funding this?
By definition in the UNFCCC, China is permanently a developing country entitled to Article 4.3 aid from the GCF.
There are a few other countries on page 12 that may be worse.
130. Uganda – Robert Mugabe is still looting the country.
114. South Africa – The Whites in South Africa project that they will be ejected within 5 years because government corruption requires resources to continue and the Whites have a fair share of the resources they want.
Imagine a city of Climate Grifters suddenly realizing that the Sugar Daddy has gone for good.
It turn into a Ghost Town:
Griff will learn something by going to Dr Susan Crockford’s site to learn and understand the reasons for the heavy ice and bergs off the East Coast of Canada specifically Newfoundland and Labrador
Europe had such a good thing going before Trump with minimal defense spending effort and cutting deals in third world countries with money from the U.S.
“Time Magazine: Without US Money Global Climate Progress Will Slow”
Yet I have been thinking all the extra money has generally done is slow progress of science down because they are forced to find something that is not there.
It doesn’t matter if you fund trillions of dollars into going back in time, no amount of money can make the impossible happen when it is not there.
All it does is waste funds in to something that nobody can find and should have funded causes more worthwhile.
A significant cut will lead to proper science being done because some scientists may actually do some research on natural causes not just the CO2 obsession.
There should be plenty of US money available to support the Paris Agreement even if the US federal government isn’t funding it. Multi billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg (said to be worth $40-$50 billion) is in agreement with continuing the Paris Agreement, as is Elon Reeve Musk (net worth about $17 billion). I’m sure each of them will be willing to add a billion or two to funding the Paris Agreement.
Then there’s all the US cities, counties and states still supporting the deal, New York, Washington State, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. New York and California alone have lots of financial clout and lots of rich residents such as Elon Musk and Michael Bloomberg. I’m sure the states will see fit to add in a few hundred million dollars each to make up for the loss of federal government funding. The citizens of these states will also probably want to contribute themselves.
There’s now at least 311 US city mayors supporting the continuation of the Paris Agreement for their cities. Surely these mayors and residents of their cities will be willing to kick in the billions of dollars the US federal government would have contributed? Or not.
While all of these people, cities and states may want the Paris Agreement to continue it’s unlikely there’s going to be any mass infusion of funds from the people, cities or states. In fact it’s very unlikely that billionaires such as Musk and Bloomberg are going to personally lower their carbon emissions by selling off some of their mansions and/or fleet of cars and aircraft. All in all Trump is saving the US from contributing billions of dollars a year to an Agreement (not a treaty because the Senate didn’t ratify it) that would have done nothing to help the environment.
https://qz.com/999142/paris-agreement-all-of-the-us-cities-counties-states-universities-companies-and-investors-defying-trumps-stance-on-climate-deal/
https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097
I ageee with your assessment. The problem is that individuals and individual states cannot make independent deals with other countries agreements, because they are not part of the Federal Government that they gave those Constitutional Powers to when they joined the Union and people are only allowed to make personal deal’s with businesses and not governments.