UN Warns “Climate Apartheid” by 2030, though $100 Billion per Year would Help

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

“Sombre speeches by government officials at regular conferences are not leading to meaningful action.”

UN expert condemns failure to address impact of climate change on poverty

GENEVA (25 June 2019) – Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert.

Even if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, in a report released today.

“Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction,” Alston said. “It could push more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030 and will have the most severe impact in poor countries, regions, and the places poor people live and work.”

Even the unrealistic best-case scenario of 1.5°C of warming by 2100 will see extreme temperatures in many regions and leave disadvantaged populations with food insecurity, lost incomes, and worse health. Many will have to choose between starvation and migration.

“Perversely, while people in poverty are responsible for just a fraction of global emissions, they will bear the brunt of climate change, and have the least capacity to protect themselves,” Alston said. “We risk a ‘climate apartheid’ scenario where the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer.

Climate change has immense, but largely neglected, implications for human rights. The rights to life, food, housing, and water will be dramatically affected. But equally importantly will be the impact on democracy, as governments struggle to cope with the consequences and to persuade their people to accept the major social and economic transformations required. “In such a setting, civil and political rights will be highly vulnerable,” the Special Rapporteur said. 

“Most human rights bodies have barely begun to grapple with what climate change portends for human rights, and it remains one on a long laundry list of ‘issues’, despite the extraordinarily short time to avoid catastrophic consequences,” Alston said. “As a full-blown crisis that threatens the human rights of vast numbers of people bears down, the usual piecemeal, issue-by-issue human rights methodology is woefully insufficient.” 

Sombre speeches by government officials at regular conferences are not leading to meaningful action. “States have marched past every scientific warning and threshold, and what was once considered catastrophic warming now seems like a best-case scenario,” Alston said. “Even today, too many countries are taking short-sighted steps in the wrong direction.”

States are failing to meet even their current inadequate commitments to reduce carbon emissions and provide climate financing, while continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry with $5.2 trillion per year.

“Maintaining the current course is a recipe for economic catastrophe,” Alston said. “Economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are fully compatible but require decoupling economic well-being and poverty reduction from fossil fuel emissions.

This transition will require robust policies at the local level to support displaced workers and ensure quality jobs. “A robust social safety net will be the best response to the unavoidable harms that climate change will bring,” Alston said. “This crisis should be a catalyst for states to fulfil long ignored and overlooked economic and social rights, including to social security and access to food, healthcare, shelter, and decent work.”

Although some have turned to the private sector for solutions, an overreliance on for-profit efforts would nearly guarantee massive human rights violations, with the wealthy catered to and the poorest left behind. “If climate change is used to justify business-friendly policies and widespread privatisation, exploitation of natural resources and global warming may be accelerated rather than prevented,” Alston said.

“There is no shortage of alarm bells ringing over climate change, and an increase in biblical-level extreme weather events appear to be finally piercing through the noise, misinformation, and complacency, but these positive signs are no reason for contentment,” Alston said. “A reckoning with the scale of the change that is needed is just the first step.”
ENDS

Mr. Philip Alston (Australia) took up his functions as the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in June 2014.  As a Special Rapporteur, he is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

Follow the Special Rapporteur on Twitter @Alston_UNSR and Facebook at www.facebook.com/AlstonUNSR

For more information and media requests, please contact Bassam Khawaja (+1 646 886 7211 / bassam.khawaja@nyu.edu) or Patricia Varela (+41 22 928 9234 / pvarela@ohchr.org)

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts please contact Jeremy Laurence, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+41 22 917 9383 / jlaurence@ohchr.org

Follow news related to the UN’s independent human rights experts on Twitter @UN_SPExperts

Source: UN OHCHR Website

The section on climate finance is entertaining;

Climate Finance

Hundreds of billions of dollars or more will need to be mobilized to avert human suffering and losses in the trillions. The commitment by developed countries to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 is “only a fraction of the finance needed to keep the average temperature increase to 2 °C.” It is also insufficient for adaptation needs—which in developing countries are expected to total between $140 and 300 billion annually by 2025/30, and between $280 and $500 billion a year by 2050. According to one analysis of existing figures, estimated assistance is lower than reported, grant-based assistance lags far behind loans, and only a small fraction goes to least developed countries.

Source: Same link as above, p14-15

Everyone chip in, we’ve only got to raise $100 billion for this year’s payment…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
107 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 27, 2019 2:06 pm

“Thousands of bureaucrats in third world countries need a new Mercedes ” is the translation of most UN appeals for funding.

R Shearer
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2019 3:30 pm

Also, won’t the chicks be hotter? Hotter chicks and a new Mercedes and the UN still complains.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  R Shearer
June 27, 2019 9:46 pm

Already ten years ago, there was reportedly a lack of hot chicks in Copenhagen, you know, that event when the climate was saved…again, only not quite. That darned eternally nearly terminal patient, the climate, threatens to die on us every year.

kenji
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2019 3:31 pm

The difference between ‘the church’ and the UN ? More of your tithes actually make it to the POOR if you give $$ to your church. There aren’t enough Jim and Tammy Faye Bakers in all of history that compare to government inefficiency and corruption. A tiny drop in an ocean of government GREED.

Walt D.
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2019 3:34 pm

new Mercedes? Try a new Gulfstream G650ER

Flight Level
Reply to  Walt D.
June 27, 2019 8:16 pm

Now you’re talking 😉 Who needs Benz and Twin-Cessna’s, we’re fighting climate poverty here !

*Sadly true* How to take corruption to ever new levels.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Walt D.
June 27, 2019 8:42 pm

Either that or a fleet of technicals with new machine guns and lots of ammo.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2019 4:03 pm

“Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert.”

He has got it wrong!

“Climate change mitigation will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert.

Wally
Reply to  Roger Surf
June 28, 2019 6:50 am

No mention of the outrageous & incredibly stupid Third World birth rates which is one of the leading factors in poverty.

We’re so “racist” that it’s the Euro-white majority countries that billions of Third Worlders want into.

The UN is merely a Communist front. “Global warning”, “climate change”, or whatever they’re calling it this month is just another camel’s nose into the tent … the entire camel is sure to follow.

Reply to  Wally
June 29, 2019 5:29 am

… ncredibly stupid Third World birth rates which is one of the leading factors in poverty.

Locally a high birth rate in a poor country is the only pension the old have. So it make good sense to have lots of children in a country were child mortality and where mortality generally is high.
The key is installing reliable fossil fueled electricity. When that happens and the opportunity to live more healthily, safely and wealthier, then plan when to have children, and and the birth rates will naturally fall.
As China has found out it does not take much to make a real difference but installing reliable energy is the key. It is easier in the long run than trying to enforce “one child” families, and the knock-on effects it has for all the abandoned older generations.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2019 4:11 pm

Gosh “Economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are fully compatible but require decoupling economic well-being and poverty reduction from fossil fuel emissions.”

They made another mistake! What’s wrong with these guys?

“Economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are not compatible but require decoupling economic well-being and poverty reduction from fossil fuel emissions.”

Incredible.

I think its time for the UN to pack its bags and disappear somewhere!

https://thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/un-headquarters-and-usd1-2-billion-upgrade-and-rising/

Cheers

Roger

TeaPartyGeezer
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2019 5:39 pm

Off topic, but thought WUWT readers may be interested in this tidbit …

“@Michael_E_Mann’s account is temporarily unavailable because it violates the Twitter Media Policy.”

This is probably the result of the Twitter jihad he’s been calling on Dr Judith Curry after they testified before Congress the other day. Despicable behavior from a despicable Mann.

TeaPartyGeezer
Reply to  TeaPartyGeezer
June 28, 2019 11:14 am

Shoot! That’s wrong. I was looking at a fake account for Mann.

BallBounces
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 27, 2019 6:36 pm

A new Mercedes and room for a pony…

Len Werner
June 27, 2019 2:25 pm

Stunning–a projection of ‘1.5 degrees C of warming by 2100’ and ‘wealthy pay to escape overheating’ in the same wail. I’ve personally experienced -110F with wind chill when collecting drill samples at the top of a mountain in the Cassiar open pit when an Arctic front was moving over, and hiked down into Coyote Gulch in the Glen Canyon NRA in summer at +110F, and survived both while not being wealthy–with normal-Yukon-attire boots, parka and gloves in one extreme and a bottle of water in the other.

And they wonder why nobody sees the need for urgent action?? How crazy can this fraudulent grasping-for-other-peoples’-money get?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Len Werner
June 27, 2019 3:47 pm

Len,
You said, “… boots, parka and gloves in one extreme and a bottle of water in the other.” I understand that some Europeans are going the sans clothes route too. 🙂

Len Werner
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 27, 2019 7:41 pm

Ah, Paris in the springtime–and I’m missing it, darn. Incidentally, it must be a fair bit more humid along the Seine than it is in the Arabian Desert; has anyone heard how the survival of traditional Muslim female attire is doing in that heat? As I remember what the job of the bottle of water was when climbing back up out of Coyote Gulch, wearing a black tent has to be the most incredible torture. They have my sympathies.

Mark
Reply to  Len Werner
June 28, 2019 8:41 am

In Grenada, Spain today. A Bit warm but it brings out the best of the very pretty young ladies. Almaria, Spain last week on the top optional Mediterranean beach. Life is really nice. Bring on the heat.

Dave Fair
June 27, 2019 2:28 pm

Only a raving socialist ideologue could believe any of this B.S.

Bryan A
June 27, 2019 2:33 pm

AND…
If the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, GB, Europe (All Western Developed Countries) were to suddenly stop emitting Carbon Dioxide, the Atmospheric Concentration would still continue to rise beacuse the Largest Emitters were given a Blank Check to continue business as usual and are on course to double their output through 2035 and beyond

Lawrence Ayres
Reply to  Bryan A
June 28, 2019 11:45 pm

And if all those countries stopped funding the UN it would wither on the vine and disappear, unremarked and not missed at all.

Bryan A
June 27, 2019 2:39 pm

Perhaps we COULD pony up a few billion with the caveat that it is to purchase what could become eventual controlling interest in their country. Unless, in the unlikely event that there is no climate emergency requiring the expenditure, they can pay it back.

June 27, 2019 2:46 pm

How much do we pay the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston?

Should we stop supporting the whole UN circus? Human rights as practiced by Colonel Gaddafi or Robert Mugabe?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Curious George
June 27, 2019 4:10 pm

According to the document:

“Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.”

But he must work for someone. It would be interesting to find out who. My guess is a green NGO.

Robert of Ottawa
June 27, 2019 2:47 pm

Give us the money, or children die.

GeoNC
June 27, 2019 2:48 pm

As a lawyer might say, assumes facts not in evidence. If the UN were shut down tomorrow it would be an apocalypse for a lot of people needing to find real jobs.

Rick Johnson
June 27, 2019 2:50 pm

Kick the UN out of the country and stop payments to them. While we’re at it, stop foreign aid to anyone who doesn’t bow down and kiss our big ol’ hairy butt.

Editor
June 27, 2019 2:53 pm

From the Dictionary:

apartheid
noun
1. (in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population.
2. any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.

The use of the term “climate apartheid” is hyperbole at its worst. It is yet another step toward violent extremism by the Left.

n.n
Reply to  Jim Kress
June 28, 2019 4:47 am

The use of “apartheid” is designed to evoke memories of diversity (i.e. color judgments) including racism. Ironically, it was competing factions of blacks a la Hutu/Tutsi, including the winning faction lynching their competitors, that was a first-order forcing of apartheid.

a_scientist
June 27, 2019 2:55 pm

“States are failing to meet even their current inadequate commitments to reduce carbon emissions and provide climate financing, while continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry with $5.2 trillion per year.”

This subsidy sounds rather large (5-6%) compared to say the world GDP.

Any source for this whopper? The IMF. The actual subsidy is more realistically one tenth that.
To get to trillions, they are counting future damages from global warming. And we know these are vastly exaggerated, models, and never consider off-setting benefits from the use of fossil fuels.

James Clarke
Reply to  a_scientist
June 27, 2019 3:41 pm

There is no subsidy. The definition of a government subsidy requires the government to grant money to an industry, business or individual. The government does not grant money from tax receipts to the oil companies. On the contrary, the oil companies are the largest contributors to US tax revenues.

The twisted meaning which Mr. Alston gives to the word ‘subsidy’ tells you all you need to know about this article. When someone arbitrarily changes the meaning of words, their words become meaningless. This is a propaganda piece that has no place in any policy discussion or thoughtful discourse on the subject of climate change. Mr. Alston is not an honest broker, and his words are not trustworthy.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  James Clarke
June 27, 2019 4:13 pm

For the US, that’s true James, but some other countries may indeed subsidize some of their fossil fuel industries. I’m guessing that they consider any nationalized industries as “fully subsidized”.

Mohatdebos
Reply to  James Clarke
June 27, 2019 6:00 pm

IMF considers building roads paid for by taxes on gasoline a subsidy.

Petit_Barde
June 27, 2019 3:03 pm

“Even if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, in a report released today.

This is exactly what the UN is causing by perpetrating catastrophic actions against a non existent AGW problem :
– World wide impoverishment and famines.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Petit_Barde
June 28, 2019 4:22 am

Absolutely. It’s not global warming or climate change that’s the problem – far from it.
The real problem is climate change doom mongering that is causing governments to squander trillions of dollars incompetently trying to solve a non-existent problem.

The hypocrisy is breath-taking. These morons want to make cheap and abundant energy impossible. And who suffers most from expensive and unreliable energy? The poor.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Singapore
Reply to  Chris Wright
June 30, 2019 4:59 pm

I have spent the past month in Malaysia. It is amazing how much benefit reaches the poor when energy is cheap. Gasoline is fifty cents a litre. Everything is cheaper as a result – moving and working and access is influenced by the cost of energy.

Subsidizing energy may be the cheapest way of uplifting the poor. Perhaps some research is in order on the cost-benefit.

The cost of using the biggest highways is high. The cost of some tolls is equal to a tank of gas for a small car ($12). That’s for the rich. Motorcycles pass freely.

Very interesting contrast with Europe where the State must pay for so much if the poor are to benefit.

ATheoK
June 27, 2019 3:03 pm

“UN expert condemns failure to address impact of climate change on poverty
GENEVA (25 June 2019) – Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert.

“Even if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, in a report released today.

“Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction,” Alston said”

“UN expert”; that is, an expert at nothing.

“Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty”; more doomstering without evidence. Inventing over the top calamities is pure calumny.

Hugs
Reply to  ATheoK
June 28, 2019 12:55 am

Yes, the impacts of the draconian CC mitigation policies are greatest on the people who are not well-off. Policies threaten democracy and human rights, that is also true.

So they got it partly right.

Latitude
June 27, 2019 3:10 pm

..and then put a policy in place that pays the vast majority of countries to increase their emissions

damp
June 27, 2019 3:21 pm

“biblical-level extreme weather events.” Chapter and verse, please?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  damp
June 27, 2019 4:14 pm

Yeah, that whopper made me laugh too.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  damp
June 27, 2019 5:03 pm

What? You want them to open the Bible and read it?

Oh, you are brave to even suggest such a thing 🙂

Sara
Reply to  damp
June 27, 2019 5:55 pm

Dogs and cats living together! Lighting! Thunder! Maybe hailstones! Gigantic swarms of mammatus clouds!

According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet’s average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C). – Space.com

What this means is that if the global mean surface air temperature rises 1.5C to 16.4C (a +1/5 rise in mean temp) it will become (wait for it!) + 61.52 Fahrenheit. Sounds fairly habitable to me.

Does anyone besides me see the flaw in this paranoid and delusional nonsense being presented to the public? Anyone? Bueller?

Okay, then – the UN is the equivalent of card sharps at a casino. First you see your money, then you don’t, and you have no idea where it went, or how it left you. This is nothing but another scam by a bunch of con artists who want YOUR money for themselves. Just do the search for the conversion and let the software show them for the scammers they are.

Thank you!

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
June 27, 2019 7:32 pm

If I’m not mistaken, I believe that the 1.5C is above pre-industrial levels and so would mean that we are already .9c on the way there leaving .6 c by 2100

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Sara
June 27, 2019 8:04 pm

What is this: (a +1/5 rise in mean temp) ?

Also, perhaps you should use the Kelvin scale (K) with a true Zero point.
The Fahrenheit scale for temperature has an arbitrary zero point and is therefore not a ratio scale. However, zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute zero. This makes the Kelvin scale a ratio scale. For example, if one temperature is twice as high as another as measured on the Kelvin scale, then it has twice the kinetic energy of the other temperature.
http://onlinestatbook.com/2/introduction/levels_of_measurement.html

Mr.
June 27, 2019 3:29 pm

Did I miss something?
The poorest peoples in the world in busted-arse countries have never had, nor ever looked like getting, “social security and access to food, healthcare, shelter and decent work” from their successive Animal Farm governments.

So CAGW will just mean ‘business as usual’ for these poor b@stards.

n.n
June 27, 2019 3:33 pm

The UN jumped the ass a long time ago.

n.n
Reply to  n.n
June 27, 2019 4:42 pm

Over the ass, through the ouroboros, and no longer viable. If we adopt UN ethics, it could be planned and redistributed for social progress and to mitigate “climate apartheid”. It would be unconscionable not to do it for the unplanned children.

Rich Lambert
June 27, 2019 3:35 pm

The UN leaders could show the world how serious the problems is by cutting their wages to no more that 110% of the average wages of the world’s population.

Pieter Folkens
June 27, 2019 3:37 pm

It is axiomatic to say that climate change impacts those living in poverty. Just look at the Great Famine of 1315-13-17 and the subsequent challenges of the Little Ice Age when a third of Europe’s population (mostly poor) died due to Climate Change.

Rob
June 27, 2019 3:44 pm

The UN is cesspool of socialist corruption and evil. Trump should order them out of the US and their building destroyed.

Reply to  Rob
June 27, 2019 5:17 pm

Oh Yeah!
Defunding the UN–yes.
Tearing down the black tower–never thought of it.
Good idea.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rob
June 27, 2019 7:37 pm

They could convert it into housing for the homeless then it could serve a useful purpose

Latitude
June 27, 2019 3:53 pm

“tens of millions will be impoverished, “…..what are they talking about?
..and we paid the UN…and the UN paid them all to do this

comment image

comment image

comment image

commieBob
June 27, 2019 3:54 pm

… if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished …

… and poverty kills many more millions than CAGW is likely to kill.

About 3.5 million people, mainly women and children, die each year from respiratory illness due to harmful indoor air pollution from wood and biomass cookstoves. That’s more than double the annual deaths attributed either to malaria (1.2 million) or to HIV/AIDS (1.5 million). (See related blog: “Cookstove Smoke is ‘Largest Environmental Threat.’”) In the past, international health and energy authorities looked to kerosene as a cleaner alternative, but the World Bank report pointed out that recent scientific study confirms that kerosene can emit troubling amounts of health-damaging pollutants, while posing a major burn and poisoning risk. For tracking progress in the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, the report recommended that kerosene cookstoves be considered a low level of basic access; more preferable are alternatives such as biogas, liquid petroleum gas (propane), electricity, and natural gas. link

Preventing access to cheap energy, when such is easily available is tantamount to genocide.

The CAGW activists can’t name any of the supposed victims of climate change but the people who die because of energy poverty, and having to burn dung to cook with, those people have names and families.

Cheap electricity provided by coal will save many more lives than the pollution it produces will take. For example, the air pollution in Beijing is pretty epic but the life expectancy in China has increased a lot. link

Bruce Cobb
June 27, 2019 3:57 pm

“Climate change alarmism threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction”…
There, fixed.

markl
June 27, 2019 4:14 pm

As most countries turn a blind eye to CAGW the shrill of the UN gets louder and more apocalyptic. Why aren’t the Greta Thunbergs, Al Gores, schoolchildren,and politicians of the world demanding China reduce their emissions and stop building coal fired plants at the rate of one a day in other countries? Because then there would be no one to pay their “climate reparations” and renewable build out to the non industrialized and chosen (by the UN) countries. Which begs the question….. how much of the “climate funds” given to the UN already have actually been spent on renewables in third world countries so far?

Joel Snider
June 27, 2019 4:17 pm

Switch it to ‘Climate Nazi’ and they’ve got it nailed.

Of course, they would have to be looking in the mirror.

icisil
June 27, 2019 4:37 pm

“States have marched past every scientific warning and threshold, and what was once considered catastrophic warming now seems like a best-case scenario…”

They’re really cranking up the hyperbole. If catastrophic is best case, what’s worse case?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  icisil
June 27, 2019 5:06 pm

Super-exponential anthropomorphic catastrophic.

Tim
Reply to  icisil
June 27, 2019 5:51 pm

Be afraid; be very afraid.

[Oh, and by the way, Send more money because too many are dying by inhaling smoke from their fires inside closed dwellings due to lack of affordable energy.]

Bryan A
Reply to  icisil
June 27, 2019 7:40 pm

The world tipping over and Guam staying put

DocSiders
June 27, 2019 4:39 pm

The biggest threat to democracy, freedom, prosperity and human rights today is not Climate Change. It is Climate Change Fraud.

F1nn
Reply to  DocSiders
June 28, 2019 2:09 am

“””The biggest threat to democracy, freedom, ……. etc “”” is United Nations.

Fixed.

J Mac
June 27, 2019 4:51 pm

The enormity of the grasping greed is UNbelievable!…

Herbert
June 27, 2019 4:55 pm

One hundred billion a year. Each year going forward.
This has been called “a very small figure”by Christiana Figueres.
I thought the Special Report on 1.5C last October was nominating $122 trillion being needed from private and public sources by centuries end.
It is difficult to keep a straight face when figures in the trillions are being loosely bandied about.
A trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there and pretty soon you’re talking real money.(h/t Everett Dirksen).
Perhaps the UN should contact GoFundMe.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Herbert
June 27, 2019 5:08 pm

What’s the next value above a trillion? Or do we just through our hands up and give up at that point?

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Herbert
June 27, 2019 6:23 pm

If we mine the “gold asteroid”, it has quadrillions in gold, platinum, and other metals. Problem solved! /s

HotScot
June 27, 2019 4:59 pm

No problem peoples.

The UK is riding to the aid of the climate destitute as the utterly insane Theresa May has pledged to impoverish our country to save the planet.

I mean, the UK produces as much as 1% or so of global emissions so persuading mother nature by giving her £1Tn is bound to have an impact on all those destitute African and Chinese peasants.

Easy when you have OP’s money to spend.

Greg Cavanagh
June 27, 2019 5:00 pm

A great speech, but he failed to mention how $100 Billion was going to safe them.

What is his plan for this money, and how will it achieve this objective?

CD in Wisconsin
June 27, 2019 5:12 pm

“..Climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, according to a UN expert…”

The climate scare is a quest or pretext for political power, money and control. Because it involves the usurpation of political power (or more of it) over the people of the world in pursuit of an end, I submit that it is the climate scare narrative itself that is a threat to human rights. Power corrupts and oppresses. The more govts invoke an excuse for additional political power, the greater their opportunities for oppression. The risk is being created to subordinate human rights and freedom to a climate scare doctrine of highly questionable scientific credibility.

Furthermore, the climate scare narrative condemns the poor to eternal poverty in that it precludes allowing for economic development which would enable the poor to be lifted up and out of poverty. They are thus also subordinating human prosperity to climate scare doctrine.

Seeing the U.N. bureaucratic bozos get things bass ackwards is disgusting. I may have to skip dinner tonight.

DMA
June 27, 2019 5:14 pm

So this guy tells us the required change will be very costly and demand much sacrifice to save the poor. AOC tells us not to sweat the cost because we will all have good jobs and make more money. I think they both think they are right but have not stopped to actually think about the processes they are demanding or the problem they claim to be solving. Their messages, although opposite and mutually exclusive, are intended to motivate by using feelings instead of facts which they both find in very short supply.

M__ S__
June 27, 2019 5:23 pm

The world is ending . . .

. . . send money.

Gary Pearse
June 27, 2019 5:34 pm

UN Special Provocateur Alston has basically listed much of the blight that will befall us all under a global gov centred in Europe. Please Mr President, defund this undisguised, anti American, anti free enterprise, anti freedom Trojan Horse.

These UN leeches can’t believe America takes this abuse. Privately they must laugh at the inside joke that America is funding its own dismantling. They have everybody else (except a few Eastern European countries in the bag whose arms are easy to twist) and their entire job is to take down America. Com’on you must get it.

amirlach
June 27, 2019 5:46 pm

“only a fraction of the finance needed to keep the average temperature increase to 2 °C.”

Which failed model are they basing this 2 degrees C of warming on? And what failed economic model are they basing rising poverty levels on?

Global poverty is in rapid decline because of carbon based energy. So is population growth. Moar please!

Tom Abbott
June 27, 2019 6:01 pm

From the article: “There is no shortage of alarm bells ringing over climate change,”

Isn’t that the truth!

And not a one of those alarms has every panned out. One false alarm after another about humans tampering with the Earth’s weather and climate.

As the planet Earth cools, one wonders what planet these alarmists are living on, when they keep predicting catastrophic warming. They look more and more divorced from reality as time goes along. I wonder if they realize this?

If the UN is concerned about bringing poor people out of poverty they ought to build those people some fossil fuel or nuclear power plants instead of trying to foist windmills off on them.

Affordable energy is what brings people out of poverty. Windmills and solar cannot meet this need, because they are much too expensive to be practical.

Art
June 27, 2019 6:20 pm

Fighting climate change will have the greatest impact on those living in poverty, but also threatens democracy and human rights, leaving tens of millions impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger. Fighting climate change is already undoing the last 50 years of progress.

Fixed it for ya.

June 27, 2019 6:25 pm

China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined

Over the past decade, the U.S. has decreased annual carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 800 million tons. This is by far the most of any country in the world, and is primarily a result of shifting coal-fired power to natural gas and renewables. The EU has also made significant strides, reducing its annual carbon dioxide emissions by 681 million tons.
These reductions paled in comparison to China’s two billion ton per year increase in emissions,

In the Paris Accord, the UN gave China the right to INCREASE its CO2 emissions into 2030s. All CO2 taxes / donations are irrelevant in face of developing country growth that will continue until they reach a high standard of living like the EU and US.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#ed1fa4628c2b

WonkotheSane
June 27, 2019 6:34 pm

From it’s birth at the hands of Maurice Strong, CAGW has been designed as a means to get money into UN hands. Perhaps it’s a sign of desperation that they’re being so obvious about it.

LdB
June 27, 2019 6:58 pm

71 Million were displaced by wars last year alone and the UN is worrying about tens of millions of displacements by 2030. Nice priority organization by the UN … oh wait I wonder which will give the UN more money to play with.

J Mac
June 27, 2019 7:12 pm

A bit off topic….
I am watching the Democrat primary candidate debate on TV… and switching back and forth with an old Stargate SG-1 episode, when the ‘debate’ becomes too surrealistic.

And it just hit me:
I’m not sure which ‘show’ is further from reality!

Robber
June 27, 2019 7:28 pm

Still the case is presented by the UN and the IPCC based on projections that 1.5C of warming could be catastrophic under some scenarios. But the fact is that the world has already warmed by 1.0C since pre-industrial times. so all the kerfuffle is about the disaster that a mere 0.5C of further warming might cause. But 0.5C doesn’t sound as scary as 1.5C. When will this madness stop?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Robber
June 27, 2019 10:10 pm

So, we’re 1C into this 1.5C catastrophe? Wow, no wonder I see so many mutant frogs, fish swimming backward, cyclones and tornadoes dancing down the main street, sea levels rising 1 foot per week (Thanks Al), the sky turning blue, and nobody noticing that it’s all going to Heck!

Robert of Ottawa
June 27, 2019 7:35 pm

The more rabid the Warmistas and associated politicos become, the more we notice them frothing at the mouth.

Kurt
June 27, 2019 9:47 pm

“Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction. . . ”

Just what role does this doofus think that fossil fuel consumption might have had in the “50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction?”

Hugs
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2019 12:59 am

Our cry on deaf ears makes no difference.

wadesworld
Reply to  Kurt
June 28, 2019 5:24 am

Spot on!

pseudo-intellectual
June 27, 2019 10:31 pm

The commitment by developed countries to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 is “only a fraction of the finance needed to keep the average temperature increase to 2 °C.”

“ONLY A FRACTION” of what is needed- oh, that’s rich.

My only concern is what if they give up the insane raving…

RoHa
June 27, 2019 11:55 pm

$100 Billion per Year certainly would help. Send it to me. I promise it will be put to good use.

Vincent
June 28, 2019 1:17 am

I’ve heard that comment before, that States subsidise fossil fuel industry by trillions of dollars. But I don’t get where this figure comes from. Are these people actually claiming that governments pay money to private oil companies to pump oil and gas out of the ground? Anybody got any answers to this?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vincent
June 28, 2019 4:14 am

“I’ve heard that comment before, that States subsidise fossil fuel industry by trillions of dollars. But I don’t get where this figure comes from. Are these people actually claiming that governments pay money to private oil companies to pump oil and gas out of the ground?”

The oil companies get tax breaks, not payments from government. Alarmists imply that the government pays the oil companies, but what really happens is the oil companies get to keep a little bit more of the profits they make by using the tax breaks. The money is generated by the oil compaines and they pay some in taxes and get to keep some because of tax breaks.

The taxpayer, at least in America, does not subsidize the oil companies with direct cash payments.

OTOH, governments and taxpayers DO pay direct subsidies to windmill and solar farms. Paying the subsidies to the windmill and solar farms is the only way they are economically viable. Without direct government payments to windmill and solar industries these industries would collapse. The sooner the better, as far as I’m concerned.

Rod Evans
June 28, 2019 1:47 am

Maybe we should ask all the international organisations that are concerned about the world’s poor to relocate their plush offices in places like New York, Paris, London Geneva Rome and so on, and set up their well funded activities in the poor countries they focus on. Those countries would directly benefit from the economic input that move would provide.
Let us relocate the UN to say Liberia, a natural home for such an organisation. Maybe the World Bank to Zimbabwe where money with plenty of zero’s (was) normal. I am sure this progressive idea will win favour with the socialist leaders of the various institutions. Maybe FIFA can transfer its HQ to one of the hot poor middle eastern countries, where football world cups could be played every year instead of the four year as now. We all know how valuable world cup venue selection is, and the ME seems to be an ideal location…
Pass me the step ladder… 🙂

June 28, 2019 8:27 am

“Climate Apartheid” is a ridiculous phrase, and this alone discredits anything else associated with it.

When did climate have anything to do with racial segregation. My question to the users of this phrase — Distort definitions much?

Here, allow me to introduce some more ridiculous phrases:

Climate atheism

Climate constipation

Climate prostitution

Climate deficiency

Climate rape

Climate indigestion

Climate anemia

Climate terrorism

Feel free to add your own.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 28, 2019 10:25 am

You left out Climate Reparations which is what the Paris Agreement started already.

Steve O
June 28, 2019 8:33 am

“A robust social safety net will be the best response to the unavoidable harms that climate change will bring,” Alston said. “This crisis should be a catalyst for states to fulfil long ignored and overlooked economic and social rights, including to social security and access to food, healthcare, shelter, and decent work.”

— What about reliable access to electricity? Insisting on renewable energy technologies works against reliable access to electricity, which impairs social security, food security, healthcare, and opportunities for employment. The fact that the UN promotes renewable energy for poor countries who can’t afford the waste of resources and the mindless virtue-signalling it represents tells you all you need to know.

NC Coder
June 28, 2019 9:49 am

Do these people even listen to themselves? Do they believe this stuff or do they believe we are supremely stupid? They’re politicians though, and this is what they do; they tell us what their goal is by claiming what will happen if they don’t get their way.
What angers me the most, is the masses seemingly forgetting such golden oldies as “glaciers will be gone and snow will have been a thing of the past by 2012.” How do the general populous have such short attention spans with attendant memory loss that allows these people to continue? This whole idea should have been laughed out of existence by everybody, but it hasn’t. How did this happen?

Thingadonta
June 28, 2019 10:04 am

I think it’s the best advertisement to not do anything.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Thingadonta
June 28, 2019 10:24 am

+50

ResourceGuy
June 28, 2019 10:23 am

Who knew it would come to this in the decline of institutions.

comment image

Coeur de Lion
June 28, 2019 2:46 pm

What they need is lots of coal fired power stations.

old construction worker
June 28, 2019 8:04 pm

‘ UN Warns…… though $100 Billion per Year would Help’ (let me finish the headline) line the pockets of corrupt politicians.

June 29, 2019 5:11 am

““Even if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, …”

Poorer nations are pushed into maintaining their poverty by the stupidity of the evil bureaucrats at the UN and World Bank as they force poorer nations to use UNSUSTAINABLE and UNRELIABLE methods of generating electricity instead of using fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.

Jeff Price
June 30, 2019 8:06 am

The UN is without a doubt the most corrupt organization in the world today. I wouldn’t give them a penny of your money.

chris_zzz
June 30, 2019 9:31 pm

It doesn’t matter what the question is, the answer is always the same: PAY US HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY!!!

Johann Wundersamer
July 2, 2019 11:09 pm

‘climate apartheid’ is the next “flak fire” disposing the strongholds of “UN Special Rapporteurs”.

Johann Wundersamer
July 2, 2019 11:20 pm

“States are failing to [ ] provide climate financing”

is the confession of what “UN Special Rapporteurs” desparatly search for: climate financing.

%d bloggers like this: