COP26 heading for the rocks?

From The GWPF

Date: 18/06/21

GWPF & Financial Times

As the geopolitical risks and astronomical costs of the West’s unilateral Net Zero agenda become ever more evident the planned UN climate summit later this year (COP26) seems to be heading for the rocks.

Unsurprisingly, the reluctance of Western governments to deliver its pledge of an annual $100 billion transfer fund to more than 100 developing countries is threatening to unravel COP26. 

“A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020, creating mistrust among the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement….”

The West’s geopolitical own goal also provides China, India and other emerging nations a rock solid reason to reject Western pressure on any new or binding commitments.

If Biden, Boris and the EU thought emerging and developing nations would simply cave to their unrealistic Net Zero demands they should think again. It’s not going to happen.

The US and EU leaders have tried and failed to square this circle for the last 30 years. It’s unlikely to go away for decades to come.

There is now a growing risk that COP26 will end in yet another COP-flop, throwing the climate campaign back to the 2009 Copenhagen fiasco.

Weeks of negotiations were overshadowed by cost of meeting demands of Paris agreement

Tensions over climate finance threaten to derail this year’s COP26 summit after weeks of preliminary UN deliberations yielded little agreement over how to proceed with core principles of the Paris climate accord

The downbeat conclusion fuels further disappointment about progress on halting global warming, after the G7 leaders summit in Cornwall failed to produce specific plans for new climate funding.

A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020, creating mistrust among the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement.

The shortfall in funding also sets the scene for a series of difficult discussions in November at the COP26 in Glasgow when it comes to agreeing new goals for climate finance.

“It is unlikely that rich countries hit the target of mobilising $100bn per year by 2020,” said Amar Bhattacharya, co-chair of the UN’s Independent Expert Group on Climate Finance and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, although official figures are yet to be tallied formally.

At a time when government coffers have already been emptied by the coronavirus pandemic, reaching agreement on climate finance — public and private funding to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to climate change — is more contentious than ever.

Read the full article here.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mumbles McGuirck
June 19, 2021 6:10 am

And yet, they will jet in to Glasgow from all over the globe to confab and dine on the taxpayer’s dime. Reaching an agreement is secondary to virtue signaling. And, as with previous shindigs, they will wave a piece of paper at end saying we’ve achieved peace in our time.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 19, 2021 7:30 am

I suspect that will also be the view of many voters.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 19, 2021 9:38 am

You never no, winter may come early to Glasgow.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  mwhite
June 19, 2021 11:04 am

A blizzard would be perfect!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 19, 2021 1:30 pm

Whore moans will be audible.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Scissor
June 19, 2021 3:06 pm

Oddly … I was thinking along the same line.

Ron Long
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 19, 2021 10:13 am

COP-flop = COW-flop. Fixed it.

Reply to  Ron Long
June 19, 2021 11:29 am

I wonder, how many reading this have never heard of cowflops?

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 19, 2021 12:42 pm

Heard of them? How about shoveled tons into a manure spreader, driven to the field in the dead of winter, and spread out, with a strong wind coming from behind with enough speed that I had to get out of my seat, stand astraddle the engine and steer with my hand behind me so the “second-hand hay” didn’t shower me.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 19, 2021 1:33 pm

It’s how many floating point operations a cow can do every second, right?

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 20, 2021 12:10 pm

…and those who haven’t aren’t going to admit it!

AGW is Not Science
June 19, 2021 6:34 am

Maybe for $200 Billion per year, they can guarantee rain where there is drought and sunshine where there is flooding. That’s just as ludicrous as thinking $100 Billion per year of wasted money is going to do a damn thing to the Earth’s climate that can be measured.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
June 19, 2021 6:39 am

Yes but it sure buys a lot of political support.

Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2021 8:20 am

That’s liberalism in a nutshell. Using other people’s money to buy support.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2021 1:05 pm

Pay for support.

Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2021 11:47 am

That is pretty much it. The money can be used for whatever the elites of those countries want, including funneling most of it to their own banks accounts. And all that is required in exchange is a pledge to support Blinken’s / Biden’s rules based international order. It is not a carbon dioxide curtailment mechanism, but a way of shoveling bribe money, under the guise of plausible deniability.

William Astley
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
June 19, 2021 10:48 am

The issue is the general public and the fake news are clueless about basic fundamentals concerning country economics/spending, how much money has been spend, and the consequences of creating too much currency.

The idiots who run our governments… Are so clueless/irresponsible, they do not ‘know’ their countries does not have $100 billion per year to waste on the green scams, corrupt UN organizations, and corrupt fail to launch countries.

No money to spend on the green scams that do not work … The green scams will never get us to zero emissions and green scams do not help developing countries.

Developing countries need 24/7 electricity, no brownouts to enable light industries. The lack of 24/7 electricity is one of the fundamental reasons why the developing countries have failed to launch and do not have light industries.

Developing countries (Almost all African countries for example) do not have 24/7 electricity outside of a small region in their capital city.

China is upgrading their coal plants (and is responsible for more than half of the CO2 emissions) and will have/has the cheapest electricity. We will have (German/UK has) the most expensive electricity and will have brownouts if nuclear power plants are shutdown.

Almost every ‘western’/democratic country is now spending themselves to death. They were spending themselves to death before covid.

Covid was the excuse to pay people to not work and to start super spending on green scams/the new government program of the week. That ends badly when inflation starts and currencies collapse and inflation starts. Inflation has now started.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
June 19, 2021 11:52 am

Let me address that by presenting a realistic assessment of “climate change”. I’m starting with the Texas A&M “faculty statement” (although we know it was written by one wing-nut who bullied the rest of the faculty into signing on under threat of cancellation) on climate change and modifying as appropriate.

We all agree with the following three conclusions based on current evidence:

  1. The Earth’s climate is [may be] warming, meaning that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere and ocean have been increasing over many decades. Average global surface air temperatures warmed by about 1.5°F between 1880 and 2012. [it’s impossible to tell after the continuous molestation of data by both government agencies and NGOs.]
  2. It is extremely likely [possible] that humans are responsible for more than half [some] of the global warming [if it exists] between 1951 and 2012 [actually detectable at local levels only].
  3. Under so-called “business-as-usual” [any] emissions scenarios, additional global-average warming (relative to a 1986-2005 baseline) would likely be 2.5-7°F by the end of this century [impossible to predict given the current level of understanding of atmospheric systems, and impossible to detect without ultra sensitive, ultra precise instrumentation that likely does not exist].

Continued rising of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures presents the risk of serious [unknown] challenges [or benefits] to human society and ecosystems.

There. Now that is an honest statement.

June 19, 2021 6:38 am

Unfortunately the OECD has cooked up numbers saying they are already getting $80 billion a year so the lack of $100 billion may not be the hoped for Paris Accord deal breaker. COP 26 well might collapse but that is far from certain. Fingers crossed.

Richard Page
Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2021 12:20 pm

Cooking the books indeed. As far as I can see online, pledges for the GCF are at $10.3 bn and the confirmed (raised to date?) amount is $8.24bn (figures as of Feb 2020). There seems to be a vast gulf between what the OECD thinks is happening and what is actually happening.
Of course, I wonder if it has occurred to the developed countries to add vaccine donations into that? If COVID is as a result of climate change (it’s been said) then donating vaccines should be considered as GCF contributions- who could possibly argue with that!

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
June 20, 2021 3:34 am

you have a career in politics ahead with thinking like that ;-)))

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Wojick
June 19, 2021 12:21 pm

The developing countries have put the West on notice that the purported $80 billion is nothing more than an accounting scam using previous international aid and other accounting tricks. They have stated that they will not accept that at COP 26. That is why all the fancypants’ panties are in a wad over the probability of a COP 26 failure.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 19, 2021 4:45 pm

If this was done using the “standard” formula for foreign “aid” it would go like this:

We are contributing our $5bn for the year. We will hire our consultants to go to your country/ies to advise you how to apply for funding from the UN and how to hold fundraising parties with celebrities. This will be accompanied by local fundraising from businesses and children begging door-to-door. We will provide $5bn worth of consulting time. We have met our Paris Pledge.

In a nutshell this is how the Clinton Foundation works. They spend the money on themselves and friends to tell you how to raise money from others. All you have to do is pay the hotel bill and airfares. The leader of an NGO I know followed Al Gore down the climate catastrophe path for years implementing everything Al said. They asked if he would come to their celebration of 20 years or some such. His office wrote back that they should send him $400,000 and he would come to help them raise money.

Is there any wonder that the developing countries are up in arms about receiving funds? There is no financial support for poor countries from the international fiscus. They get what is advantageous to the donor countries, sprinkled with binding contracts and infiltrated with social agendas that contradict local mores. The bottom line is the developing countries want to see money handed over, not “equivalent value of services” from the “donors”. A contract is a contract: we do it, you fund it, you hand over the money. It is you who wants windmills, not us, but pay us, we will build them if you like them so much.

Disparaging all developing countries as uniformly crooked and unreliable so “they do not deserve control of their economies” is unreasonable and unfair. The western governments are astonishingly corrupt. They should stop projecting their faults onto others. Extremes of wealth and poverty is a direct cause of violent conflict.

Paul Jenkinson
June 19, 2021 6:40 am

100 billion for sanitation and clean drinking water might be better right now.
Via fossil fuels of course!

Reply to  Paul Jenkinson
June 19, 2021 6:51 am

Via nuclear fuels is better

Reply to  Leo Smith
June 19, 2021 7:03 am

Letting free markets sort it out is best of all.

Reply to  Paul Jenkinson
June 19, 2021 9:05 am

Helping people live healthy and better lives is not the objective of the leftist leaders. They want us to be just as bad off as those who need good sanitation and clean drinking water. This way, they and the people in their cabal can be rich and powerful.

Reply to  Wade
June 19, 2021 9:34 am

The US under Trump was run by a cabal of the rich and powerful…

oeman 50
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 10:11 am

And the US under Biden is being run by Zuckerberg, Bezos, Bloomberg, Soros, Dorsey, who am I missing?.

Reply to  oeman 50
June 19, 2021 10:27 am

Billy… that one of the boys you missing…

And the entire Gogol politburo too.



Last edited 1 year ago by whiten
Reply to  oeman 50
June 19, 2021 10:54 am

A recent article details how Biden has been hiring mainly family members of his top advisers for most of the second and third tier government slots that he has been filling.

Reply to  oeman 50
June 19, 2021 11:49 am

One person you are missing is Biden, because he is missing.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  DonK31
June 19, 2021 1:07 pm

And his son!

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 10:54 am

Not true, but why let reality get in the way of a good lie.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 12:27 pm

Wrong-o, Griff. It is the rich and powerful, using the Deep State and sympathetic MSM, that attacked President Trump for five years. It was the ChiCom virus and media blaming Trump for the deaths that did President Trump in.

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 2:04 pm

So you are a Marxist in spite of all your previous denials?

Reply to  Lrp
June 19, 2021 7:46 pm

Marxists only hate it when other people have a lot of money. Themselves being filthy rich is no big deal.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 2:43 pm

Not only that you have problems with science, no, now you show further to also have problems with politics, and reality.
The rich and powerfull Trump never was in financial dependence of who or what ever. One of the million reasons the Democrats hate Trump.
Ask the people in America who got a payed job under Trump.
And ask now, who wil lose jobs and why – independent of Corona – und Biden, who, by the way isn’t a poor man / family 😀

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 2:56 pm

Who were those rich and powerful? Bloomberg? Bezos? Gates?


Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 3:16 pm

Clueless as usual. Typical Leftist clown … got the cart firmly in front of the horse. The “Rich and Powerful” were the ones most afraid of Trump. It’s the Democrats who provide them with their greatest advantage.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 19, 2021 7:08 pm

Typical Leftist clown ?? Ha ha, if only griff could aspire to that level.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 4:49 pm

Hey Griff?

Coal price in Australia is at a Rich and Powerful 10 year high.

Despite that, or maybe because of that, we have good sanitation and clean drinking water.

Except for Victoria, but they wanted to be part of Belt and Road so they don’t count 😛

Also is this a good time to remind readers that your Lord has solar panels on the manor? Can we ask if HE is Rich and Powerful?

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 7:46 pm

…and continually sabotaged by collectivist and totalitarian media and academia. Trump should have used the military to cleanse the country of socialists and their sympathizers. Same job as in Germany 1945, because same kind of enemy.

Frank from NoVA
June 19, 2021 6:59 am

“At a time when government coffers have already been emptied by the coronavirus pandemic, reaching agreement on climate finance — public and private funding to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt to climate change — is more contentious than ever.”

As of today, $100B/yr of ex-nihlo scrip doesn’t even register as chump change. The developing world knows this, and as much as they wouldn’t appreciate the graft, they’d rather have reliable energy.

Gordon A. Dressler
June 19, 2021 7:15 am

From the quoted text in the above article:
“The downbeat conclusion fuels further disappointment about progress on halting global warming, after the G7 leaders summit in Cornwall failed to produce specific plans for new climate funding.”

Hmmm . . . I think I see the core problem: the above statement leads me to conclude that global warming alarmists and elitists have equated “halting global warming” with “climate funding”.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 19, 2021 10:40 am

global warming alarmists and elitists have equated “halting global warming” with “climate funding”.Nothing could be further from the truth. ”

No , to elitists and alarmists that IS their “truth” .

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 19, 2021 11:56 am

In truth, it was always about wealth redistribution (the funding), global warming was just a convenient excuse and will be discarded if ever it is no longer useful.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 20, 2021 11:49 am

I don’t think wealth redistribution was the goal, because it never materialized. The idiot or crooked leaders signed away their people’s money so easily but the cheques didn’t even get posted. It was either for show or the aid money came with chains attached that forced the recipient countries to use certain companies for their turbines and panels. China’s Belt and Road is basically the same, and more successful because of less strings attached, and that’s saying a lot given that Belt and Road can with colossal ropes attached and certain countries have lost control of ports etc, to China.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 20, 2021 11:40 am

They seem to think they can actually affect the climate, they just have to raise enough money to buy the magic ruby slippers. Even by their own ridiculously flawed figures, if Paris Accords worked to plan the trillions spent would affect global average temps by a fraction of a degree – completely unnoticeable and drowned out by natural variation. The alarmists’ lie is so bad it doesn’t even make sense even if you accept the co2-boogie monster. If the premise were true then sensible people would be calling for mitigation and adaptation plans, not advocating that trillions of hard-earned money be flushed down the toilet.

June 19, 2021 7:26 am

Can small countries ignore the EU and US and just get into bed with China? Maybe.

Some countries were able to play off the US vs. the USSR during the cold war. The US was able to buy the loyalty of many countries. The US may not be able to continue doing that and it looks like China has a lot more to offer than did the Soviets.

If the third world likes its fossil fuels, it can keep its fossil fuels.

Reply to  commieBob
June 19, 2021 9:34 am

but the developing world is increasingly ditching fuels like coal…

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 10:26 am

Not if they are smart.

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 10:55 am

Once again, reality and griff’s statement fail to coincide.

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 10:59 am

The developing world is being given damn all choice. The money men are saying ‘no’ to any request for funding for fossil-fuelled power stations. Lesotho sitting on massive coal reserves (I’m told) and we won’t allow them to use them even though it was coal and cheap reliable energy that powered our industrial revolution and it was only that industrial revolution that made you as well off, as well-fed, as healthy and as long-lived (hopefully) as you are.

And you plan to deprive them of their industrial revolution and that makes you feel good? Apart from betraying your scientific ignorance every time you put finger to keyboard you are happy to condemn millions of people to continuing poverty because you are either clueless or gullible. Or maybe both

Reply to  Newminster
June 19, 2021 11:58 am

Or maybe “griff” knows exactly of what he/she speaks, which just makes him/her evil.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 11:00 am

…to their own detriment!

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 12:18 pm

China going to mine it’s coal to last billion ton. Just like France and UK.
It will probably take couple decades.

Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 2:15 pm

Stupid them

Krishna Gans
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 2:46 pm

Will you say, beside the idiotic declaration to be one, China is a “developing” country – or or is it a developed ?

Krishna Gans
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 2:57 pm

And ?
What will you say ?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
June 19, 2021 3:18 pm

More nonsense. The Chinese are building col generation plants in them. Any developing countries adopting the “green” lie won’t be doing much developing.

Richard Page
Reply to  commieBob
June 19, 2021 10:33 am

The problem with that approach has always been to keep them bought. In this case, the situation will be long term and keeping countries on the US side throughout will be daunting and expensive. The US gas exports with the fracking surplus were a very good way of keeping countries on side – but always vulnerable to international price variations. Perhaps the Green Fund in the Paris Agreement could be used as a carrot and stick approach if the US can control who gets what, if that is possible under the UN auspices.

June 19, 2021 7:53 am

And $15 per member of humanity won’t go far when you start fighting the weather, so you know that $100Bn is just the the first leaf of the ecology-economy….based on the economic model of the medieval Roman Catholic church to fight evil….but “woke” this time….

Reply to  DMacKenzie,
June 20, 2021 12:02 pm

Why are you dragging your bigotry into this? If you’re possibly thinking of indulgences, like carbon credits and other virtue signalling are supposed to be like climate indulgences, educate yourself and find out how what happened in Renaissance Germany was illegal under Church law, indulgences are never for money but for prayer and devotion, and how the Church funded buildings that stand for centuries, and universities and art renowned the world over, not like the fragile, intermittent turbines and panels, or the propaganda pretending to be climate science – that has set science back as it full of politics and careerism, and the unreproducibility scandal is still continuing unabated.

Steve Case
June 19, 2021 8:10 am

I love the illustrations here at Watts Up With That. Today’s cartoon “…we mean you” says it all. Well OK caricatures of various billionaires (you know who they are) saying, “…we mean you” to all of us is probably more accurate.

June 19, 2021 8:18 am

Liberals failing to keep their promises.
Nothing new here.

June 19, 2021 8:31 am

Not only are we supposed to cough up for England, but we also have to go by Doris’ new green vagenda.

When the gas ban comes only those who have wads of cash to spare and those in social housing will get heat pumps and insulation etc. The vast majority of us live in older housing stock and if we don’t stump up – and few of us can – to meet the new criteria we won’t be allowed to sell our properties/buy them.

It’s beyond bonkers and so are they.

Reply to  fretslider
June 19, 2021 9:55 am

Complete insanity !! – But it has been hiding in plain sight since 2008 when Ed Milliband’s act went through Parliament opposed by only 3 MPs. Only now are the MSM starting to notice what is being done to us, and even then only half heartedly.

Ken Pollock
Reply to  Martin
June 19, 2021 11:59 am

Martin, I said 3 for many years, but it was 5, as you need two tellers on that side, who agree with the 3 who voted against. Small point, but one likes to be precise…

June 19, 2021 8:33 am

considering that china is the elephant in the room, which neither the ‘deveopled’ nor the ‘developing’ states want to mention.. yes the rest of any talk about pollution is simply a joke.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  qwerty
June 19, 2021 10:37 am

There are two elephants in the room, one is just younger but will put on bulk fast. There is the China Elephant and the India Elephant – both of which will complete drive additional release of CO2 into the atmosphere for the next 30 or so years. After that we should have the African Elephant herd to “worry” about. (Me? I am not worried about CO2 at all, but pollution from burning coal in a poorly built power plant is dangerous to locals)

June 19, 2021 9:17 am

So decades of virtue signaling have produced neither the planned anticipated money nor the CO2 reduction. Fancy that. Of course all nations want to give the impression that they’re willing to save the planet but not at the cost of ruining their economy. No one is willing to burn down the village to save it even though some are trying, and some are watching and laughing.

Reply to  markl
June 19, 2021 9:57 am

The UK Government seem more than happy do destroy our economy in the name of saving Gaia

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Martin
June 19, 2021 2:02 pm

Anything to keep Carrie and her friends happy!

Reply to  markl
June 19, 2021 11:10 am

To save the planet from what?

Reply to  S.K.
June 19, 2021 7:15 pm

…. not having its climate stabilised apparently.

Barnes Moore
June 19, 2021 9:26 am

Unfortunately, this will not stop the green zealots in western countries to continue to push for things like the GND. Sue and settle may be back in vogue in the US so the unelected bureaucratic officials may still find a way to push through their agenda without congressional support.

Reply to  Barnes Moore
June 19, 2021 9:52 am

Read up on the “Broken Window Parable”, but the modern interpretation. Modern economic theory is that if there are unemployed people put to work on the repairs, the “Broken Window” is not “bad” or even a neutral “waste of effort” but “good” because the increased employment causes income tax payments, and bank deposits of the workers’ paycheques that the banking system can loan out 10x over…..and if you don’t actually have a broken window but can convince everyone there is….well, even better. Climate Crisis is the flavor of the day for modern “broken window” economic advocates.

June 19, 2021 9:35 am

“A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear [the United States appears] to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020, creating mistrust among the 191 countries that signed the Paris agreement.”
There, fixed it.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
June 19, 2021 9:59 am

Another of President Trump’s achievements 🙂

Reply to  Martin
June 19, 2021 11:20 am

I, and millions of other Americans, would gladly trade our teleprompter challenged talking head for the mean tweet-er again.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
June 19, 2021 10:39 am

“A major reason for the discord is that rich countries appear [the Socialist Union of the United States appears] to…”

There, fixed it. (factoring in the current direction of the activists.)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
June 19, 2021 4:36 pm

the United States appears] to have missed a target of $100bn in annual climate aid by 2020″

I’m wondering what ole Joe Biden is going to do about this? Trump cutoff the money on his watch, so will Biden double-down on payments? How much U.S. taxpayer money is going into this fund now that Biden is in charge?

Bruce Cobb
June 19, 2021 9:39 am

And meanwhile, poor countries are shrieking and wailing about how “threatened” they feel and are like “Never mind all the talk-talky-talk: SHOW US THE MONEEEEEYYY!!!!!!”
Good theater. Need lots of popcorn.

Gary Pearse
June 19, 2021 10:02 am

So putting up 100 billion by the West is a stumbling block to saving the Planet! What would poker players say about a hand like that?: First let’s look at the priors.

With a tight natural gas supply sapped by 3 cold winters in a row in Europe, a decision was taken to open three coal power stations. Not buy gas from America, but domestic coal fired plants! The most hated of fuels among the totality folk! This a deliberate message that says, we are done destyroying the economy. The rest of the world is developing theirs with cheap FF. This is the end of windmills and solar panels. Finally,The unsolvable FF transportation and shipping problem is still to be faced and it won’t be. It will simply continue use of FF. EU also has La Penn and like oppositions in their faces, too.

The UN rolls along mindlessly on it’s own schedule, so COP26 pops up most inconveniently. There will be no transfer of funds. Europe wants it to fail because it has already moved on. The whole schmeer is over. There will be some face saving waffles to delay and the blame game and lawsuits but that’s just the throes of the headless chicken.

June 19, 2021 10:26 am

At a time when government coffers have already been emptied by the coronavirus pandemic

Can carbon neutral be dollar neutral?
Otherwise – ain’t gonna happen.

Robert of Texas
June 19, 2021 10:32 am

How about the U.S. investing it’s share in nuclear research and then starting a prgram to build nuclear power plants? Our CO2 release would drop by 10% or more, we could stop investing in outrageous wind turbine scams (that require large volumes of CO2 to even build), and smart states at least would have a reliable power grid once again. I can’t speak for other states because some states seem too stupid to use nuclear power even if it where available.

We do not owe the rest of the world one penny (well, except for the massive debt we are taking on).

This would free up more of our fossil fuels to sale to other countries in order to help balance the budget.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 19, 2021 12:20 pm

I agree. I like the idea of “modular” nukes. That would be a boon for our military, if they can bring in a power plant on 1-4 (as many as 10?) trailers and have it up and running in 48 hours. But even more realistically, a modular nuclear plant can get an approval to build and site anywhere, and it’s done, you don’t need to get another approval for the very next one you build!!! Piece of cake! Now what are the actual impediments to such a plan? I have no idea, but I have heard noises like it may be possible.

willem post
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 19, 2021 2:50 pm

The US and Europe and Japan are at least 10 years behind China, Russia, and South Korea regarding nuclear power.

They do not have the trained technical manpower to catch up.

To educate and train that manpower would take at least 10 years, AFTER which COMPETITIVE plants could be built.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 19, 2021 4:40 pm

The U.S. military is starting a new nuclear power development program. They are working on small nuclear reactors of between 1Mw and 5Mw, and will be used for powering military bases and other things both in the U.S. and outside, and they claim to be able to do this by 2027.

June 19, 2021 10:55 am

It’s unfortunate it’s not the science that is derailing COP26.

Dave Fair
Reply to  S.K.
June 19, 2021 12:39 pm

Not ‘science.’ You Shirley mean UN IPCC CliSciFi as further distorted by the grasping MSM, venal politicians, Deep State Leftists, ideologically-driven NGOs and greedy crony capitalists.

willem post
June 19, 2021 12:15 pm

This article has an estimate of the US and the world “GOING GREEN”
We are talking tens of TRILLIONS of dollars.



World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA. 
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive. They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades. 
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution. 
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats. 
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs. 
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.


The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

50% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

100% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y


World More-Inclusive CAPEX

The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.
This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.

US More-Inclusive CAPEX
The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279
A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion
The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.
It is unclear what accounts for the large difference. 
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries. 

NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:
Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years
Battery systems about 15 years

Additional Considerations

1) Fossil Fuel Feedstocks: There are a vast number of systems and activities requiring fossil fuel feedstocks to produce millions of every-day products and services. What would replace these fossil fuel feedstocks? Biofuels would require more than a billion of acres of fertile land.

2) Rebuilding for Energy Efficiency: Reforming transportation systems and vehicles, and rebuilding almost all buildings, including housing, would be required to reduce their energy consumption by at least 50%. The world fleet of cruise ships and private yachts and private planes would be outlawed?

Any costs (in the US at least $50 trillion) associated with these 2 items are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.
Any costs for on-going replacements of mostly, short-life RE systems, are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.

NOTE: Achieving 100% RE by 2050, as a slogan, sounds attractive. It likely would be not feasible for a multitude of reasons. 
World RE was about 100.18 quads, or 15.98% of total energy consumption in 2019, per EIA. 
EIA projects world RE at 252.25 quads, or about 252.2 / 910.69 = 27.7% of world energy consumption by end 2050
See table 1A. 
See URL, click on PPT to access data, click on page 4 of PowerPoint for inter-active graph.

3) Reliability of Electric Service: High levels of wind and solar on electric grids would require an HVDC overlay grid, connected at many points to the existing HVAC grids. 

The HVDC overlay grid would move around electricity to wherever it would be needed, to ensure 99.97% reliability of service throughout the US. The CAPEX for a US overlay grid would be about a $400 to $500 billion. 

The CAPEX for site-specific, custom-designed, utility-scale, storage would be about $400 billion/TWh, if $400/kWh, delivered as AC.

For example: The New England grid, fed-to-grid of about 110 TWh/y, would need about 9 to 10 TWh of storage (battery storage or pumped-hydro storage) to cover wind/solar lulls and seasonal variations, if it had 1) much more wind and solar, and 2) no gas-fired CCGT plants, and 3) no nuclear plants, and 4) no major transmission connections to NY and Quebec.

4) Standards for Determining CO2 Reduction: Presently, there exists no standard way to verify the CO2 emissions and RE build-out claims of various countries! The opportunities for cheating/fudging/obfuscation are endless.

– The CO2 of upstream energy is usually ignored.
– Energy systems are rarely analyzed on an A-to-Z basis, because various RE promotion programs would not be anywhere near as attractive, regarding annual costs and CO2 reduction. See Appendix.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  willem post
June 19, 2021 7:00 pm

A big waste of paper and time. Windmills and solar have peaked in EU. They are opening 3 coal power plants and mines to feed them. This is an unmistakable message. It is not a temporary stopgap. EU has known for years that 5 billion non-Western are irreversibly diving into FF power to drive prosperity for their people and with great success (Bangladesh, once the poorest of the poor has averaged over 15% annual GDP growth after building two large modern coal power plants). There are over 3000 such plants moving off the drawing boards over the coming decade in Asia and Africa. They will be needing iron and steel, and automobiles and holidays, infrastructure etc.

The EU also knows that they are stuck with FF for shipping and transport. They are also staring at political opposition like La Penn in France with huge ground support from disaffected voters. No sane person will argue that the the meme isnt over and even the insane are waking up to a very different “Great Reset” than they envisioned short weeks ago.

Willem Post
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 19, 2021 7:20 pm

I agree.

Germany could never do as much wind and solar, if it were not connected to many countries to stabilize its grid.

The same goes for Denmark.

Ireland wind had run into a wall, when Ireland had an island grid, a few years ago, but it received money from Brussels for building grid connections to the very large grids of the UK and France.

Now, it can install more wind turbines; what a charade to make highly subsidized, expensive wind look good

FF are here to stay, everywhere, and for a very long time

My capital cost analysis is tongue-in-cheek, to get people to start thinking.

The sooner we start building out nuclear, the better.

However, only Russia, China, and South Korea have the ACTIVE A to Z infrastructure to build and service the plants.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Willem Post
June 19, 2021 9:26 pm

The New England grid is highly dependent on a HVDC interconnect from HydroQuebec. Without that ability to tap into hydro power from Canada, NY Governor “K1ller” Cuomo and all the other virtue signalling governors couldn’t engage in the refusal lunacy they do on new gas pipelines and new power plants that has eroded their ability to power themselves during hugh demand periods.

But like the undersea connects in the UK and Ireland, these interconnects are DC, so no grid inertia. They supply power, but not the frequency and voltage stability. That DC connect protects HydroQuebec because there’s no ability for instability in New England’s AC grid to destabilize Canadiens’ AC power grid.

Willem Post
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 20, 2021 7:32 am


Canada’s grid is AC, 60 Hz, but it is out of phase with the US grid.

Any feeding-ins from the US to Canada would need to be converted to DC, then to AC with a phase to match Canada.

Northwest Vermont receives about 1.4 million MWh/y from Canada.
Vermont has an AC to DC to AC conversion station.

Future NE build-outs of off-shore wind and solar systems would require very large capacities of gas turbine plants to counteract wind/solar output variations, including during minimal-wind/solar periods, which frequently occur in NE and may last 5 to 7 days.

Covering those electricity-shortage periods with batteries would cost at least $1 TRILLION, and they would last about 15 years!!!

The gas plants provide rotational inertia that stabilizes the NE grid.

If RE idiots were successful to close down gas turbine plants by interfering with/constricting their very-low-cost, domestic gas supplies, very expensive, large-scale battery systems and/or major connections to Canada would be required for counteracting wind/solar output variations.

Lawrence Sellin
Reply to  Willem Post
June 20, 2021 10:09 am

[User permanently banned for impersonation]

Willem Post
Reply to  Lawrence Sellin
June 20, 2021 11:18 am


You are right about 35 connections, but almost all of those are via ac to dc to ac stations, as in Vermont.

Quebec province grid has 4 such stations to connect to the Eastern Interconnection

Willem Post
Reply to  Willem Post
June 20, 2021 11:20 am

Also, the frequency of the Eastern Interconnection is not synchronized with that of the Quebec province. Both have 60 Hz, but not in sync.

Michael in Dublin
June 19, 2021 1:09 pm

A large number of developing countries are in Africa.
It is a huge land area.
It has huge minerals resources.
It has a huge area of land that could be agriculturally productive.
It has far better climate zones than most European countries.
It has a considerable amount of rainfall and some huge rivers.

But it is riven with incompetence, mismanagement, fraud, corruption, civil strife
and ideological slavery under tyrants.

Let them get their own houses in order before demanding the prosperous countries keep bailing them out and giving them aid. We have a choice: to treat them as if they are too stupid and incapable of helping themselves and treating them like an indulgent parent or to treat them like grown up children that need to become responsible people.

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 19, 2021 5:06 pm

all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, where all our testing says …. not really.James Watson

Last edited 1 year ago by pakettle
Joel O'Bryan
June 19, 2021 1:52 pm

When something is impossible, expecting otherwise is irrational.

Nigel in California
June 19, 2021 3:02 pm

”We were going to say the same thing!” – developing nations.

Edward Katz
June 19, 2021 6:34 pm

In addition, the Developed Nations don’t trust the Developing ones in their use of any donations. The money could wind up in the pockets of those running those countries or to finance the armies keeping them in power, or anywhere except for climate action.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Edward Katz
June 20, 2021 8:53 pm

Not a penny will end up on climate change, it will go to corruption and hopefully to build their actual economies.

One can hope

June 19, 2021 6:52 pm

Come on, man, hookers and blow and booze are expensive, they need every farthing they can scrape up!

Vincent Causey
June 20, 2021 12:34 am

I wonder if western leaders are even aware that the road to net zero will lead to devastating effects on the economy. I know they boast about creating millions of green jobs, but do they actually believe that? Perhaps they do. Perhaps they believe in the fantasy that by eliminating cheap reliable energy for expensive and increasingly unrealistic wind and solar they will become “global leaders” etc etc.

The single most important thing to the western bloc – NATO, the EU, G7 – is projection of geopolitical power (enforcement of their “rules based system”). Yet, the economic destruction they would unleash on their own economies with net zero, would necessarily weaken their power to the point that they become irrelevant. Is that the plan? Paving the way to some global governance? I really have no idea.

June 20, 2021 3:31 am

yeah billions to pharmas for semi useful vax(if it doesnt kill you) plus wage supports etc trade losses and the rest
funny how REAL problems sorta shuffle the imaginary ones to the rear of the line 😉

June 20, 2021 11:29 am

$100 billion a year, $100,000,000,000 !!!, promised so easily to bribe non-G7 countries to go along with this insanity, but for useful things like clean water and sanitation, technology transfers to jumpstart local industry, decent loans to support basic, reliable infrastructure, etc, nothing even remotely comparable. The signers of the Paris Accords should have known that if it sounds to good to be true….

Pat from kerbob
June 20, 2021 8:50 pm

The Maldives are so concerned about climate and sea level rise they are building massive hotels and a new airport because….
Help me here, why are they building those, since they went under the waves last year?

June 25, 2021 2:54 am

Its obvious this is just a cash grab by poor countries – and so-called leaders from “rich” countries are eager to play Santa Claus with your money. Its just a circle jerk.

“Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries.”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights