Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Will nobody consider the detrimental effect of sea level rise on the Somalian maritime industry?
Climate change: ‘No more excuses’ at COP26 climate summit – poor nations
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondentMore than 100 developing countries have set out their key negotiating demands ahead of the COP26 climate meeting in Glasgow.
These include funding for poorer nations to fight and adapt to climate change and compensation for the impacts they will be subjected to.
…
“Highly vulnerable countries like Somalia are already suffering disproportionally from the impacts of climate change,” said Mahdi M Gulaid, deputy prime minister of Somalia, one of the countries behind the plan.
“COP 26 must be a key moment of delivery and there can be no more excuses for unfulfilled promises, particularly climate finance.”
…
In the report, the countries lay out what’s termed a “fair share accounting”, which allocates emissions cuts based on historical responsibility and the capacity to act.
Under that scenario, the US would need to reduce emissions by 195% below 2005 levels by 2030. This could be made up of a 70% cut in domestic emissions plus $80bn a year in support for developing countries.
For the UK, a similar approach would see a 70% emissions cut by 2030 plus $46bn a year in climate finance.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57839368
You have to feel a bit sorry for negotiators sent by some of the world’s more politically challenged countries.
Imagine the situation after the big climate conference, when the negotiators entrusted with securing large quantities of soft cash from Western countries have to report back home to the murderous psychotic who sent them, and convince him that they never received any money.
When you “fight climate change”, what is it that you do, exactly?
The only thing I ever hear about is the transfer of taxpayer dollars. We have already been doing that for some time with the present results apparent to everyone who bothers to read.
The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO₂ emissions are driving it.
Yale University study says the Kyoto protocol cost $716 billion.
https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d12/d1201.pdf
When fighting something, positive results are necessary or you should quit. Especially when fighting invisible enemies for 30 years. So, what benefit did the world get for spending three quarters of a trillion dollars on fighting climate change?
Give them fake money for a fake problem.