By David Wojick
Egypt is camel country so it is appropriate that the long awaited camel’s nose of the great green loss and damage dream should finally appear. We are talking about potentially untold trillions of dollars flowing from developed to developing countries. A breathtaking prospect.
For those who missed it here is my quick summary of UN-speak “loss and damage” from my introductory article:
“Loss and damage is the 9,000 pound gorilla. It means America and the rest of the developed countries will compensate the developing countries for all the bad things climate change does to them. Loss refers to things that cannot be fixed, like death or a destroyed crop, while damage is stuff that can be rebuilt, like a flattened town.
Since all bad weather is now attributed to climate change we would be paying for all of it. I am not making this up. Coverage includes short term events like hurricanes or floods, plus slow stuff like droughts. Non-weather events like pestilence, pandemics and wildfires are probably also included.”
To set the stage here is a recent Bloomberg headline: “US Supports Climate Reparations Talks at UN Summit in Egypt“.
Bloomberg is very green so this is wildly overstated in several important ways, but it gets the gist. First of all, “US” in this case means the Biden Administration, not Congress and certainly not America. Second we are talking about compensation not reparations, at least for now. Reparations would be for past damage, presumably going back to the beginning of the supposed human caused warming and the industrial revolution. Paying for progress.
Moreover, loss and damage has been COP talk for some time now. COP19 in 2013 established the grandly named “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts“, known simply as the WIM. (But much more than a whim.) Its job was to talk about loss and damage, which talking has happened a lot in the subsequent nine years, with no serious action.
What is new now and very dangerous is the topic of the talk. It is what UN-speak calls a “Facility”. A Facility is a mechanism where developed countries put money in and developing countries take it out. This is called “Finance”.
There are already Facilities for Mitigation (especially reducing emissions) and Adaptation (to climate change). What is now proposed and apparently to be actually negotiated about is a Loss and Damage Facility. If this happens the issue on the table would be whether or not to create such a Facility? The Biden people have agreed to at least talk about it and that is new.
The camel’s nose aspect is that creating this Facility officially certifies that America and the other developed countries are in fact responsible for harmful climate change impacts in developing countries. The developed countries have never unanimously admitted this responsibility and COP decisions must be unanimous.
Even if no money is committed at this time the camel is entering the tent. And as the metaphor suggests, the camel is much bigger then the tent and will destroy it. I have seen estimates of loss and damage over time that exceed the combined GDP of the developed countries. In principle it could bankrupt us.
More realistically, establishing a Loss and Damage Facility immediately raises monster questions like these:
A. What did each developing countries suffer last year from climate change?
B. What is the cost, including lives lost?
C. How much of that are the developed countries going to pay?
Note that there is already a full blown (supposed) science called “attribution” that claims to be able to answer the first question.
So it is not just another whimsical green dream of riches that is on the table at COP27. The ability to officially ask these preposterous questions is up for decision. Such a decision in favor of Loss and Damage could also lead to a great deal of litigation against the developed countries.
Will the developed country teams jointly admit to causing the world’s bad weather? Unimaginable liability looms.
Stay tuned to CFACT.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see: http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see:
http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/
Available for confidential research and consulting.
All those suffering countries that have never benefited from any technology, what so ever, that was developed in The West, should be “compensated” first. If no such Country is located this “less than wise” adventure should end before it starts.
Nailed it in one, Dennis.
When we examine the historical cost-benefit equation of fossil fuel use and the industrial revolution, we find a massive positive in favour of both.
Now, there was certainly huge human suffering in England at the time of the industrial revolution. As one of the living descendants of the exploited agricultural poor, I now demand compensation from the rest of the world who have benefited. Most people wouldn’t even be alive if my ancestors hadn’t suffered so much.
I will supply my bank sort-code to any populous Asian nation, African nation or Pacific Island government that is willing to live up to their responsibilities and make restitution. #climatejusticeforme
My focus is on what is actually happening.
And what, exactly, would these victim countries spend all that money on? How long before the compensation/reparations pendulum swings the other way? (Rhetorical question.)
Clearly who the facility pays, how much and for what would have to be worked out, as it has been for the existing facilities. That would be a very interesting process.
No idea what pendulum you are referring to.
It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible for any country or region to prove either loss or damage. The plaintiff group or country would have to prove, 1. There is or has been a change in climate, 2. The change in climate did, in fact, cause loss or damage, 3. The causation of the change in climate and the degree of anthropogenic or natural contribution, 4. The actual and real liability of the defendant countries.
I have yet to see evidence of any one of these proofs and submit that the learned prosecutor has in this case confused climatic change with weather events.
I rest my case, your Honour.
What court do you think you are arguing in? They are in the court of woke opinion staffed by woke politicians.
I believe the degree of ‘woke-ness’ may diminish considerably when the time to ‘pay up’ arrives. Many citizens of this planet consider it is their ‘duty’ to do their ‘part’, until such time as the money is handed over, at that moment the rules change and the lethargic mindset moves from quite cooperative to extremely uncooperative. Humans are quite complex and I dare say, do not always understand nor take the time to understand, the challenges facing them. I suspect the dumbing down of society has a role to play here where people of all ages are compliant to a point.
We are already seeing this change of heart with the energy price spikes. Keep them coming.
The dumbing down of society is not due to the dumbing down of individuals, but because government meddles so much that individuals can do little about it. One vote every few years is meaningless in practical terms, people know it, and politics swings back and forth between two evils only because of a few hundred thousand or million fence sitters.
Western politicians have been going around for years claiming that our emissions are ruining the lives of the world’s poor. They may regret those statements one day.
I dare say, it may come to pass much earlier than you might expect, where will the ‘moral leaders’ of Germany find the funds to back the ill-considered rhetoric of the current leadership, when the factories of VW, Mercedes, Audi, BMW and Porsche stand down due to energy deprivation and the populous freeze through winter, I suspect they will have considerably more important decisions to make. Widespread social unrest is never a pretty sight and there can be no winners and little room for poorly constructed ideology.
You are a logical and rational thinker.
The genies of Sharm Al sheikh and the gnomes of Davos are neither except for St Greta out of whose bottom enough solar radiation flows to power enough Photovoltaics for-the power needs of Cairo
Unfortunately, Greta will have to return home to ‘lockdown’ to compensate for the naughty air miles accumulated on the Sharm el-Sheikh resort visit. On the upside, the Khufu’s vizier, Hemiunu, designed into the Great Pyramid in the year 2600 BC, some 168.7 M² of annual optimal north-facing structure (39°) which could accommodate a considerable number of PV’s, now, would that not look ‘absolutely fabulous.
North-facing? Are you planning to move the pyramids to Oz or was the idea to put the slaver panels on the shadowed side?
Indeed, surely buying a real asset such as a pyramid, can not be as crazy as buying a carbon credit. The great advantage is that when reassembled it will not need to be reorientated.
Sigh. Just another pyramid scheme.
As I mention in the article, attribution science is now well established in AGW.
See https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change
The method is to compare (junk) model runs with and without human forcing, so your questions 1-3 are all answered. Liability could be based on a country’s historical emissions as a fraction of all anthro emissions. But I think the law generally says if you are part of a group that inflicts damage you are liable for all of it.
If a Court buys destructive AGW, as most seem to do, then liability logically follows.
Thank you for the link, David,
I understand this concept of ‘Attribution of Extreme Weather Events’ and why these papers are created to influence both the scientific community, journalism and the masses, yet fail to provide proof of the detrimental climatic change to a standard that a court may require.
I only need to go to the Preface, paragraph 2, to discover the statement that “Humans’ use of fossil fuel since the start of the Industrial Revolution has begun to
modify the Earth’s climate in ways that few could have imagined a century ago” and then I read “consequences of this change to the climate are seemingly everywhere”
, whatever ‘seemingly everywhere’ may mean, it is non-conclusive and effectively meaningless, therefore should be ignored.
I note one of the references used in the paper, ‘Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change’ Mann & Emanuel, 2006, is proof that the conclusions drawn do not reflect reality when the additional 15 years of additional available data is considered.
Keep up the discussion-provoking articles as they contribute greatly to the understanding
But even if this leads only to interminable litigation the costs to productivity and welfare will be immense.
It has always been about the redistribution of wealth, from the very beginning. And guess whose wealth they will be redistributing?
So all western countries are in debt up to their eyeballs but somehow magically we’re going to start handing out billions to other countries because…. weather?
Brilliant.
It will be trillions, not billions. It’s hard to imagine that even the woke leaders of the western world will want to sign up for an unlimited liability for ever. I know that a lot of politicians are pretty dim, but can they possibly be this stupid?
Yes, they can
I give you exhibit A, Eric Swalwell.
AKA “Fang-fang”
I do not expect money to flow, but a confession might get signed.
https://www.cfact.org/2022/10/14/cop27-hopeless-hopeful-money-will-dominate-the-discussion/
Congress shouod tell Biden not to sign.
And who will tell his puppetmasters?
Prior to the Silent Revolution of 2009, where the US finally lost the last vestiges of its venerable constitution of 1787, and the Deep State took effective control with sham voting, corrupted federal law enforcement, and powerless presidents, it was required that treaties be ratified by the Senate. Quaint.
It is called a Presidential Agreement, which have some standing in international law. The Kyoto Protocol was such. We have lots.
As I said, all after the fall of the Constitution. As for “international law” that would be a euphemism for globalist tyranny.
Sorry but I do not share your pessimism.
That’s ok David. Somebody has to be hopeful I guess.
We still get to go through the motions of voting and sometimes they count our votes, too. Along with the ones they truck in from New Jersey at 2am and don’t even bother to fold to pretend that they were once in a legitimate mailer.
Regardless of how the Deep State decides the election should turn out, they will remain in control.
I am more than hopeful. I am relatively pleased on the climate scene. If you look at what the alarmists are calling for, what they are actually achieving is next to nothing. Now we have an energy crisis blowing up in their face. Things are going pretty well.
What they are calling for and what they actually want are two totally different things, David. And what they actually want, they are very close to achieving already.
The energy crisis is a feature not a bug. They want to destroy the middle class and gain control of the economy. They want to strive for unattainable goals because they want to mine subsidies. They could care less if they never come close to Nut Zero.
They’ve already put more spending authorization into law than they can probably spend short of just driving 18-wheelers full of cash to their cronies. Plus they will have another month and a half after the midterms to do their worst. None of it can be repealed without Dementia Joe’s signature or a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.
By the time there’s a Republican Congress (if the Demonrats’ dead voters don’t all make it to the polls enough times), it will be like closing the barn doors after all the horses are all in the neighbor’s field and the barn is fully on fire.
If you think things are going great, maybe you could pay my oil bills this winter.
Hey, David. Is not the act of signing onto an international law a treaty? I would argue it is, but politicians and my wife don’t listen to me.
When the Senate ratified the UNFCCC treaty they did so stipulating requirements for future ratifications by the Senate. Obama ignored them.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/obamas-plan-avoid-senate-review-the-paris-protocol
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
____________________________________
So poor countries want compensation for developed countries providing them with an improved climate?
Poor countries want compensation for developed countries providing them with the benefits of civilisation. If they want compensation, they can hand back everything made with petrochemical inputs for a start.
… and everyone on the planet over 50 years old owes their ongoing lives to the Industrial Revolution.
Conference Of Prejudices.
Nobody round here has got any money
Maybe Somali pirates might like to contribute….
They saw is throw a trillion at Covid and that set them off. The IRA supposedly throws $330 billion at climate. Another mouth watering precedent.
Then, they haven’t – like us – realised how destructive lockdown was and why we’ll not do that again.
Talking about money, not lockdown.
Hey, Hey…It’s OK…
Biden declared the Covid Pandemic ended
Until Brandon’s handlers needed the emergency for another power grab and Leftist spending spree.
A better case could be made for 3rd world country economic damage from imposed 1st world green climate solutions.
COP27 starts two days before Republicans in the U.S. take control of the U.S. House and possibly the U.S. Senate.
After that, COP27 can go fish. No money for you!
Is it really that certain?
A.N. Englishman
Some people can be as stubborn as mules when it comes to insisting that electoral fraud is completely inexistent in their country.
PS (to Tom Abbott) : COP27 starts on the 6th of November, not tomorrow.
The new Congress will “take control” in January, not next Wednesday.
I don’t understand your banter.
It was a simple question. Your umbrage is totally misplaced.
I am not an American.
NB I’m fully aware of electoral fraud in the UK
If Biden had any level of intelligence he would submit the Paris Climate Treaty to Congress for adoption while the Dems still have control of both houses and support of some RINOs
The US House of Representatives has nothing to do with ratifying a treaty. Ratification is a responsibility of the Senate, and only “provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” is a treaty ratified by the US government and have the force of law.
There’s no way the current Senate, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, would vote to ratify the Paris Accord, and is therefore why Biden would be foolish to send it to the Senate.
For that same reason, Trump should have sent it for ratification, when it clearly would have similarly failed, and established a precedent of rejection of the Paris Accord. That could have been an important result of his Administration.
Just make sure that about half of the Republican senators are otherwise occupied during the vote, then the Dems make up 2/3 of those present
The United States Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ”the supreme Law of the Land.”
It implies that U.S. recognition of an international law is dependent on a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
That’s OK, I’m fully aware of “Poe’s Law” and its variants.
If you did not “understand” my post, how can you possibly “know” that the appropriate word for my reaction is “umbrage” ?
Either you “understood” just how “misplaced” (or not) my emotional state when typing in my OP was … or you “don’t understand” at all.
Neither am I.
Je ne suis pas francais non plus.
Please enter “2000 mules” into your favourite search engine anyway.
Even the Democrats are not going to pay big bucks. Biden earlier promised $11 billion for mitigation and only got $1 billion. The Monet talk is laughable:
https://www.cfact.org/2022/10/14/cop27-hopeless-hopeful-money-will-dominate-the-discussion/
Confessing liability is serious.
Monet talk is for Impressionable folk.
Gotta love that gremlin spellchecker. Maybe some idiot will glue themselves to a Monet in protest. But Eqypt is pretty strict about stuff like that.
Does glue work well on porous pyramid stones or camels. I’m sure there is research being conducting in a lab somewhere in the UK.
As a horseman I would not glue myself to a camel. A hard way to die.
The United Nations is an enemy of personal freedoms.
+1000
All governments are enemies of personal freedoms.
A : X happened.
B : Can “X” be considered as being a “bad” thing ?
A1 : Yes.
B1 : X was caused by climate change. QED.
Now that’s settled, “you” owe “me” … excuse me, I mean “us” … N billion [ Insert currency unit(s) here ].
A2 : No.
B2 : Then it was just weather (/ natural variability).
Sorry but I do not understand your point. That the latest Pakistan floods were a bad thing seems clear and it is currently the paradigm of loss and damage. In fact Pakistan is leading the G77 group (of 120+ countries) calling for compensation at COP27.
Predictably the attribution studies have found significant human causation. It is hard not to since the only forcing in the models is anthro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods
By some measures the 2010 floods in Pakistan were even worse than the 2022 ones.
Floods have happened in Pakistan since time immemorial, they aren’t “suddenly” getting worse because of “(anthropogenic) climate change” but (probably) mostly due to population increases.
I agree.
One of my “points”, though admittedly wrapped in a very thick layer of irony / cynicism / sarcasm, is the scientific axiom that “correlation does not equal causation”.
Attribution is not based on correlation, as that would make the 2010 flood make the recent flood look natural. It is based entirely on running a (junk) model with and without human forcing. No doubt both floods get some human attribution this way.
It would be retribution if they want us to pay for the 2010 flood, which may happen at some point.
I actually think that we are “on the same page” when it comes to rolling our eyes at the latest “attribution study”, but I don’t agree with this summary at all.
The “methodology” for the vast majority of “attribution studies” is, to a first approximation, as follows :
1) Run a climate model (/ an “ensemble” of climate models) with fixed “pre-industrial” levels of CO2 (270-280 ppm).
2) Run the same climate model(s) with the actual / “Historical” CO2 levels.
3) Note that the frequency and/or intensity of [ insert “Bad Thing(s)” here ] increases in the climate models as CO2 levels increase.
4) “Calculate” the higher “likelihood” of [ insert “Bad Thing” that has just occurred in The Real World (TM) here ], based on the correlation with CO2 levels “discovered” by naively looking at the outputs of steps 1 and 2 in isolation.
In my (not so) humble opinion, “attribution studies” are entirely based on “correlation” (more CO2 emissions = more “Bad Things” happening, both now and in the future).
Here is a green push that I got this morning, from UCS:
https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/letters/tell-the-biden-administration-act-on-climate-loss-damage-at-un-climate-talks?detail=emailaction&link_id=0&can_id=d691d51f56d4a7aa5d464c23b29c8c9a&source=email-sign-now-us-must-make-meaningful-loss-damage-climate-commitments-3&email_referrer=email_1720798&email_subject=sign-now-us-must-make-meaningful-loss-damage-climate-commitments
Good article.
If someone hands me a ticket for a guilt trip, it does not mean I must get on the bus.
And let’s relentlessly expose the unsoundness of the attribution games.
Exactly.
GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-systems-in-new-england
It is absolutely necessary to have a highly reliable electricity service, if we are forced by the government to “ELECTRIFY”, i.e., have heat pumps, and electric vehicles, and electric ovens.
In Europe, in 2022, there was hot weather and plenty of sunshine, but little wind and little rain, i.e., a drought.
As a result, there was plenty of solar electricity, but little wind electricity and less hydro electricity
Also, nuclear plant output had to be curtailed, due to insufficient cooling water.
Thus, Europe, in addition to the scrounging around to replace Russian gas, also had to fire up all of its gas plants, and start up some retired coal plants, to offset the unreliability of weather-dependent electricity, such as wind, solar, hydro, and even nuclear.
It would be very prudent, to have a large capacity, MW, of coal, oil, and gas plants, that are staffed, with adequate fuel supplies and fuel storage, and are kept in good working order, to be ready to operate when needed, especially during:
1) The peak demand hours of late-afternoon/early-evening, and
2) Wind/solar lulls that could last 5 to 7 days and could be followed by another multi-day wind/solar lull a few days later, before any battery systems could have been recharged!!
Wind systems generate power when the wind is blowing, but zero power when the air is still
Solar systems generate power when the sun is shining, especially around noontime, but generate less power when the sky is cloudy, and zero power when the sky is dark, or when panels are covered with snow.
As a result, wind and solar cannot function as dispatchable resources – meaning, they cannot be quickly deployed when needed, such as during the peak-demand periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.
This has nothing to do with my COP27 article, but New England cannot possibly buy enough grid scale batteries to make wind and solar reliable. They would cost at least a trillion dollars.
Note that the NE ISO reported a 12 day period of cloudy days last year, with almost no solar power.
David,
The COP27 aims to have wind and solar as the impossible pillars of its zero-whatever.
Just a 24-h wind/solar lull, with wind/solar being 50% of the annual grid load of New England, would require a $1 trillion battery system, if that battery system were the only source of making up the wind/solar shortfall, as calculated in my article.
since we’re inventing new law anyway , how about making individuals liable for their individual carbon footprints ? people like john kerry and al gore can pay for their share of planet destroying emissions . seems very fair , sensible and marxist : from each according to their ability .
No, because Gore and Kerry would get special treatment, and everyone else would be screwed.
Carbon is good.
CO2 is a building block of life
NO GOVERNMENT MEASURES ON ENERGY AND HEALTH AND EDUCATION
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Love the new style of artwork that accompanies the posted articles.
Some of it is very dark, however.
Let me see if I get this right. I invent something that improves my life, and then you want to use it to improve yours, I am supposed to pay YOU to use it?
Yes, you’ve got it, mostly. But you left out the part where we also move into your home and you give us everything you worked to earn.
I do not understand your point, Tom. Got an example?
Railways.
ICE vehicles.
Computers.
Can-openers.
Jacket, collar and tie.
And the rest of Western civilization, spread around the world, with healthcare, vaccines, medicines, etc.
Auto
Who is asking who to pay for this? I do not see what this has to do with my article. In fact the developing countries are asking us to pay them to get rid of ICE vehicles, under the mitigation facility.
That facility is the one with the supposed $100 billion a year flow, thru 2024, with the next 5 year amount on the table at COP27. The Africans have suggested a trillion a year for mitigation beginning 2025.
There is no money for this.
Europe has committed economic suicide “because Ukraine.”
In the US, in order to blame the Republicans, a bubble has been fabricated on the stock market which will burst after GOP victory is confirmed, followed by a rail strike, and a diesel storage shutdown of the trucking industry. The same people who destroyed the economy “because COVID” to win the 2020 election are instigating a repeat to win 2024.
So, again, there is no money for this, and never will be.
I agree: https://www.cfact.org/2022/10/14/cop27-hopeless-hopeful-money-will-dominate-the-discussion/
A Court might not.
as the head of the UNIPCC has publicly stated – the environmental movement is more about the destruction of capitalism than the environment – looks like lot of communism – everybody equal – as well
I think you mean the UNFCCC, which this is the 27th COP of.
Truly, the us midterm elections are make or break important
There must be an incentive for the leaders of the West to do such a thing. After all if they would burden their own people, who cannot afford it, it makes sense there is something in it personally for them.
A good start in ending this nonsense is to restore true representation making leaders accountable.
The incentive is it gets them elected. A lot of voters believe the green scare. Hopefully the energy crisis will change that.
Okay, that means no reparations payments for black Americans, no health care, no heating assistance, no food stamps, no SSI welfare payments, no earned income tax credits, no jobs, no stimulus payments, and no public housing assistance. That’s all.
You could substitute Canada for the world and indigenous people for developing countries. There is not one single indigenious person in Canada who is not significantly better off for the coming of Europeans, yet due to a Prime Minister who is equally pretty and vacuous we have paid them billions of dollars in penalties because we improved their lives. It doesn’t end – Trudeau will be the first to shovel unseemingly large amounts of dough into this COP boondoggle, all the while ignoring housing and medical crises in Canada. God help us to survive this pestilence.
Actually Denmark has already made a loss and damage U.N. contribution, but just a symbolic $11 million. Canada may well as well.
Look at how low we have sunk: $11 million is “symbolic,” now. Whatever happened to “a million here, a million there pretty soon we are talking real money. It appears that is quickly morphing into the trillion figures.
Since CO2 increases the efficiency of agriculture, shouldn’t poor countries be paying us for all the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere?
Not under AGW because drought will probably negate that benefit. The economic impact models include the fertilization benefit but it gets wiped out pretty quickly.
How about we calculate the imaginary loss and damage costs from imaginary CAGW and then offset them against the very real technology, systems development, agricultural improvements, improving health and longevity and improving quality of life in developing countries that would never have happened without the fossil fuel driven industrial revolution.
That is a good argument against retribution, but not against compensation going forward because according to AGW we can quickly stop the damages due to further increases in the CO2 level.
Judging by failed previous attempts to extract money from the West to atone for being successful this too will fail. Everyone will agree it’s the right thing to do but no one will do it. They’ll agree it’s the right thing to do only because they don’t want to be harassed and bullied all year long and they’ll have peace until the next COP where the admonishments and promises will take place all over again. The West will throw in a few wind turbine and solar panel projects in the meantime to prove their sincerity to the cause but fossil fuel use will increase anyway to keep up with population growth and developing countries realizing that to get a piece of the industrial pie and lifestyle improvements wind and solar aren’t viable alternatives.
One upshot is that given the potential financial costs ‘scientists’ might be a little more hesitant with their ‘attrivbution’ given now their proclamations will have serious financial impacts!
Ja. Ja. You must pay. It is your fault!!!
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where
Money is rarely the solution to anything, however if these nations want help building their own generating systems (wind and solar excluded) I wouldn’t oppose.
The main aim is to develop a flow of money that can then be siphoned off at various points into the pockets of the Elite. This siphoning normally develops to the point where no money at all comes out of the far end of the supply line to support the poor in the destination.
Great news: Boris is going to sort out COP27 like he sorted out the UK. 😉
African nations will be arriving with large begging bowls at COP27 and Western Countries will be seeking to impose their zero-carbon and 100% renewable standards on these countries.
None will be talking about the elephants in the room, the real and immediate dangers and needs. I have just read about one of these. In the Durban metropolitan area in South Africa with a
“largescale collapse of the city’s sewage and sanitation infrastructure, with 17 out of 22 wastewater treatment plants not operational, and rivers, estuaries and beaches across Durban and surrounds polluted by raw sewage.“
Corrupt and incompetent leaders and mismanagement has littered Africa with scenes like this. The last thing the ordinary citizens need is expensive and unreliable clean energy when their leaders cannot manage their abundant fossil fuels.