From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
As usual the BBC paints the latest COP as a “historic deal”!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environment-63656412
Despite the hype, very little has been achieved, as the BBC have to admit:
Although a fund has been agreed in principle, there is no agreement about how much is put in, or who pays. Crucially there is no agreement that countries like China, India and Russia will pay a penny. The agreement to set up the fund is meaningless without answers to these questions.
And there is also no agreement to reduce emissions beyond COP26 pledges. In particular developing countries are under no obligation whatsoever to reduce emissions, as a condition for receiving this money.
As WWF put it, the loss and damage fund will be a downpayment on disaster!
Western nations have always given billions in aid for weather disasters around the world, and I don’t see this new fund being anything new, other than it will presumably be under some sort of central control.
My guess is that any money put into the fund will largely come out existing aid budgets. The Mail hit the nail on the head with this article:
There is in reality zero chance that the UK will be able to afford to throw billions into the pot, and neither will the EU. Perhaps the most telling comment came from Steve Barclay this morning:
You may have noted that the cut in the overseas aid budget to 0.5% of GDP, introduced by Boris last year, has now been extended to 2027 by Jeremy Hunt. Barclay’s comment seems to suggest that any extra funds for weather losses will have come from that same budget. There is no way that Hunt will go back on that decision, and increase it for this new fund.
And all of this ignores the elephant in the room – the US. With the GOP now in charge of the House, and thus in control of the purse strings, they are likely to block any increase in US aid, particularly if it ends up in some pot controlled by the UN.
Biden could not even get the Democrat controlled Congress to approve a couple of extra billion to meet earlier US commitments.
We also need to remember that John Kerry has been quite forthright about the need for China to pay their share.
Finally we need to look at the things which have not been agreed at COP27.
There were calls beforehand for the West to considerably increase its $100 billion a year climate funding, with silly figures of $1.3 trillion mentioned. As far as I can see, this is not mentioned at all in the Agreement.
Also there seems to be no mention of “reparations”, only loss and damage. This is important, because the acceptance of the need for reparations would create a dangerous legal precedent, which could leave rich countries liable for open-ended claims.
We’ll see what next year’s meetings bring. But my guess is that we’ll see yet more fudge and kicking the can down the road. There will probably be a small fund set up, with some sort of vague promise to increase it by 2030. And the issue of China and others paying their share will be something to be looked in a few years time.
I’ll give the final comment to the eminently sensible Jacob Rees-Mogg:
Pit we have not got a few more Moggies in Parliament.
Don’t get bogged down in the details, COP 27 was a smashing success! Working girls, private jet companies, 5 star hotels and resturants, food catereers, corrupt customs officials, etc all made a killing. Yahoo! Only a year t the next one, which will be COP 28: Kick The Can Down The Road Reunion.
COP 28: UAE….no fossil fuels there..
COP 29: Australia(?) …no coal there….
If CO2 is a problem (and it isn’t) and human emissions are the cause (and they aren’t) then requiring ANY country to pay based on annual emission levels should require EVERY country to pay based on annual emission levels.
China contributed >30% of total global emissions annually, China should contribute >30% of the fund annually. If China increases emissions to 50% of global emissions, China should pay 50% of the total fund. If they decrease their emissions, they should pay less. Any country that produces zero emissions should contribute zero $$$
Yes but colossal “IFs” – as you say, CO2 is not a problem, and human emissions are not the cause of rising levels.
CO2 enrichment benefits the planet and human emissions ARE the cause.
The progressive governmental business model everywhere is the same. Ensure your situation and status by redistributing wealth. People love gifts from the government and being able to enjoy the benefits of other people’s earnings. The IPCC sole objective is perpetuating its existence by doing exactly that by imposing a value added tax at each step of “fossil fuel” production and consumption. Climate change is primary caused by solar, orbital, and cosmic change, not CO2 concentration change. But those influences can’t be taxed so the IPCC says they don’t count. If it wasn’t so corrupt, and economically and environmentally damaging it would be humorous. An incredible and indefensible position.
On the other hand: Shaming China for manufacturing the energy intensive products that a modern society requires is wrong. We in the West have abandoned that effort to save energy and reduce emissions. China is simply doing our “dirty work” for us. China gets the jobs, tax base and profits. We get unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, an ever-increasing national debt, and the privilege of waving made in China virtue signaling flags. A business model as unsustainable as trying to run a modern society on sunshine and breezes. Gross stupidity, we need to start living in the real world. Mother Nature doesn’t care if ATM CO2 is 0.000300 or 0.000600 and neither should we.
And IF there was actually a climate crisis, and IF it was disproportionately affecting “developing nations”, I would be all in with providing aid.
BUT… I would in NO way support just giving those countries money. If they need sea walls, power plants, infrastructure, we’ll pay for it AND do the work (yes, we can hire local, qualified workers). But giving money to kleptocrats running nations that have been around a LOT longer than the US, and are still “developing”… That right there should tell you something.
Yup. The only real agreement is “let’s meet again next year”.
Name change to CLAP, from COP:
Climate
Liars
Annual
Party
Their final report is called the CLAPtrap Report
And everyone comes home with the Clap.
Wonderful!!!
Going to post this gem at my forum.
European leaders apparently created this “Loss and Damage” institution, but will those who elected them still feel wealthy enough in a year or two to fund it?
Bold of you to assume we elect our “European leaders”.
The entire Polit Buro in Brussels, alo known on social occasions as “The European Commission” consists of unelected, appointed people.
Most of our national governments aren’t any better given how quickly they toss out their political programs for a chance to govern with their erstwhile polticial opponents, in an attempt to perpetuate their rule and keep any dissent away from the levers of power.
Attribution of extreme weather events to Climate Change will be a big problem. Those who pay out big bucks will want proof the extreme event was outside the realm of what could be expected…those who receive big bucks will want “scientists” to confirm their claim.
Expect major “research” in the advancement of “attribution science”….which for the most part will be unprovable gobbledygook.
Since some foreign aid funds will be paid for weather disasters anyway, it will appear that there is another 97% consensus among political leaders regarding climate reparations.
Continued conflation of climate and weather in the media is detrimental to intelligent discussion of this topic at the politician and bureaucrat level.
Random thoughts over my morning coffee…..
Well, they are quite shameless
But never Shamless
In this case, Sharmless.
Yes, but all it takes is for someone to say “This new study says…” And it’s now a fact. Never mind that most studies are just plain wrong.
My rule of thumb: If it’s not replicated by an unbiased third party, then it’s not worth considering.
More debts being imposed on my unborn descendents without their consent? Forget it. You can have the money when you can take it.
It’s predominantly younger people that are onboard with this climate cobblers, so it’s only reasonable that they and their offspring pick up the tab. After all, what’s more important to them, having a mortgage or saving the planet? Their choice.
You make a good point. But I still think I should speak up for the unborn.
If someone yearns to salve a guilt, real or imaginary, let them make a donation from their own pocket.
Birth rates, and home ownership rates, are declining among younger people. They want “someone else” to pay.
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s comment was right on!
Yes, it certainly was.
If anything, the developing world should be paying us!
Chris
This whole climate religion movement is straight out of the middle ages. The high priests of climate tell the peasants that the tribe across the river is responsible for their travails in life and all of the good things they enjoy (sanitary systems, clean drinking water, food, eye glasses, transportation, computation, heating, cooling) from the tribe across the river should be ignored. Look at the faces and the people in the BBC picture at the top of this post. Hair care products from oil, polyester clothing from oil, ink for their signs from oil, well fed bodies from fertilizer from natural gas, on and on. Some aspects of human behavior probably will never change, charlatans and con men will always find fertile ground among the masses.
“…identifying and expanding sources of funding…” After three decades of trying they don’t have this part worked out yet. And they never will because countries have their own problems.
I don’t have a problem helping people who have been affected by CAGW.
Just let them prove it first, though.
I think the Scottish “Not Proven” verdict will come into play here
Remember that at first the two Scottish verdicts were Provan and Not Proven. Guilty only started to be used regularly in the 1800s.
You knew that but maybe most of the other readers here didn’t.
There is no CAGW yet
It’s coming in 10 years!
HAS BEEN COMING IN 10 YEARS SINCE THE 1970S
Will ALWAYS be coming in 10 years.
Well then, Cold Fusion will arrive just in time to save us and supply cheap limitless energy
!!!
“Pit we have not got a few more Moggies in Parliament.”
*************
You Bits need a LOT MORE Moggies in Parliament. Same thing here in the U.S (in Congress).
And I’ve noticed that there is still not a word at these COP[OUT] conferences about the role that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere play in agriculture and the increase in crop yields worldwide. What part have the western developed countries played in that CO2 increase and what is the $$$ value of all that increased crop yield over the years?
Crickets.
I’m gonna get soooooo down-voted for this…
“You Bits need a LOT MORE Moggies in Parliament.”
We do not. He sometimes gets something right simply by being contrary. In most cases he’s a liability—the sort of political friend who saves you needing political enemies.
What we need is a few more hard-headed engineers and scientific literates who can ask clear questions about who’s a*ss we’re supposed pull all the magic technology from.
But does one need to be an engineer, or even scientifically literate, to demand absolute proof that Catastrophe A (which we’re supposed to fear) is worse than Catastrophe B (which we will bring upon ourselves in order to ward off Catastrophe A)?
A lesson for politicians that ought to come out of all the pandemic lockdown nonsense it that it is their duty to robustly challenge the scientists whose ‘advice’ they are relying upon to impose draconian and/or hugely expensive measures. As you correctly point out, you don’t need to be scientifically literate to do that. The next thing the politicians should do is apply this lesson to climate change hysteria.
Have they reached maximum rhetoric? Dali Lama sez the world will become a fireball. Allie Gore has invoked Bishop Desmond Tutu and compared fighting Climate Change to apartheid….one of them compared it to Nazism….it appears Total Evil is causing Climate Change…..and max rhetoric must be used to fight it?
Isn’t Max Rhetoric Greta’s superhero secret identity?
I hate to agree with the odious Jacob Rees-Mogg … but his comment is correct.
they are not setting up a fund.
they are setting up a fraud.
Worse, they’re trying to fund the fraud with our money.
COP27 went as predicted. A climate loss and damage fund for which there is no funding. That detail doesn’t actually matter, since there is no climate related loss or damage, either.
“since there is no climate related loss or damage, either.”
“since there is no human-caused climate related loss or damage….
There has been, and will always be, losses and damage related to natural climate variability.
The corrupt governments will blame every natural climate problem on the developing natures and the fakers in the non-science of “attribution studies” will run their fake models to give their pre-determined fake outcomes.
According to knowledge gained in earning my Finance MBA, I say if there is no CAGW damage so far, and no possibility of CAGW damage because CAGW does not exist, then the green slush fund is “fully funded” with a zero balance.
The US should get a refund of the $2.5 billion that Obama donated to the green slush fund and whatever Biden squandered so far.
So third world dictators want my tax dollars as reparations for something I never did and my government may just be dumb enough to give it to them.
Human nature. Just imagine that I went out on a busy street corner and set up a card table with a stack of hundred dollar bills on the table. I also set up a cardboard sign that read:
“Free money.
Take some if you need it.
But be honest. Only take it if you really need it.”
What do think would happen? How long before the money is gone?
Whether you are dealing with tin-pot third world dictators, welfare people who simply don’t feel like working, crooked politicians, or the nice guy who lives next door and says “hello” to you every morning, just about everyone cheats where money is concerned. If people think they can get some easy money from the United States, Britain, the EU, Australia, or from some goofy foundation or charity they are all in on the cause.
Expect the lame duck US Congress to pass another massive trillion dollar (plus) spending bill in December 2022 with many goodies for renewable energy projects. With the Democrats still in control of the Senate, that spending authority will not be rescinded in 2023 or 2024.
Expect to see the Biden administration double down on its regulatory war on the fossil fuel industry using a variety of regulatory tools, and using lawfare legal tactics to prevent the courts from interfering. In any case, Biden’s policy advisors have said explicitly they will ignore any court rulings adverse to their climate agenda.
Coal-fired power generation capacity will continue to be retired without replacement; and the price of gasoline, diesel, and natural gas will continue to rise. The only questions are how fast, and by how much, before the end of 2024.
2023 budget hasnt even started yet, so wont be pushed through Senate as reconciliation ( they have already done that this year for 2022 budget- you are only allowed 1 per budget year)
As its already FY 2023 they just use continuing resolutions which dont have new measures
The current stop gap spending bill ends December 16th 2022. My expectation is that at the very least, the lame duck Congress will pass legislation which imposes spending priorities on the FY 2024 budget process, priorities which the new Congress may or may not choose to actually fund. After January 2023, enormous pressure will be brought upon the slim Republican majority in the House to go along with whatever spending priorities the lame duck Congress attempted to impose on the new Congress. What is 100% certain is that the Senate will play hardball in reconciliation negotiations over the FY 2024 and FY 2025 budgets. They’ve done this before, for example in 2011, and the Republicans have always caved.
‘….before the end of 2024.‘
Are you implying that the US can hold fair elections by then? Given the results of our midterm elections, there will be no changes in the electoral machinery of the ‘swing states’ prior to 2025.
They just kicked the can further down the road
No, they’re right. There really does need to be a climate reparations fund. To be paid into by those that have promoted or supported the catastrophic human-caused climate change fraud, including all those that have ever taken an active part in a COP conference. And to compensate all of us who have been forced to pay climate levies and taxes that have brought us no benefits at all.
Just cash and no change in the end
UN climate boss settles for no cuts on emissions – ABC News (go.com)
So, Germany and the UK can apply for reparation funds and IMF loan at the same time. /sarc
like cancer metastasizing , a whole new layer of climate bureaucrats and loss and damage scientists about to appear feeding on free money to “save the children .” the head of this fund will make maurice strong’s million dollar bribe look like pocket change
I nice outcome would be that the UN accidentally arranges the situation so that is forced to make these payments.. but developed countries don’t pay into the fund.
Bankrupt the UN economically..
… to match their moral and ethical bankruptcy.
The ultra-rich of the WEF have made huge amounts of money on human suffering.
About time they were force to put their money where their mouth is.
Come on, you unholy, self-eggrandising MF’s .. time to pay your dues. !!
Next year is COP28 in the UAE.
Better leave the CO2 beer at home.
By 2030 we will all have become penniless, owning nothing, and being ‘happy’. Except for Klaus Schwab, Big Bank, Bill Gates, and their band of crooks who will own everything, including us, the serfs.
I think that climate change and its numerous attending agendas, is just the start of the path to a new world order and its supporters will eventually dismiss global warming is an essential reason for what they are trying to accomplish. So if you are thinking an extended period global cooling or non-warming is going to make it go away… forget about it.
From the article: “”Also there seems to be no mention of “reparations”, only loss and damage. This is important, because the acceptance of the need for reparations would create a dangerous legal precedent, which could leave rich countries liable for open-ended claims.”
The acceptance of loss and damages would also spawn open-ended claims. Every time a thunderstorm rolled through, there would be people blaming CO2 for it.
There is no evidence CO2 is causing any changes to the Earth’s weather, and there is no evidence of a connection between CO2 and severe weather, thus no connection between CO2 and weather damage..
Anyone claiming a CO2 connection is lying or is badly misinformed.
The U.S. should not be paying weather damages to any country.
Countries making a claim of a connection between CO2 and their weather damage should be required to prove their claim. Otherwise, no money.
It won’t be “people”, it’ll be “the IPCC” or “The Science” or “the (scientific) experts”.
AR2, WG-II report, the “Final / Approved” version (of 29/7/2022), page 131 :
Researchers are only human, and will fill in their applications for research grant money depending on how “the system” has evolved “over the last three [ or four ? ] decades”.
“The WWA says [ insert recent extreme weather event here ] was [ caused by / made worse by / made much more likely by / … : Delete as required ] CO2 emissions … now pay up !”
I’m sure the UN would be only too happy to create a ‘court’ that could be relied upon to give the desired ruling on such claims.
What happens to the countries that refuse to pay anything? Will they experience huge boycotts of their products? Will other countries blockade their coasts? Will they be kicked out of the UN (maybe a blessing in disguise)? The reality is that nothing will happen just as nothing happened when their emissions reductions targets weren’t met or they failed to pay into earlier disaster relief funds. Countries might promise compensation, but if more urgent domestic needs require funding, guess who gets the money. So it’s a good thing the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives because their holding back any reparations will set an example for other countries; i.e., don’t throw money at kleptocratic regimes that will use it for everything except the environment.
I recommend Magatte Wade as a source of information, especially about Africa.
Of COP27 she says “As you may be aware, the COP27 has just wrapped up in Egypt, where world leaders have come together to discuss global climate policy initiatives.
From the surface, a lot of these initiatives seem well-intentioned and “good” for the world, but they are actually incredibly dangerous. If implemented, they will lead to millions of deaths across the African continent and will heighten dependency on foreign aid.
This is modern colonialism and it is absolutely essential that people know the real story and the real impact of these “net zero” and “climate compensation” policies.”.
She has also said: “The reason for continued African poverty is in threefold: government over-regulation, widespread corruption, and Western charitable efforts that ensnare the population in programmes that are counterproductive.”.
Magatte Wade is an entrepreneur from Senegal.
It sounds like Magatte has it all correct.
A. Bolt said it… This is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.
If we have to pay climate reparations, then we should start charging all those countries that have taken and used western developed technology – which is most of developed technology – for their cultural appropriation =. Therefore, payments would be 1 – 1 = 0.
Rees-Mogg’s comment is the elephant in the COP conference room – why are they seeking reparations for a good and beneficial action?
Same goes for social cost of fuelled energy – how is there a net cost if the benefits greatly exceed even the ridiculous imagined costs – costs that will materialize in the decades and century to come – guaranteed, the science is settled, just trust them.
Or the costs are already evident, like the floods in Pakistan, which are not the same as any other catastrophic flooding that’s been happening there for millennia, no these floods are special and due to mankind offending Gaia.
I know I am preaching to the choir, but some days I need a good rant to exorcise the demons.
Just how much of these penalties or fines, will actually make their way into the pockets of the needy they are supposed to benefit? How much will simply benefit corrupt politicians in these unfortunate regimes?
Then: What have the Romans ever done for us?
Now: What has the West ever done for us?