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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?