Who pays when weather strikes?

What is President Obama willing to give away to obtain a UN climate agreement in Paris?

He and Secretary Kerry are doing all they can to create a foreign policy legacy during the months they have left.  They are desperate for “success,” even if that success spells disaster.

Many think the Iran nuclear agreement shows this administration will surrender any American interest in order to get a deal.

If so, the draft UN climate agreement is another one riddled with bad policy.

CFACT has reported many times that among the worst aspects of the proposed climate agreement is the concept of “loss and damage.”

Developing nations are demanding the U.S. and other prosperous nations shoulder the liability for any natural disasters that happen to strike their countries as a condition to their signing the UN agreement.

They are turning a blind eye to the fact the Earth has not warmed this Hurricanecentury, and that the slight warming experienced during the 20th century was too small to meaningfully impact today’s natural weather events.

China and India are increasing their CO2 emissions as fast as their economies will allow, but they would get a pass.

Remarkably, the BBC reports Obama and Kerry may be getting ready to abandon the long-standing American negotiating position opposed to this expensive wealth redistribution scheme, and are preparing to cave.

Unless the public wakes up to what’s going on behind closed doors at the UN and speaks out, America could get stuck with a bill from the UN every time a hurricane, flood or drought strikes a poor nation.

When disaster strikes, we should lend a helping hand, and help other nations help themselves.

The fault, however, should not be seen as ours … and neither should the bill.

Categories

About the Author: David Rothbard

David Rothbard

David Rothbard is co-founder and President of CFACT.

  • Ian5

    “…the Earth has not warmed this century, and the slight warming experienced during the 20th century was too small to meaningfully impact today’s natural weather events”: This statement is complete rubbish. David Rothbard, first get your facts and the science straight, then you can present some appropriate policy options.

  • cshorey

    Because climate sensitivity to greenhouse forcing is not linear, the first greenhouse gasses emitted have more of a heat retention effect than later emissions. Seems that part was ignored here as it does actually question the author’s conclusions.