In the 1996 movie Jerry McGuire, football player Rod Tidwell has a single demand regarding what his agent must do to keep him as a client. He shouts, “Show me the money,” repeatedly in a line that made movie history.
In the lead-up to the 26th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC/COP26) to be held in Glasgow, Scotland later this year, thousands of bureaucrats burning fossil fuels in their chartered jets will scream, “show us the money”. These developing countries have made exactly the same demand during the last 25 Conference of the Parties. If the developed countries, mostly of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), want to achieve something from this conference (a global commitment to sharply reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions before 2050), they will have to accommodate the non-OECD countries demands for money–lots of it. Then nothing that any of these countries can ever do will alter the Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content–none of it matters. The conference organizers have even admitted this many times, but it makes no difference. The Paris Accord and every conference that followed is simply about wealth redistribution, and turning the world into a one world socialist government.
In July of this year a group of 100 developing countries published a plan that they characterized as “easy-to-measure” actions needed by the OECD countries to finance climate mitigation and adaptation measures. The key portion was to provide reparations for the role of the developed countries whom had produced past GHG emissions. Can you spell EXTORTION. The document entitled, “A Five-Point plan for Solidarity, Fairness and Prosperity,” sets out actions needed in five areas:
Cutting emissions consistent with attaining the UN’s 1.5 degree C. goal, “led by those with the biggest responsibility and capacity.”
Adaptation, with financial help to the most vulnerable.
Payment of reparations for loss and damage to the developing countries for the developed countries’ “historic failure to cut their emissions adequately”.
Increasing finance, including at least $100 billion per year up to 2024 and more thereafter.
Implementation of rules for transparency, carbon trading and common timeframes for accelerating action.
If you are not laughing, you have no sense of humor. For the first part (of cutting emissions), the plan selected five “rich” countries, plus the European Union to commit to actions consistent with “fair shares accounting.” Fair shares accounting (according to the plan) allocates emissions cuts to countries based on their “historical responsibility and capacity to act,” as judged by the less developed countries. In many cases, the application of this approach means that the richer countries should have already passed net zero emissions by 2030 and are also absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit. Alternatively, this “duty” can be expressed as a combination of a national emission cut, a financial contribution to the developing world’s mitigation, and adaptation efforts. According to the plan:
The United States should commit to reduce emissions by 195% below 2005 levels by 2030. “This could comprise a 70% reduction in domestic emissions and a further 125% reduction achieved by providing finances to the developing countries in the order of $80 billion per year.” This makes the April 2021 commitment by U.S. President Joe Biden to increase climate aid to $5.7 billion annually by 2024 look rather paltry by comparison.
The EU should increase its 2030 mitigation target to at least 65% below 1990 levels and increase its annual climate aid to developing countries to $33-$36 billion.
The United Kingdom should cut domestic emissions to at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2030, and provide annual climate aid averaging $46 billion (33 billion British pounds).
Canada should increase its mitigation target to 140% below 2005 levels by 2030. This could comprise a reduction of at least 60% in domestic emissions along with climate aid of at least U.S. $4 billion annually. This would increase Canada’s foreign aid budget to at least $11 billion annually.
Australia should reduce its emissions by at least 65-80% below 2005 levels by 2030, and provide the U.S. at least $2.5 billion annually in climate aid.
Japan should increase its mitigation of domestic emissions to at least 45-50 % below 1990 levels by 2030, and increase its climate aid to at least $U.S. $9-10 billion annually.
Surely, you’re aware that the lead committee forging this document sat in a room, thick with what ever they were smoking, laughing their _______ off.
INTERESTING, but not surprising—despite its status as the largest GHG emitter in the world and one of the wealthiest countries—China was not identified as requiring any changes of its emissions, and so called climate aid targets.
Regarding the developed countries’ existing commitment to contribute at least $100 billion per year in climate aid, only a small percentage of this has gone to the Green Climate Fund established in 2012. It has proven to be impossible to achieve agreement on the allocation of payment responsibilities or the apportionment of recipient privileges. As ridiculous as it may sound, demands for funding continue grow. India is demanding $1 trillion, and Africa has asked for $3 trillion to implement its emission reduction plan by 2030. The OECD estimates that the total climate finance (bilateral public, multilateral public, officially supported export credits, and mobilized private finance) provided by developed countries exceeded $71 billion in 2017. 1 However, the developing countries dispute these figures because much of the aid was in the form of loans, rather than grants.
I am picturing a pack of thieves arguing over how they plan to divide the spoils of the bank robbery they are set to initiate. While at the same time, the socialist thugs are issued to open the bank doors of their countries’ hard earned tax dollars. I feel like I saw this movie long ago with the Marks bothers or the Three Stooges (young readers will have to look this up). They were very funny, but in today’s reality it adds up to crime after crime, which is exactly what all of the COP meetings are—criminals planning crimes.
No one has yet quantified the amount of “reparations” that developed countries should be required to pay, let alone sorting out the attribution of responsibility for damages or the basis for the distribution of the reparation benefits. Arguments over these are not likely to ever end.
At this point, the prospects for a productive 26th version of the Conference of Parties appear unlikely, for several reasons. Based on the demands of these developing countries, taxpayers in the developed countries can only cheer this foregone failure.
Why do they keep having these meetings? The answers should be obvious:
- The opportunity for socialist bureaucrats from all over the world over to vacation in sumptuous surroundings at their governments expense.
- To try and keep the human caused climate change fraud alive.
- To continue to promote a One World Socialist Government.
Don’t expect these useless meetings to end anytime soon.