BREAKING: United Nations Makes Major Move… This Is THEFT

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

FA Note:  The brouha­ha about cli­mate change has ALWAYS been about wealth redis­tri­b­u­tion: THEFT.

Unit­ed Nations cli­mate nego­tia­tors found them­selves at an impasse dur­ing a ten-day con­fer­ence in Lima, Peru this month when the world’s sec­ond-largest econ­o­my — the Unit­ed States — refused to sub­si­dize the car­bon diox­ide emis­sion reduc­tions of the world’s largest econ­o­my — China.

Yes, there is some dis­pute about which of those two coun­tries real­ly has the larg­er econ­o­my — it’s all in how you mea­sure it — but reverse them if you want and it still won’t make any sense.

The basic fact of the mat­ter is that del­e­gates to the con­fer­ence will be unlike­ly to reach any sort of agree­ment unless it includes a jaw-drop­ping amount of wealth redis­tri­b­u­tion.

We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three con­sec­u­tive years – the devel­oped world pro­vid­ed $10 bil­lion each year for cli­mate action sup­port to the devel­op­ing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are say­ing $10 bil­lion is for four years, so it is $2.5 bil­lion,” India del­e­gate to the U.N. Prakash Javadekar told The Guardian, accord­ing to a report from Eagle Rising.

Javadekar has obvi­ous­ly tak­en a page from the lib­er­al play­book — what­ev­er unearned char­i­ty you’re giv­en, com­plain that it’s nowhere near enough.

Sim­i­lar nego­ti­a­tions in War­saw, Poland, last year to find a way to lim­it “warm­ing to 2 degrees Cel­sius by 2100″ end­ed with no agree­ment, and for sim­i­lar rea­sons when the U.S. and oth­er nations argued against cli­mate “repa­ra­tions.”

That caused del­e­gates from Chi­na and oth­er nations to par­tic­i­pate in a “mas­sive walk­out,” accord­ing to the report.

Which was prob­a­bly the best thing that could pos­si­bly have hap­pened to those nego­ti­a­tions, in retrospect.

Appar­ent­ly, “some observers” were actu­al­ly dumb enough to think that this year’s con­fer­ence might end dif­fer­ent­ly because “the U.S. and Chi­na (had already) pledged to curb car­bon diox­ide emis­sions in the com­ing years.”

Except that that hasn’t happened.

Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma promised Chi­na that the U.S. would reduce emis­sions by at least 26 per­cent in the next ten years and Chi­na promised to keep increas­ing emis­sions until 2030.

Seri­ous­ly. That was the agree­ment. China’s emis­sions would “peak” in 2030, imply­ing that five years after the U.S. had met its goal, Chi­na might be will­ing to talk about reduc­ing its own car­bon diox­ide emissions.

Only among left­ist diplo­mats could such an agree­ment ever be con­sid­ered a “reduc­tion.”

Mean­while, oth­er del­e­gates are basi­cal­ly say­ing to the West, show me the money.

How many CoPs (Con­fer­ence of the Par­ties) will it take for us to real­ly see any tan­gi­ble results? We have been going from CoP to CoP and every time we are giv­en so many assur­ances, and expec­ta­tions are raised, but the gaps are get­ting wider,” Mal­di­vian diplo­mat Ahmed Sareer whined.

There has been a clear com­mit­ment of $100 bil­lion a year but how are we real­ly being offered?” he told The Guardian. “Even when they make those pledges how do we know how much is going to mate­ri­al­ize? There is no point of know­ing that behind the wall there is a big source of funds avail­able unless we can reach it.”

In oth­er words: mon­ey first, reduced emis­sions later.

As the old joke says, I think we’ve estab­lished what Sareer is. Now we’re just hag­gling over price.

Mean­while, accord­ing to Eagle Ris­ing, the con­fer­ence is like­ly to end “with­out hav­ing made any real progress toward a treaty to reduce glob­al warming.”

For the Unit­ed States, that might be the best news of all.