Obama
Administration Fears Climate Compensation Claims
US Administration Reneges On $100 Billion Climate Funding Pledge
US officials
fear that international climate change talks will become focused on payouts for
damage caused by extreme weather events exacerbated by global warming, such as
the category 5 Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines last week killing
thousands of people and causing what is expected to be billions of pounds of
damage. An official US briefing document obtained by the Guardian reveals that
the country is worried the UN negotiations, currently under way in Warsaw, will
"focus increasingly on blame and liability" and poor nations will be
"seeking redress for climate damages from sea level rise, droughts,
powerful storms and other adverse impacts". --Stephen Leahy, The
Guardian, 13 November 2013
Now the hard reality: no step change in overall levels of public climate funding from developed countries is likely to come anytime soon. The fiscal reality of the United States and other developed countries is not going to allow it. This is not just a matter of the recent financial crisis; it is structural, based on the huge obligations we face from aging populations and other pressing needs for infrastructure, education, health care and the like. We must and will strive to keep increasing our climate finance, but it is important that all of us see the world as it is. --Todd Stern, US Special Envoy for Climate Change, London 22 October 2013
The Obama administration is among a handful of governments backtracking on a $100 billion promise they made to help poor countries fight climate change, a report finds. As the United Nations gathers in Poland this week to assess international efforts to fight climate change, a report from development advocacy group Oxfam says there has been a lot of confusion and “smoke and mirrors” about who promised what. --Tim Devaney, The Washington Times, 13 November 2013
UN officials and developing countries have concocted the notion, for example, that the U.S. and other developed countries should finance a Green Climate Fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change and invest in low-emissions growth. While developed nations assented in principle to such a Fund in Copenhagen in 2009, they did not commit to specific dollar amounts. Nonetheless, UN leaders and climate activists have spent years establishing the expectation that this fund will total $100 billion annually by 2020. To his credit, top U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern made clear in a speech last month in London that such expectations for the fund are fanciful. “The fiscal reality of the United States and other developed countries is not going to allow it," Stern said.—Paul Bledsoe, The Hill, 8 November 2013
The rejection by the developing world to commit to legally binding emission targets is not a tactical negotiation ploy. The categorical NO is absolute and non-negotiable. Due to the evident lack of realistic energy substitutes, developing countries have no choice but to continue to rely on the cheapest form of energy, i.e. fossil fuels – for the foreseeable future. Even the promised $100 billion climate fund are not binding and are unlikely to materialise in any case. Of course, these figures are pure fantasy because both the EU and the US have made these sums conditional on the signatures of China and India under the climate treaty, a proviso that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The developing nations are not stupid. They have ensnared the West in a climate trap that green politicians set for themselves. To meet the growing pressure by the West, developing countries are demanding $200- 400 billion dollars – per annum – for so-called climate compensation and adaptation measures, together with billions worth of technology transfers. It is difficult to see how the West, already heavily curtailed as a result of the economic crisis, would be prepared to transfer such an astronomical amount of money. Even in good times it would have been a foolish idea. –Benny Peiser, Die Weltwoche, 20 December 2009
Canada’s public praise yesterday for Australia’s decision to scrap the carbon tax underscores a dramatic shift that could sweep through international climate negotiations. The final step for Australia would be to follow developed countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Russia and Japan in walking away from Kyoto 2, the global agreement on reducing carbon emissions. --Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 14 November 2013
Canada has dropped any remaining pretences of supporting global action on climate change by urging other countries to follow Australia's example in gutting its climate plan. "Canada applauds the decision by prime minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian prime minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message," the formal statement from Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, said. --Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, 14 November 2013
A few weeks after it finishes hosting United Nations talks on limiting fossil-fuel emissions, Poland may decide to double the size of one of its biggest coal-burning power plants. Poland sits atop Europe’s largest reserve of coal and is the European Union’s most-dependent country on the fuel. “We treat Poland’s coal reserves as an asset and a force for stability in energy supplies,” Deputy Prime Minister Janusz Piechocinski said in a speech to parliament in Warsaw on Nov. 7. “Our energy security now and for many years to come will be based on coal. The reindustrialization of Europe should be just as important a goal as emission reduction.” --Ewa Krukowska, Bloomberg, 13 November 2013
Now the hard reality: no step change in overall levels of public climate funding from developed countries is likely to come anytime soon. The fiscal reality of the United States and other developed countries is not going to allow it. This is not just a matter of the recent financial crisis; it is structural, based on the huge obligations we face from aging populations and other pressing needs for infrastructure, education, health care and the like. We must and will strive to keep increasing our climate finance, but it is important that all of us see the world as it is. --Todd Stern, US Special Envoy for Climate Change, London 22 October 2013
The Obama administration is among a handful of governments backtracking on a $100 billion promise they made to help poor countries fight climate change, a report finds. As the United Nations gathers in Poland this week to assess international efforts to fight climate change, a report from development advocacy group Oxfam says there has been a lot of confusion and “smoke and mirrors” about who promised what. --Tim Devaney, The Washington Times, 13 November 2013
UN officials and developing countries have concocted the notion, for example, that the U.S. and other developed countries should finance a Green Climate Fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change and invest in low-emissions growth. While developed nations assented in principle to such a Fund in Copenhagen in 2009, they did not commit to specific dollar amounts. Nonetheless, UN leaders and climate activists have spent years establishing the expectation that this fund will total $100 billion annually by 2020. To his credit, top U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern made clear in a speech last month in London that such expectations for the fund are fanciful. “The fiscal reality of the United States and other developed countries is not going to allow it," Stern said.—Paul Bledsoe, The Hill, 8 November 2013
The rejection by the developing world to commit to legally binding emission targets is not a tactical negotiation ploy. The categorical NO is absolute and non-negotiable. Due to the evident lack of realistic energy substitutes, developing countries have no choice but to continue to rely on the cheapest form of energy, i.e. fossil fuels – for the foreseeable future. Even the promised $100 billion climate fund are not binding and are unlikely to materialise in any case. Of course, these figures are pure fantasy because both the EU and the US have made these sums conditional on the signatures of China and India under the climate treaty, a proviso that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. The developing nations are not stupid. They have ensnared the West in a climate trap that green politicians set for themselves. To meet the growing pressure by the West, developing countries are demanding $200- 400 billion dollars – per annum – for so-called climate compensation and adaptation measures, together with billions worth of technology transfers. It is difficult to see how the West, already heavily curtailed as a result of the economic crisis, would be prepared to transfer such an astronomical amount of money. Even in good times it would have been a foolish idea. –Benny Peiser, Die Weltwoche, 20 December 2009
Canada’s public praise yesterday for Australia’s decision to scrap the carbon tax underscores a dramatic shift that could sweep through international climate negotiations. The final step for Australia would be to follow developed countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Russia and Japan in walking away from Kyoto 2, the global agreement on reducing carbon emissions. --Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 14 November 2013
Canada has dropped any remaining pretences of supporting global action on climate change by urging other countries to follow Australia's example in gutting its climate plan. "Canada applauds the decision by prime minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian prime minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message," the formal statement from Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, said. --Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, 14 November 2013
A few weeks after it finishes hosting United Nations talks on limiting fossil-fuel emissions, Poland may decide to double the size of one of its biggest coal-burning power plants. Poland sits atop Europe’s largest reserve of coal and is the European Union’s most-dependent country on the fuel. “We treat Poland’s coal reserves as an asset and a force for stability in energy supplies,” Deputy Prime Minister Janusz Piechocinski said in a speech to parliament in Warsaw on Nov. 7. “Our energy security now and for many years to come will be based on coal. The reindustrialization of Europe should be just as important a goal as emission reduction.” --Ewa Krukowska, Bloomberg, 13 November 2013
The planet stopped warming more than a decade ago. Meanwhile, since 2001 the CO2 level has increased by 29% of the increase prior to 2001. Carbon dioxide change has never had a significant influence on climate and never will. At http://danpangburn.blogspot.com/ see an eye-opening graph and a simple equation that, with only one external forcing, calculates an average global temperature anomaly trend since 1610 and, with 90% accuracy (correlation coefficient = 0.95), calculates measured average global temperature anomalies since 1895. See why the LIA and Global Warming both ended. CO2 change had no significant influence.
ReplyDelete