COP 29: another round of UN-sponsored pickpocketing of national treasuries on the grand scale, with the usual excuse that 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere being carbon dioxide is somehow a diabolical (but correctable – pay up) problem.
– – –
UN Climate COPs have always been about big money but until now there was a facade of emission reductions to hide it behind, says David Wojick @ CFACT.
This time the money is the big thing and it is amazingly crazy. They want many trillions from us starting next year.
That people take this nonsense seriously speaks volumes about the unreality of the UN climate program. But it will be great fun to watch them hit the NO WAY wall.
There are actually three big money issues to watch fail.
First is the annual money for nothing from developed countries to developing ones that is supposed to jump from a measly $100 billion a year to a trillion a year and quickly growing to almost two trillion. I am not making this up.
Second is the as yet untold trillions we are supposed to pay the developing countries to make up for their bad weather. Which of these two is crazier is hard to say and I welcome suggestions.
Third is perhaps the most fun. People want China, one of the strongest economies in the world, to stop pretending to be a developing country and put big money into these two pots. By some measures China is by far the strongest economy. For example they produce and use more electricity than the US and EU combined.
. . .
Here’s a bit more on the jargon so you can follow the action. First the astronomical annual payment issue is called the New Collective Quantified Goal or NCQG which strikes me as unpronounceable. Suggestions welcome. At least there is an interior rhyme with C and G.
For purpose of discussion the starting value of the NCQG is $1.1 trillion in 2025 rising to $1.8 trillion in 2019. Yes it is a 5 year plan. No surprise there, right?
The second big money issue is called Loss and Damage. This bad weather pot is just getting off the ground or trying to which may not happen so there is a lot to watch.
The problem is there is more bad weather than money in the world so even possible funds are limited. Thus the basic issue is who gets how much and for what?
There are no actual funds at this point. So the debate is entirely academic which diplomats love.
Full article here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
November 9, 2024 at 03:15AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 