First off, I’ve noticed that in the last couple of years, Al Jazeera has decided to join the Climate Kool-Aid Bandwagon and gone off the deep ending to Climate Koo-Koo Land. Sad that. They had been more neutral on the subject. I guess one of the owners figured out that if they can convince the UE and USA to shut in their coal, the only real alternative is Oil & Gas, and the Arabs own a lot of it (and not just that in their own countries…)
While I like their world news coverage for political variety and more in-depth and on the ground in the Middle East / Muslim world; I’m finding it ever more difficult to “hold my nose” through the Climate Porn Coverage.
It is obvious in their shows, and it is “in your face” obvious at their site. So be advised when you “hit the link”:
This was a “crawler” under the news coverage, so I hunted it up. Looks like they are talking about emissions pledges, not money pledges, but it is hard to tell.
Missing: Pledges of 162 nations for UN global climate treaty
Though most missed soft deadline, nations accounting for 60 percent of world’s emissions have submitted pledges
April 2, 2015 7:30PM ET
by Renee Lewis
Scores of nations have missed a soft deadline for submitting plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the planned December signing of a global climate treaty in Paris to avoid the worst effects of global warming. But policy analysts said they remain optimistic because the nations that have responded represent 60 percent of global emissions.
Only the European Union, comprising 28 countries, as well as Switzerland, Norway, the United States, Russia, Mexico, and Gabon had formally submitted their pledges — known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) — to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) website by the March 31 set by the U.N.
So now you know “who’s your daddy” on the climate guilt front. I’m surprised to see Russia in the list. They seemed brighter than that. Then again, it is only a pledge and keeps a ‘marker’ in for them to ask for payola. Of these, I see the “Marks” as being the EU and USA, plus Switzerland and Norway. Just about everyone else is likely expecting payola as their fair share.
That means 162 nations have not formally outlined actions they intend to take under a potential global agreement. The INDCs will largely determine whether the world achieves a comprehensive climate treaty in Paris and is put on the path toward a low-carbon future.
“While this has been called the deadline and the U.S. and EU and others wanted it to be a firmer deadline, the actual requirement is soft — that’s why you see a lot of countries not meeting the deadline,” John Coequyt, director of the International Program for the Sierra Club, told Al Jazeera on Thursday. “Our expectation is that many countries will commit their INDCs well in advance of the (December) session.”
After the INDCs are submitted there will be an assessment phase to review the pledges and possibly adjust them ahead of the Paris Climate Summit (COP 21). Each country will contribute what it can, in the context of its national priorities, circumstances and capabilities. But the collective effort will be aimed at reducing emissions enough to limit the average global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, which many scientists believe would avert the worst affects of climate change.
Here we have the weasel words (bolded by me) that will let them claim victory when folks back out. Plus the necessary catechism to the ‘received wisdom’.
The U.S. pledge also represents an acceleration from its earlier plans for emissions cuts. Its target “will roughly double the pace of carbon pollution reduction in the United States,” according to its official INDC submission.
So hang onto your hats as your electricity bills “necessarily skyrocket”… And remember it is brought to you by the Democrats. Remind all your friends and neighbors too…
In addition to pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, INDCs will also include planned actions for climate adaptation and descriptions of what support they will need from, or would be able to provide to, other countries.
OK, there’s the ‘money quote’. The “support they will need from” will be answered by everyone else and the “provide to, other countries” will be coming from the EU and USA. At least, that’s what they want.
Developing countries that lack the capability to produce technology to speed the transition to a clean economy will buy the low-carbon technology such as solar panels or wind turbines in what is known as a “tech transfer,” Robertson said. Eventually, the plan is that China will use the technology it developed for others to reduce its own emissions, he added.
OK, the plan for China, to keep them bought in, is a free ride to 2030, and they get to sell crap to the rest of the world on subsidy. So much for that “solar jobs” in the EU and USA idea…
That’s the goal adopted by Pathway to Paris, an initiative by the Citizen Climate Lobby, a coalition of citizens, stakeholders, NGOs, scholars, and policy-makers working to coordinate a strong agreement in Paris.
There’s your Rogues Gallery. Now you know exactly what needs pruning. Lobby groups, “coalitions” whatever they are, NGOs, scholars, and “policy-makers”. Not sure exactly what they mean by “stakeholders” ether, as that seems to clearly omit those with the highest stakes, the utility rate payers and taxpayer saps.
This ought to have some kind of organized response, though “from whom” is a bit hard to see at the moment. It would be really nice if The Senate had clue on this.
Then, in other related news:
I don’t know who these folks are, just found the story via a search. It looks like some kind of conservative or christian oriented site (from the initials) but I could not find an expansion of their name anywhere and the “about” is just fluff.
UN Chief Wants Action on $100 Billion Climate Fund
April 20, 2015 – 4:34 AM
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com) – More than five years after President Obama and other leaders agreed on a 2020 goal of raising $100 billion each year from public and private sources to help developing countries deal with climate change, the United Nations wants to see action. Ahead of Earth Day on Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is pointing to a meeting next month in New York where he says he will be looking for clear indications from governments and investors as to how the ambitious goal will be reached.
The Moon-Bat wants his $100 BILLION (PER YEAR) and he wants it NOW!.
“Climate change is the defining issue of our times,” he told a conference hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance last week. “It is also an enormous economic opportunity.”
On Saturday Ban again tackled the subject, at an International Monetary Fund event in Washington. “We need a credible trajectory for realizing the $100 billion goal per year by 2020, as well as the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund,” he said.
So he’s hitting the money trail. Looking to talk it up on financial news (carbon futures anyone?) and certainly sees it as an “enormous economic opportunity” though seems a bit vague on just who will get to suck at this $100 BILLION per YEAR money teat. I suggest asking the Clinton Foundation if they have any “charitable” plans involving “climate change”; though you likely will find it called “Climate Justice” or something equally sick.
“This was a commitment which was made in 2009 during the Copenhagen climate change summit meeting. We have only mobilized $10 billion as an initial capitalization of this Green Climate Fund. I would really hope that there will be a trajectory, a path, which will be shown to the member-states.”
So they got their “taster” of ‘only’ $10 BILLION, and now they know the Mark is good for more… Don’t know what the rules are on the Green Climate Fund, but some kind of “follow that money” needs to be done. It’s the hot trail to who is running the scam.
Launched in 2011 as a result of that 2009 decision in Denmark, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is designed to help developing countries curb “greenhouse gas” emissions and cope with occurrences blamed on climate change, such as rising sea levels.
The aim is to reach $100 billion a year by 2020.
As of April 10, the fund had received pledges from 33 countries, totaling $10.2 billion. That includes a $3 billion pledge by Obama last November, by far the largest contribution promised to date. Some GOP lawmakers have signaled an intention to push back.
We need the names of those GOP lawmakers and we need to open our checkbooks to them. They seem to be the only line of defense at this point. We need to be asking every single person in America if THEY think we ought to be sending $3 BILLION to a left-wing-nut UN Climate Slush Fund.
Ban and U.N. climate officials want clarity on the financing issue, as a confidence booster ahead of the Paris gathering.
No doubt… It looks like Paris is shaping up as the money hoe-down show down.
The “soap” on this particular lube-job is the idea that oil is heavily subsidized and that the money from that ought to go to them, instead.
A coalition of eight countries – Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland – is targeting the subsidy issue in particular. The coalition, calling itself “Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform,” said on Friday governments spent more than $548 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2013.
The group noted pointedly that this was more than five times more than the $100 billion target for climate mitigation and adaptation by 2020.
Last time I looked at this, the “subsidy” was mostly a depreciation allowance, as all other industries get. NOT cash handouts. So they expect this money to flow in via higher taxes and to them as grants. Expect “necessarily skyrocketed” gasoline and Diesel costs if that happens.
At this point I really do have to point out the complete absence of the OPEC states from that list. Nice trick. Get your competition to jack up their cost structure and drive their customers into your waiting arms. Now I see why the Oil States (and Al Jazeera) are on board with the Green-Scam.
With that, I’ll leave you to ponder those bits and ponder how to put a pile of rocks on this railroad track to poverty.