Not Enough Buns for All the Green Weenies in Doha

The latest UN climate change meeting has followed the predictable script laid out here a week ago: the meeting had to go into overtime to “save” the talks from collapse.  I especially like reading the weenie-friendly UK Guardian‘s coverage of these meetings, because their attempt at earnest coverage ironically underscores what a complete farce the whole thing is.  From the latest dispatch:

Poor countries have won historic recognition of the plight they face from the ravages of climate change, wringing a pledge from rich nations that they will receive funds to repair the “loss and damage” incurred.

This is the first time developing countries have received such assurances, and the first time the phrase “loss and damage from climate change” has been enshrined in an international legal document.

Let us pause here to take note that getting money from rich nations has been the object of the climate racket from the beginning, as it has been with every UN racket going back to the 1960s and 1970s.  In the last few year the UN kleptocrats have become more open about their objective.  Cue the tape, and recall the comment I’ve reported here before from German economist Ottmar Edenhoffer:

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Anyway, to continue with the fun parts of the Guardian dispatch, concerning the all-important details:

The US had strongly opposed the initial “loss and damage” proposals, which would have set up a new international institution to collect and disperse funds to vulnerable countries. US negotiators also made certain that neither the word “compensation”, nor any other term connoting legal liability, was used, to avoid opening the floodgates to litigation – instead, the money will be judged as aid.

Key questions remain unanswered, including whether funds devoted to “loss and damage” will come from existing humanitarian aid and disaster relief budgets. The US is one of the world’s biggest donor of humanitarian aid and disaster relief, from both public and private sources. It will be difficult to disentangle damage inflicted by climate change from other natural disasters.

Another question is how the funds will be disbursed. Developing countries wanted a new institution, like a bank, but the US is set against that, preferring to use existing international institutions. These issues will have to be sorted out at next year’s climate conference, in Warsaw, where they will be bitterly contested.

I propose we pay climate aid with Argentinian and Greek bonds.

Meanwhile, climate change scourge Lord Monckton crashed the party, and, posing as a delegate from Myanmar, thoroughly bollixed the proceedings with some politically incorrect remarks before they cut off his mic.  From the looks of the Qatari chair of the meeting, you’d think a woman had tried to vote or something:


Books to read from Power Line