If the second time is farce, what is the 19th? The U.N.’s “Conference of the Parties” is holding its 19th session of global warming talks in Warsaw. The purpose of these talks is to produce agreements. The purpose of the agreements is to transfer your money to someone else. The Warsaw event was scheduled to end yesterday, but no agreement had been reached–the horror!–and it was feared the talks might prove unsuccessful.
But wait! The Associated Press headlined this morning: “Compromise Breaks Deadlock At UN Climate Talks.”
Developed countries and fast-growing economies have reached a last-minute compromise to avert a breakdown of U.N. climate talks in Warsaw.
Well, that’s a relief. The AP next describes the compromise; see whether you can parse this sentence:
China and India had clashed with the U.S. and other developed countries Saturday over the wording of draft decisions with guidelines on when countries should present commitments for a new pact to fight global warming.
I would say we are five degrees of separation away from any actual action. Which is just as well. More:
The talks were deadlocked after China and India insisted on wording that would keep a firewall between rich and poor countries that the U.S. and other developed countries want to get rid of.
However, a compromise was reached in which the word “commitments” was replaced by the weaker “contributions,” allowing the talks to continue Saturday.
If you find all of this mystifying, it’s really very simple. It has nothing to do with the climate. Countries like ours have quite a bit of money, relatively speaking, and the corrupt elites that rule “developing” countries, and prevent them from developing, would like some of it.
Climate financing proved harder to agree on. Rich countries have promised to help developing nations make their economies greener and to adapt to rising sea levels, desertification and other climate impacts.
Sea levels have been rising for around 15,000 years, and aren’t likely to stop rising any time soon. But making economies “greener” means the same thing in developing countries that it does here: transferring wealth to government-connected cronies, who in turn use some of it to prop up the regime in power.
They have provided billions of dollars in climate financing in recent years, but have resisted calls to put down firm commitments on how they’re going to fulfill a pledge to scale up annual contributions to $100 billion by 2020.
I should hope so! If the Obama administration participated in any such giveaway, it would be cause for impeachment.
Pointing to the devastating impact of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, island nations also demanded a new “loss and damage mechanism” to help them deal with weather disasters made worse by climate change. Rich countries were seeking a compromise that would not make them liable for damage caused by extreme weather events.
This has gone beyond farce and entered the realm of lunacy. Typhoon Haiyan had nothing to do with “climate change.” There have always been typhoons, and typhoons in the Western Pacific region are not increasing in either number or magnitude (red bars represent major typhoons):
The idea that “rich countries” should be “liable for damage caused by extreme weather events” is ludicrous on its face. Why does the United States even participate in such clown shows?