More money for climate change
As was dutifully noted last week, global warming, aka. climate change, is an issue of very contentious debate. That is
true, not only in America, but also across the world. It received even more attention last week with the release of e-mails showing the data that purportedly proved global warming and climate change was real has been cooked from the very beginning. As I was browsing the news this afternoon, I cam across an article from The Associated Press that declares the woes of the poorer countries in the world and seeks to answer this question. How are these poorer countries going to cope with the cost of adapting to climate change and it’s effects?
There is an upcoming meeting in Denmark next month, hosted by the United Nations, and much is being said in advance about the need for more funds to combat climate change.
Money on the table – perhaps $10 billion a year or more – could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the U.N. conference could end in discord.
The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions.
“Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012,” the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters last week in a preview of the two-week conference opening next Monday in Copenhagen.
Okay, just so we are all clear on this, they want us to pay more money to the UN? If I may be so bold, I don’t quite think so. Are we not already giving that corrupt bunch more than enough money as it is?
I know I run the risk of sounding like I do not care about the environment, but I am more skeptical than ever about climate change or if such actions as they suggest are actually needed. Let’s look at what the article says about new data that was released last week.
An international scientific update last week said changes are happening faster than anticipated. Global temperatures are rising by 0.19 degrees C (0.34 degrees F) per decade, pushing the world into a time of climate disruption, species die-off and expanding seas. Oceans are rising by 3.4 millimeters (0.13 inches) per year, faster than predicted.
It seems as if the media and those who are actively pushing the idea that climate change is real are ignoring the fact that the released e-mails show this data has been falsified from the start. Having said that, let’s just ignore that fact and accept what the “international scientific update” is saying, at least for the sake of argument.
When put in layman’s terms, it would look like this. It is going to take 2.94 decades for temperatures to rise 1°. That is almost thirty years. It is going to take 7.69 years for the oceans to rise 1″. I do not mean to discount these numbers, even if they are taken at face value, but those increases seem very negligible to me. Are we sure there is even a real trend here?
As good stewards of the Earth God has allowed us to live on, we should all take care of the environment. Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is one way we can reduce pollution. Reducing the amount of smog in our atmosphere will certainly help, as will using different kinds of energy. I am thinking nuclear and wind here, just as a starting point. We can even change the style of light bulbs we use. I have some of those myself and they do last longer, although they are a little dim when first turned on. I am not sure if they save energy or not, but it’s an idea.
Now we go back to the numbers themselves and their creditability. Suffice it to say that I really wonder if sky is falling as bad as they say. Even if they refuse to admit it, the global warming and climate change scientists have had their reputations severely damaged. Any motion to get more money from richer nations on the basis of the numbers previously mentioned smells like an extortion attempt to me. If the money is going to the United Nations, then I vote no.
Very good post, Larry! You nailed it!
When I studied this stuff in college a couple of years ago the number one problem with it was how the 3rd world nations would pay for it ( because they can’t) and even if they did, how do they reduce their own pollution since they are to poor to build better energy using mechanisms. This isn’t so clear cut despite what Obama and his ilk think.
I think a lot of this has to do with money. How do we make deals with everyone that will give us (politicians) a net profit. And if it can be done, then we will make sure you make a profit as well.
It all about greed, power, and cronyism.
We need someone to ride in on a white car in a white outfit and take care of the bad guys in the black outfits and black cars! LOL I miss the days that things were so clear cut. Good guys always won over the bad guys. Now it seems like it’s the other way around more often than not.
Dominique´s last blog ..Disputing Michelle Obama on women’s Obama-care coverage…
Thanks, Dominique. I simply do not think for one moment that we need to be giving them any more money, especially to combat a situation that is not even real. Actually, I think we are giving them too much money already. They need to be put on a financial diet.
You managed to hit one one of the true goals of global warming– a global redistribution of wealth. The rich countries are going to be asked to give the poor countries money to combat global warming.
We have a corrupt organization (the UN) using data that was manipulated from the beginning telling us that we have to give $10 billion a year just for starters to initiate a global warming agreement? I am with you, I vote no also!
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Video: Message to the Environmental Movement– Climategate
Good post, Larry. I’ve been pretty clear about my desire that the debate swing to one of environmental stewardship and away from “global warming”, as I think that’s the fastest way to agreement that our air is dirty and moves us to what can be done in our own country. Truly, I think we agree on that.
As for funding on a global level by rich nations…One question:
Can the United States still be classified as a “rich nation”?
I am not sure we can be classified as a rich nation, but that is no doubt where we will be classified.