Free Markets, Free People

Doha: 3rd World extortion attempt in progress

Ignoring the fact that there’s been no rise in global temperatures for 16 years, 3rd world countries at the UN’s Doha climate conference are proceeding with their plan to make richer countries pay for their perceived (perhaps “mythical” is a better word?) damages wrought by “climate change”.

Basing their claim on the discredited “science” generated by nothing more than inaccurate climate models, they’ve decided what was promised previously just isn’t enough:

There has been a historic shift in the UN climate talks in Qatar, with the prospect of rich nations having to compensate poor nations for losses due to climate change.

The US has fiercely opposed the measure – it says the cost could be unlimited.

But after angry tussles throughout the night the principle of Loss and Damage is now in the final negotiating text.

Why is it that these countries think that what was previously promised ($100 billion by 2020 in Copenhagen) isn’t sufficient?  Because President Obama just asked Congress for $60 billion for hurricane Sandy relief.  Obviously, using that as a baseline, these countries want more.

And you have to love this attitude:

Saleem ul-Huq, from the think-tank IIED, told the BBC: “This is a watershed in the talks. There is no turning back from this. It will be better for the US to realise that the principle of compensation is inevitable – and negotiate a limit on Loss and Damage rather than leave the liability unlimited.

“The principle of compensation is inevitable?”  Really?  For what, given there’s been no evidence of damage?

It is a point of principle that is at stake here for developing countries. In the end it’s questionable how much extra money a Loss and Damage Mechanism might bring.

Already poor nations are bitter that rich nations, particularly the US are dragging their feet over a promise made at the failed Copenhagen climate summit to mobilise $100bn by 2020 to help poor nations get clean energy and adapt to climate change.

A “point of principle” my rear end.  It’s UN sponsored extortion.  It is based on faulty science and given hope by weak willed politicans, all supervised by the bandits in the UN.

We don’t own them anything.

Not. One. Red. Cent.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

14 Responses to Doha: 3rd World extortion attempt in progress

  • “It will be better for the US to realise that the principle of compensation is inevitable – and negotiate a limit on Loss and Damage rather than leave the liability unlimited.”
     
    It will be better for some people to realize without us funding their third world charitable debating society, they’ll have to go home and lord it over their goats.

  • Nothing will happen. Promises without deadlines or deadlines without promises.

    • Correct – translation  – throw us some money, and we’ll go away until next year.

  • “It’s UN sponsored extortion. It is based on faulty science and given hope by weak willed politicans, all supervised by the bandits in the UN.”

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. These people live in a fantasy world. They have lots of company though. Look what’s going on in Europe with massive rioting because the people don’t want austerity especially in light of the 1% having stolen everything. They’re near ready to lop off heads and the UN wants ‘rich’ countries (which ones are those right now?) to ‘give’ money to poor countries . . . just because they want it.

    I suppose we could just print a few more dollars. But where is that leading the US? We can see what’s coming.

  • Just a macro version of soak the rich. They know Obama agrees with them in general philosophy, which is “You have it. I want it. Fork it over.”

    • I’ll have mine with two large sides please – tonight’s specials are “it’s your fault ” and “you exploited us”.

    • Back in the 1960s, a conservative sociologist named Edward Stanfield wrote a book on urban policy called The Unheavenly City.  It was influenced, he told me, by the Austrian School, as shown by his analysis of social classes according to time horizons.

      The more upper-class people are, he said, the more they care about their posterity and their society.  Even if they have no children, they’re future oriented.  These people are the opposite of the Keynesians and their “in the long run we’re all dead.” Like Mises, they uphold the good and true, for the long term.

      These are the savers and investors, the entrepreneurs and producers who make a capitalist economy hum.  They’re also the generous givers, people who make charitable contributions to preserve what’s right, and change what’s not, over the long term.

      Further down the class scale, said Banfield, people are more present-oriented.  And at the lower end, they are more likely to be on welfare or criminals.  Those on the dole have little concern for tomorrow.  As to the outlaws, when they want money, there’s no thought of working for it.  They grab your wallet.” — Edward Banfield, The Unheavenly City

  • But if you look at the Copenhagen Accords, it was more than compensation for damage from climate change.
    The Copenhagen Accords are an international industrial policy statement.  The compensation is really a payoff to the Third world not to develop and challenge the First and Second World’s position.  To prove this point, look at who doesn’t want to sign aboard .. China and India.
    The problem is that there will never be enough money to keep the Third World as the Third World .. to keep them undeveloped.
    Doha has proven this point.