How Much Will a New Climate Change Treaty Cost and Who Will Pay?
Eleven thousand delegates attending the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Warsaw, Poland, November 11-22, to supposedly negotiate funding mechanisms for its 2009 Green Climate Fund to transfer $100 billion annually from rich to poor nations to build green economies and a new “loss and damages” fund for poor countries that suffer catastrophic damages blamed on rich nations’ industries that emit carbon dioxide.
The UNFCCC is clear that the world as we know it will end unless we fund these two mechanisms, but no one knows what it will cost or who will pay for it. That’s a sure-fired disaster for any business, yet it is the foundation for new UN treaty to be completed in Paris in 2015 and ratified by enough countries to roll out by 2020.
On Monday, Rachel Kyte, World Bank VP for Sustainable Development, was asked how much money will be needed to develop resilience to climate change in Third World countries, but she had no clue.
When the UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres was asked where the money would come, since she told delegates last week that that is the primary goal of negotiations in Warsaw, she punted the ball to the new Green Climate Fund board whom she suggested may have an answer six months from now.
Nonetheless, the UN continues to demand that reliable energy sources of coal and nuclear be replaced with unreliable sources of wind and solar.
It is true that burning coal produces CO2, but the air we breathe contains less than .4% (four-tenths of one percent) CO2, which is a concern only to radical environmentalists. In addition, CO2 escapes into outer space and does not cause climate change. Rather, sun activity, ocean currents and winds are the primary factors of climate change. Nuclear produces NO CO2, yet the radical environmentalists have eliminated that option too.
Coal is the UN’s demon in Warsaw, so every nation, including the World Bank, is promising to not fund coal projects, even if it is the ticket out of poverty for poor nations.
The host nation, Poland, is doing all it can to bring logic and sound science to the table in Warsaw. Godfrey Gomwe, chief executive of Anglo American Thermal Coal, told a parallel coal producers meeting in Warsaw that coal use is “necessary to aid 1.3 billion people’s escape from poverty. A life without access to modern energy is a life lived in poverty.”
Todd Stern, the head of the American delegation in Warsaw, is on the side of the extremists. He acknowledged that coal use was "not going to change overnight,” but advocated for carbon capture and storage, which environmentalists claim is impossible.
Stern also expressed support for President Obama’s June Climate Action Plan and his Executive Order that aim to kill jobs and cripple our economy. He bragged about doubling the automobile requirement from 27 to 54 miles per gallon with a pledge to double it again by 2020, as well as U.S. collaboration with China on five initiatives aimed to reduce CO2 emissions.
Christiana Figueres demanded that “most existing coal reserves will have to stay in the ground,” and that the coal industry diversify its portfolio beyond coal, even though the globe has not warmed in 16 years, storms are not more frequent nor more intense, the seas are not rising and Arctic ice grew by 60% this last summer.
American voters can make a world’s difference in 2014. We can either elect those who, like Obama, are willing to destroy our jobs, economy and standard of living by following the UNFCCC march over the radical environmental cliff OR we can vote for science, logic and sanity. I hope you will join me in voting for sound science, logic and sanity.