by  D. Wojick, Nov 25, 2024 in WUWT

In Cop 29’s “Finance agreement” diplomacy is truly the art of agreeing to nothing. There is no agreement of substance here because there is no substance to this agreement. Each side gets its number someday and that is all there is to it.

Let’s look at the actual text to see the nothing. But first recall what was supposed to happen. The Paris Agreement committed the developed country members to providing $100 billion a year to the developing countries through 2025. COP 29 was simply supposed to revise that annual payment up beginning in 2026. That did not happen, not even close.

The fiasco started when the developing countries demanded huge impossibly sums centered on $1.3 trillion. That set in motion a series of side steps leading to the present agreement which is very different from the intended goal.

To begin with the $1.3 trillion annual payment is there but it is “by 2035” so ten years from now not in 2026. I can see delaying it until a few years after Trump leaves office but these folks are wedded to their five year plans.

Moreover this money need not come from the developed countries and certainly not from their governments. First it is to come “from all public and private sources.” Second the eligible sources have been expanded to include all the developing countries as well as the developed ones.

These two provisions have fundamentally changed the concept of climate finance. It used to just include mostly government money going from developed to developing countries. Now it sounds like any climate related investment or contribution that winds up in a developing country counts.

Working this out will be supremely challenging. For example if China builds itself an offshore wind array, and they are building plenty, is that climate finance? How about if they build it in Indonesia?

Oh and it looks like coal fired power plants count too. In early drafts of the agreement counting coal plants was ruled out because people were doing that in the name of adaptation. Having electricity certainly helps when extreme weather hits. But that prohibition does not appear in the final agreement so the practice looks allowable.

Then there is the other big number, the $300 billion a year. This is widely assumed to replace the $100 billion a year mandated by the Paris Agreement through 2025. For example CBS has a headline that yells “deal reached at UN’s COP29 climate talks for $300 billion a year (up from $100 billion).”

This is incorrect as here too the new agreement says the goal is “by 2035.” Nor is all (or any) of this distant sum necessarily coming from developed countries as the yearly $100 billion had to. The new agreement just says “with developed country Parties taking the lead.” (Parties means to the Paris Agreement.)

…

by P. Homewood, Nov 24, 2024 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

So the whole charade trundles on for another year:

…

But it is all academic anyway, as they won’t even get that much if the US pulls out, as expected to.

The UK’s share of $300bn, if averaged out by GDP, would be about $18 billion, or $36 billion if Trump pulls out, which is nearly three times the current Overseas Aid budget.

In all likelihood, most of the money will be provided, as now, by repayable loans and private sector investment. Neither of these are of much use for the Third World, as they cannot afford the repayments or the profits businesses will look to extract.

Needless to say, developing countries will not be obliged to cut emissions in return for their Danegeld. Back in the heady days of 2009, the naive Barack Obama believed that throwing dollar bills around would magically lower the world’s emissions. We now know the reality!

Nor is there any obligation for China, India or Middle Eastern oil states, all still classified as “developing”, to cough up a penny.

And more fundamentally, COP29 never even addressed the issue of emission reductions. No new pledges were made, no NDCs updated. No even a timetable for discussing them in future.

Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the Conference was the first day agreement on carbon markets.

As the BBC explain, a poor country with lots of trees can sell carbon credits to richer nations, so they can continue to burn fossil fuels.

Apparently carbon emissions are alright, as long as you pay a penance!

by C. Rucker, Nov 23, 2024 in WUWT

The sums of money being demanded at the UN climate conference in Azerbaijan are staggering.

The UN estimates that the world currently spend $3 trillion per year on climate and wants to dedicate $3.5 trillion to energy transition per year by 2050.  This would skyrocket total annual global climate spending to $5 trillion.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

They are pushing for something they call the “new collective quantified goal” at COP 29 in Baku.  This mainly means a fortune in climate redistribution from the developed to the developing world.

Delegates are all too aware that this spending largess in no way squares with President-elect Trump’s “America first” agenda, but they are hoping to wait him out as they did once before.

One surprising positive development, is that in the process of demanding redistribution, developing nations have woken up to one of the key absurdities of the UN climate regime.  Nations such as China and India are given a pass on emissions reductions and paying out funds.  This, despite the fact that China is the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases and boasts the second largest economy, while India’s economy is all the way up at number five.

This is due to something the UN calls “common, but differentiated responsibilities,” which has been baked into the climate regime going all the way back to 1997’s Kyoto Protocol.  China, meanwhile, holds $8.16 trillion of U.S. debt.

Wherever climate policy goes next, China should equally bear the pain and shoulder the responsibility they advocate for us.

President Obama shoveled $1 billion over to the UN’s Green Climate Fund shortly before President Trump began his first term.  This included $500 million transferred just three days before inauguration day.

Will the Biden Administration try to top that?

The last time President Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement it took four years.  Under the terms of the Agreement, this time he can do it in one.

Let’s hope President Trump resurrects climate and energy reality for the U.S. and the world before much more damage is done.