Global Redistribution Scheme: UN Climate Talks Once Again Break Down Over ‘Climate Reparations’

United Nations climate delegates are likely to leave Lima, Peru this weekend without having made any real progress toward a treaty to reduce global warming.

By the end of the 10-day conference, diplomats were once again divided over questions of how much money rich countries should give poor countries in aid to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and adapt to global temperature rises.

So far, rich nations have only pledged $10 billion to the UN’s Green Climate Fund. This is below the $15 billion goal set by the UN and well below the $100 billion per year promise made by rich countries, including the U.S., in 2009.

“We are disappointed,” Prakash Javadekar a UN delegate from India, told The Guardian. “It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.”

“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn,” Javadekar said.

Poor, developing countries led by China want rich, developed nations to pay for costly climate programs that poor nations will have to implement in an effort to meet the internationally agreed upon goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Similar disagreements hurt last year’s UN climate negotiations in Warsaw, Poland. The U.S. and other developed countries came out against so-called climate “reparations” to poor countries for historical greenhouse gas emissions. This caused a massive walk out of UN talks led by China and the G77.

Some observers thought this year would be different after the U.S. and China pledged to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years. The U.S. pledged to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025 and China pledged to peak emissions by 2030.

see more: 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/13/un-climate-talks-once-again-break...

Views: 315

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

sounds more like an investment portfolio disagreement(?)

how much monies need to be pledged to underdeveloped nations?  I thought it was the development that they considered caused the need for climate reparations.

I agree. Especially since scientists have found that there has been no real rise in the global temperatures. I don't know who started this supposed "Global Warming" nonsense but I guess they will continue until the sun has caused us to nearly freeze to death because of it going into a slow phase like it has done over the millennial. The earth is in constant change. You can see this by the cycles of hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, earthquakes, drought and flooding. The acts of nature change this earth much more than man ever thought of.

More bull passed by bloviating bulls###ers....what a Ponzi scheme....so many evil, greedy folks...tell you what...why don't all you "rich" folks..like prince harry, piglousy, frankemstein, mcpain, boner,mcCONel, obummer, and all thei rich demoncrat donors like Soros and Steyer, all the follywood types start with their money 1st...when they give all their money away then they can ask for mine! ANother good reason to stop paying taxes...the parasites of the world have been given the knowledge to make their contries succeed..if not they have stolen it...like CHina...let them make themselves prosperous....and fix their own "climate"..by the way...they are all evil criminals of the highest caliber!

The UN should be kicked out of NYC....they dislike America

Peru will be punished economically if they don't sign on, just like the U.S. and Russia are being punished.
Is anyone paying any attention to the fact that some of the black radical groups have been joining the Muslim Brotherhood training camps here in the U.S. ?

The U.N., a body of wolves surrounding a few pigs, trying to decide "what's for dinner".  With the U.N. now comprised of a majority of takers (dictator led countries whose Swiss bank accounts grow with each dollar coming from, primarily, the U.S., are now debating how much more we should give to them.

Will we ever learn the cost of our "good intentions", that NEVER WORK?

Global Warming is a proven HOAX, a vehicle invented by the U.N. to have another way to extract retribution from the U.S.

EPA nothing but government bs agency, cow produce more CO2 than humans. Why doesn't EpA have a

a scheme to kill all the cows?

Current regime in fed gov trying to bs Americans, world into decline to third world and worse conditions.

We need to help those countries less fortunate to stop the corruption, stealing by their own governments!

These is no dearth of food, only governmental control which leads to shortaGES, etc. .

As for drought, we can develop de-salinization projects, rather than having evil controlling governments stop such much needed projedts!

 

that's a good idea - the de-salinization projects.  Also - the bit about corrupt countries...  true.  Most all that have been mediatizing USA as being so evil - their leaders were given lots of money; they just keep it for themselves/their cronies and let their citizens suffer anyway.  You're right - to fix global poverty etc. - need to quit giving money away without consequence if these countries don't do the right thing by it.  We've been giving for years, hasn't helped much around the world for the most part.  The United Nations too - we support them for the most part - let them move/buy their own building somewhere else, and all the other countries can support themselves as the UN somewhere else.

Kind of like our welfare system, here - both corp and for citizens...  it's not working the way it's setup, so change the arrangement so it will work.  Like Reagan said, (close to):  the best way to gauge the success of a govt. program, is when it is no longer needed.  (not sure if I stated exact, but close).

   This is another one of the United States foisted scams that has the UN having wet dreams of the money they can extort from Nations. BULL SHIT TO THE MAX.

One SCAM after another!

They keep bitching about global warming and increased CO2 levels--------

PLANT SOME TREES.

IT IS PURE SCIENCE THAT IS MORE ACCURATE THAN WHAT THEY ARE SPOUTING. PLANT LIFE FEEDS ON CO2!

One of the best things for us would be to get out of the UN.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service