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: 311

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 Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service