from CFACT
David Wojcik
The United Nations Conference of the Parties on Climate Change has always been about big money, but until now, there has been a facade of emissions reductions to cover it up. Money is a big deal this time, and it's crazy as hell. Starting next year, they want trillions of dollars from us.
That people take this nonsense seriously speaks volumes about the unreality of the UN climate plan. But it will be fun to watch them hit the wall of “impossibility.”
In fact, there are three major funding issues that deserve attention. First, the annual free funds provided by developed countries to developing countries are expected to jump from a mere US$100 billion per year to US$1 trillion per year, and rapidly grow to nearly US$2 trillion. I'm not making this up.
Second, we should pay trillions of dollars to developing countries to compensate for their bad weather. It's hard to say which of the two is crazier, and I welcome suggestions.
The third is probably the most interesting. People hope that China, one of the most powerful economies in the world, will stop pretending to be a developing country and start pouring large sums of money into these two pots. By some measures, China is by far the strongest economy. For example, they produce and use more electricity than the United States and the European Union combined.
Before getting further into dollar madness, procedural questions must be raised, especially with Trump in office. These big money things are about MOP, not COP. What’s the lingo?
The basis for these annual discussions is the 1994 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This is a treaty ratified by 198 countries, including the United States. The abbreviation COP stands for the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Paris Agreement complements the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is not a treaty, just what is known in international law as a presidential agreement. President Trump cannot withdraw us from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but he can easily withdraw from the Paris Agreement, as he did the last time he was president. Gatherings under the Paris Agreement are called meetings of the Parties, or MOPs.
COP 29 is actually part COP and part MOP. All three big money issues are on the MOP side, and we're going to be without them very soon. Of course, COP 29 is taking place under what is left of the Biden administration, so we will still be at the table, but any promises made will be laughed at. This twist only adds to the feeling of frivolity.
Here's more information on terminology so you can follow along. First, the astronomical annual payment issue is called the New Collective Quantified Goal or NCQG, which I find hard to pronounce. Suggestions are welcome. At least C and G have internal rhyme.
For purposes of discussion, NCQG starts at $1.1 trillion in 2025 and will increase to $1.8 trillion by 2019. That's not surprising, right?
The second biggest money problem is called loss and damage. This severe weather jar is just starting out or trying, but probably not going to happen, so there's a lot to be concerned about.
The problem is there's more bad weather than money in the world, so funding is limited even if it's possible. So the basic question is who gets how much and for what? There is currently no actual funding. The debate was therefore entirely academic in the way diplomats love it.
The China problem does not appear to have an official name, but is often referred to as “China's contribution.” China, the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, also adds to the guilt. China's answer is that it is still developing on a per capita basis and has a long way to go. We will see.
Note that diplomats should never say “no” so this doesn't happen. They just never say “yes.” Watch in slow motion as they still have two weeks to kill.
Ridiculously, the money is out of the question and the US is withdrawing from MOP, but the show must go on. Please stay tuned to CFACT for more fun.
Relevant
