Cancun Climate Change Shakedown

First dispatch from the United Nations Climate Change conference in Cancun

Cancun—Mexicans are much more competent at running a U.N. conference than are Danes. The Copenhagen climate change conference last year was infamous for its chaos. Last December I stood in line for eight hours in subfreezing weather to try to get registered and didn’t succeed. I had to come back the next day at 4 a.m. to stand in line for another four hours in order to pick up my press credentials. This year, the whole process took less than one minute. In addition, the Mexican government is managing various climate change constituencies by keeping them apart. The negotiators from 194 countries are installed in the well-guarded and luxurious Moon Palace resort; the non-governmental organizations put on their shows at the isolated CancunMesse Convention Center; and obstreperous activist groups are largely relegated to the more distant Climate Change Village. All are knit together by a huge fleet of buses.

Not only are the Mexican conference hosts good at logistics, but some participants are praising them as being pretty good at jumpstarting negotiations. The pre-meeting buzz (or the conspicuous lack thereof) on the 16th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention (or in the alphabet soup nomenclature of the U.N.—COP 16 of the UNFCCC) was low expectations.

Instead of encountering gloom on my first day at COP-16, activists and members of the European Union delegation at their morning press conferences were surprisingly upbeat. At the Climate Action International morning press conference at the Moon Palace, Tim Gore from Oxfam noted the improved atmosphere at the conference commenting, “We are in a much better place than were last year in Copenhagen.” Gore also asserted that the conference was putting negotiations “back on track to a binding agreement by 2012.” Former Irish President Mary Robinson cited the plea of the Colombian delegation over the weekend to “lay the ghost of Copenhagen to rest.” Robinson is not alone; a wide variety of activists and delegates repeated this meme. So what will exorcise the ghost of Copenhagen from Cancun? In a word, money. 

Here at Cancun, a petition signed by 215 “civil society” groups calls for the establishment of a fair global climate fund. The petitioners consist of environmental activist organizations ranging the alphabet from Action Against Climate Change Liberia to the Zona Especial Indigena de Nicaragua. The fair climate fund would dole out billions to poor countries to enable them to combat climate change.

Activists argue that establishing such a fund under U.N. auspices would fulfill rich country pledges hastily made last year at the Copenhagen conference. The developed countries, including the U.S., promised to give $30 billion in “fast track” climate funding to poor countries by 2013. That’s $10 billion per year. By 2020, the rich countries are supposed to annually hand out $100 billion in reparations—ah, aid—to help poor countries mitigate and adapt to climate change being imposed on them by rich country carbon dioxide emissions.

Gore argued that such a fund “would get desperately needed climate funds to those who need it most and who can spend it best.” Gore asserted that the prospects for negotiating the details of a fair climate fund are pretty bright.

One hundred billion dollars per year in climate reparations is the bare minimum that the rich countries owe the poor, according to an afternoon panel discussion sponsored by the Chinese Association for Science and Technology. Researcher Wang Mou from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences outlined a planetary carbon budget in which adding 2,771 gigatons (a gigaton equals one billion tons) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere above the level in 1900 would still keep the average global temperature below the 2 degree Celsius threshold. Call that the global emissions space. According to Wang, the world added 740 gigatons to the atmosphere between 1900 and 1989. Since the world adopted 1990 as the emissions baseline under the UNFCCC negotiated at the U.N. Earth Summit in 1992, the world has put an additional 363 gigatons into the air. This leaves 1,168 gigatons to be emitted by 2050. 

Assuming that it’s safe to add only 2,771 gigtons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, that threshold implies an allocation of 2.33 tons per person of annual emissions between 1900 and 2050. But emissions have not been evenly divided. If emissions were to be allocated to countries on a per capita basis, Wang calculates that China has used up only 19 percent of its portion of the atmosphere’s capacity and India only 7 percent. On the other hand, the U.S. has used up 300 percent of its share, Europe 150 percent, and Japan 100 percent. Without going into details, Wang calculates that at prices between $5 and $10 per ton of carbon dioxide. That means the rich countries owe the poor countries $4.1 trillion for their overuse of the atmosphere, or about $100 billion per year from now until 2050. “One hundred billion dollars annually is not a contribution, but a repayment to developing countries,” concluded Wang.

Wang was mild in comparison to long-time anti-corporate activist Martin Khor who heads up the intergovernmental organization South Centre. In his version of the global carbon budget, Khor calculated that 1,280 gigatons of carbon were added to the atmosphere between 1850 and 2009. In order to meet the 2 degree threshold, he argued that future emissions must be kept below 750 additional gigatons. Since 1850 rich countries have emitted 878 gigatons or 72 percent of the total. With just 25 percent of the world’s population their share would be 310 gigatons, an overuse of 568 tons. On the other hand poor countries accounted for 336 gigatons, just 28 percent of the total. Thus Khor argues that their fair share was 904 gigatons, an under-use of 568 gigatons.

Assuming that 750 gigatons is all the emissions space left, going forward the rich countries, which are projected to be just 16 percent of the world’s population, would be have a share of only 120 gigatons, while the rest is allocated to poor countries. However, Khor claims that the rich countries have a historic carbon debt of 568 gigatons, so actually they have a negative carbon dioxide budget of 448 gigatons. If the carbon debt of 568 tons were to be valued at $40 per ton, the total owed to the poor countries would amount of $23 trillion dollars, implying climate debt payments of about $600 billion per year over the next 40 years. "One hundred billion dollars per year is just not sufficient,” asserted Khor. By way of comparison, consider that the rich countries currently spend a little over $100 billion per year in foreign development aid. Since 1970, the rich countries have spent over $4 trillion (2008 dollars) on foreign aid with not that much to show for it.

In any case, the Cancun strategy seems to be: negotiate financing now and cut emissions later. From the point of view of the developing countries, this makes perfect sense: they get money while making no commitments. U.S. negotiators are trying to at least get developing countries to agree to an international scheme for monitoring, reporting, and verifying (known as MRV in UN-speak) their emissions and how climate change aid is spent before agreeing to the climate fund. But some reject this U.S. plea for developing country accountability as too onerous. “There is no excuse for the U.S. to hold progress on this issue hostage to MRV,” complained Tara Rao of the World Wildlife Fund.

Besides financing, the other big issue under discussion at COP-16 is how to officially incorporate Copenhagen Accord pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the U.N. climate change negotiations. The Copenhagen Accord was cobbled together in a back room by the leaders of the U.S., China, India, South Africa, and Brazil as a last-minute face-saving measure as that conference came to its chaotic close. It currently has no official standing in the United Nations multilateral climate negotiations.

The Accord set the goal of keeping greenhouse gas emissions below the threshold that would lead to an average global temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial average. To meet that goal rich countries made various pledges to cut their emissions, e.g., the U.S. promised to cut emissions by 2020 to 17 percent of what they were in 2005. Some developing countries also agreed to make efforts to reduce the growth of their future emissions, e.g. China declared that it would try to lower [pdf] its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent by 2020 compared to the 2005 level.

Climate activist Tim Frio from Greenpeace asserted that this is not enough. Why? Because all the pledges added together fall far short of what is needed to put the world on track to keep temperatures below the 2 degree Celsius threshold. Environmentalists want to take the pledges in hand but create a mechanism to increase their “ambition” as part of a binding agreement next year committing rich countries to cuts of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2020. This would probably be done by extending the Kyoto Protocol beyond the end of its first commitment period in 2012, but also somehow getting the U.S. to go along.

Last year, President Barack Obama himself showed up at the negotiations. This year the highest official from the U.S. administration at the conference is Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. Chu gave a talk this afternoon on the science of climate change and the $70 billion federal stimulus monies his department is spending on alternative energy and conservation projects. Afterwards, I overheard Chris Flavin, head of the Worldwatch Institute, justly complain that Chu’s talk amounted to a boring basic science primer. There was one interesting moment in the talk, however. Chu started out by noting that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record. However, he also reluctantly acknowledged that global average temperatures have been plateaued for the last 10 years. Chu quickly added that we shouldn’t focus on just the past 10 years, but should look at 50 to 100 year temperature trend. But that raises the question: If the temperature plateau continued for another 10 years, would that be enough to cast doubt on the climate computer model predictions?

Tomorrow, the ministerial segment during which the environment ministers and other top climate negotiators gather to hammer out whatever agreements will be reached here.

Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey will be filing daily dispatches from the Cancun climate change conference for the rest of this week.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    climate change reparations

    Fuck

    off.

  • Juice||

    But what will you do with 100 million climate refugees?

    ...of the, um, climate holocaust?

  • Old Mexican||

    [...][D]eveloping country negotiators are trying to bind rich countries to their promises to dole out tens of billions of dollars in climate change aid. Some are arguing that such climate change reparations should total trillions, not just hundreds of billions.

    Here's my contribution to the climate change reparations, from the bottom of my heart:

    8=====(.)

  • Miso Horny||

    My, what tiny balls you have!

  • ||

    Shrinkage. Its chilly out, you know.

  • Jimbo||

    Chilly?? I thought it was getting warmer.

  • Bucky||

    its an optical contusion...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Miso Horny,

    You're too far away.

  • Old Mexican||

    There was one interesting moment in the talk, however. Chu started out by noting that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record. However, he also reluctantly acknowledged that global average temperatures have been plateaued for the last 10 years.

    But . . . but . . . but the Hockey Shtick!!!! The Hockey Shtick!!!!!!

  • Suki||

    Hockey stick emails were one of Adrian Assange's shining moments. Along with his call for Obama's resignation.

  • ||

    What hockey stick emails did Wikileaks release?

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    And who's Adrian Assange?

  • Old Mexican||

    He's Julian Assange's younger and prettier brother.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Shakedown

  • Realist||

    "Shakedown"??? In the past you have tried to justify AGW!

  • SHAKEDOWN||

    SHAKEDOWN

  • SHAKEDOWN||

    We can pay reparations to underdeveloped countries so they can build brand-new coal plants....

  • ||

    Why do poor countries need reparations if they were poor before AGW?

  • ||

    If the temperature plateau continued for another 10 years, would that be enough to cast doubt on the climate computer model predictions?

    Why start now, Ron? Have any of the models produced accurate temperature predictions for any serious period of time?

  • Realist||

    The answer is NO!!!! The assholes writting the algorisms have no idea what the equations that explain the climate are. The models can't even predict the past!

  • ||

    And we have no idea what the temperature was in the past. Allegedly they can calculate past temperatures through tree ring data. But the tree ring data cannot accurately predict temperatures in years where we have good records. If you don't know what the temperature was in the past, you can't say that the temperatures now are warm or if the current warming, sans the last ten years, is anything out of the ordinary. That should end the debate right there. But it won't because AGW is a fucking cult.

  • Realist||

    It's worse than that they are using satellite temperature data to compare to pre 1950 data.

  • Brett L||

    I'm pretty sure Mann's tree-ring proxies are dead even in the believer camp. Ice-core samples are the proxy of choice now.

  • kinnath||

    Ice core samples and sea bed core samples I believe are currently viewed as useful data.

  • ||

    Paleoclimatologists use more than tree-ring data. Microbial fossils, ice and sediment cores, they've all been successfully used as proxies for climate reconstruction. The problem with the tree ring data is that it diverged from what the thermometers recorded around 1960. Up until then the instrumental record and tree ring data agreed nicely. Nobody really relies on tree data much any more. The other methods mentioned above are more accurate.

  • DJK||

    BASTARDS! Don't they have to cut down the trees to read the rings? Thus...removing the CO2 converting trees, making the problem WORSE?

  • DJK||

    BASTARDS! Don't they ahve to cut down the trees to read the rings? Thus...removing the CO2 converting trees, making the problem WORSE?

  • ||

    "algorisms".

    Did you steal that? Cause I'ma stealin' it...

  • Realist||

    Well I guess I did kind of steal it but I prefer the term barrowed. it is used pretty much all over the internet. I use it as a combination of the stupidity of Al Gore and the algorithms, that don't work, used in the AGW models.

  • Realist||

    ...should read borrowed.

  • DJK||

    "Barrowed" would work too... You just grabbed it and put it in a wheeled contraption and walked away with it.

  • Mike M.||

    Have any of the models produced accurate temperature predictions for any serious period of time?

    Are you kidding? These clowns can't even accurately predict the next season. This is the third year in a row that the British Met Office has predicted a mild winter, and it's going to be the third year in a row that they look like complete and utter fools.

  • Steve||

    At least they're consistant!

  • ||

    If you'll look here, on page 16 of 44 you can look at the accuracy of the model runs compared to observed changes. Unfortunately the models seem to be pretty accurate.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports.....TAR-12.PDF

    Yo

  • Tim||

    What does the science say about the amount of bribe money that the climate will demand before it stops changing?

    In the old days we just threw virgins into volcanoes.

  • Jeffersonian||

    We ran out of those a long time ago.

  • Bucky||

    what if we throw in Lohan. two for the price of one.

  • Ted S.||

    I thought Lindsay Lohan was a slut, not a virgin.

  • Bucky||

    just thought i could please people on both sides of the aisle. sorry.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Not sure she's a slut, but I'd be worried about the toxic cloud that would belch forth from the volcano after tossing her in.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Bribe money or virgins?

  • DesigNate||

    Both

  • Keep on shoveling the dough.||

    We'll tell you when to stop

  • Fluffy||

    Ummm...did Reason really send Bailey to Cancun, or is that just some kind of inside joke?

  • ||

    Ummm...did Reason really send Bailey to Cancun, or is that just some kind of inside joke?

    Of course not! His trip was funded by TEH OIL CUMPNEEZ, led by the dreaded KOCHTOPUS. He's just there as a shill.

  • ||

    I see, in my mind's eye, a monocled and top-hatted billionaire octopus, serenely gliding along the ocean, Ron perched on his back and ululating with reportorial joy.

  • Hey, Bailey||

    Tell us about the fun stuff: the booze, the drugs, the whores.

  • ||

    HB: Yep. Lots of fun in Cancun. Spent 14 hours yesterday shuttling back and forth from the convention center side events to Moon Palace press conferences. Did get to drink one pretty good margarita at about midnight. Got up at 5:30 this morning to start all over again.

  • ||

    You are dedicated Ron. You know what these clowns are going to say. I would spend the day at the beach.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    One margarita? And you call yourself a reporter? Jesus.

  • ||

    He didn't say how big it was.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    He is no Robert Stacey McCain...that is for sure...that dude can drink.

  • Miso Horny||

    "Did get to drink one pretty good margarita at about midnight. Got up at 5:30 this morning to start all over again."

    You start drinking at 5:30 am?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Now I'm impressed.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Margaritas at Oh-five-hundred is so gauche. Bloody marys or screwdrivers are more acceptable.

  • robc||

    At least tell us you are wearing the top hat and monocle to the conference. If not, what the fuck is the point of being there?

  • robc||

    Note: I was serious about that.

    Speaking of which, campaign promise #3: Top Hat and Monocle. At least for televised debates, probably some other times too.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Someone has suggested this before, but I'd double my annual contribution if there were Reason top hats or monocles available as swag.

  • robc||

    I would infinituple mine, as I would buy the hat and monocle. Can we get prescription monocles?

    I might even turn off ad block one day per month or something.

  • Brett L||

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Moon Palace?

    Isn't that the new name for the governor's residence in California?

  • ||

    I thought it was where the Sailor Scouts hung out...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Industrial nations could actually reverse the warming trend and shield developing nations from the effects of Climate Change if they would just stitch all their paper currency together and deploy it like a giant umbrella, the selfish fucks.

  • Bee Tagger||

    I was thinking of putting a canopy in my backyard for forthcoming perpetual summer. Whats the best way to go about doing that, quantitative easing?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    www.sunsetter.com

    As seen on basic cable. It keeps our patio about twenty degrees cooler!

  • Jeffersonian||

    Yes, but that would short-circuit the reason for deploying the currency in the first place: To line the pockets of pot-bellied, kleptocratic satraps the world over.

  • ||

    Is this to say developing nations shouldn't worry about CO2 emissions, and that western nations cannot point their fingers at them and say "hey, why should we cut our CO2 emissions when they are building their THIRD coal plant?"

  • Realist||

    China builds 10 a day.

  • ||

    They also have the biggest rate of increase in wind power and largest in high-speed rail.

    Somehow I think they will have much lower per-capita CO2 emissions than we do once we reach per-capita income parity.

    Per capita CO2 emissions are still 4x greater in the US than in China.

    The point is that US has no room to criticize anyone else for building a coal plant.

    And there are many other developing nations that are not like china. They are lucky to have even a single power plant built. They have the right to power without worrying about emissions.

  • Realist||

    I am not criticizing China...far from it!

  • ||

    Tom Friedmanite: China has increased it's windpower 500% over what it was in 2000!

    Gullible Listener: Wow! That's impressive.

    Skeptic: How much windpower did they have in 2000?

    Tom Friedmanite: Ummm......none.

    Skeptic: And what do they have now?

    Tom Friedmanite: 5 of Ed Begley's old windmills. They were a gift.

    Skeptic: And what are they doing with them?

    Tom Friedmanite:(glaring) Displaying them in a museum with a placard that reads 'China increases windpower by 5005'.

  • ||

    China has 25GW of wind power capacity. Ed Begley must have had some big 'ol windmills. They are about to over take us since our wind power installations are about to slow down.

  • Thomas Friedman||

    I'll be in bed buttering myself up whenever you're ready...

  • cynical||

    You know they have a shitload more people than us, right? If they ever catch up to us in per capita terms, they will definitely overtake us in all forms of production, power and otherwise.

  • robc||


    They have the right to power without worrying about emissions.

    Two things:

    1. Rights are universal, so if they have it, we have it.

    2. I dont think anyone has that right.

  • C'mon man||

    Tax the rich, bitches!

  • ||

    My solution is to stop calling them "developing" nations. Just throw in the towel already!

  • Juice||

    The Workers of the World or the World Socialist Website, I forget which, has changed the term from "developing" to "over-exploited."

    I don't think I disagree with that.

  • Bucky||

    There you go. See it's all in the semantics. We all know there is an expiration date on "developing". Just change the descriptive to "over-exploited" (not just plain old exploited,take it a notch up or two) and presto-change-o you have mill stone to hang around our necks. Brilliant.

  • Mike Laursen||

    So, there's a proper level of exploited? Cool.

  • Bucky||

    apparently. but i wasn't privy to results of the control group.

  • ph||

    "That means the rich countries owe the poor countries $4.1 trillion for their overuse of the atmosphere."

    Fine, if we're going all collectivist here, pay us for modern medicine, electricity, computers, and every other invention your shitty, backward countries have benefited from. Until then, STFU please.

  • Realist||

    Why please????

  • ph||

    It oh so subtly mitigates the vulgarity of STFU, lending the command a certain nobility.

    Ah whatever. No reason.

  • Wesley||

    Fine, if we're going all collectivist here, pay us for modern medicine, electricity, computers, and every other invention your shitty, backward countries have benefited from. Until then, STFU please.

    Beautiful. Just beautiful.

  • ||

    pb: Surely you are not suggesting that economic growth and modern technologies produce more positive "externalities" than they do negatives ones? :-)

  • ph||

    Ron, if you use any more smiley faces, I will cancel my subscription to Reason.

    Feeling surly this morning, so going with profanity and implied assertions rather than precisely explaining a well-reasoned position.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    One margarita? Smiley faces? Ron Bailey is apparently a 10-year-old girl. NTTAWWT.
    But seriously, Ron. You need to be drinkin' ALL the free climate-change booze you can. Consider it a sacred duty. After all, ethanol is a renewable resource.

  • ||

    CN: I will go on a bender this weekend after the conference is over.

    As for what I drink, I have a liquor cabinet stocked with Caol Ila, Laphroiag, Lagavulin, Talisker, Glen Kinchie and even some Roughstock from Montana. I assure you that my masculinity is not at risk just because I drank a damned margarita while I'm in Mexico.

  • Tony||

    But what about that scotch collection?

  • DJK||

    The Caol Ila is the nectar of the gods.

  • NeonCat||

    Drink?

  • C'mon man||

    Dear China,

    Please feel free to add our reparations to our tab. In fact, send some dough to other developing countries on us. And throw some in there for a few who-ores for the ruling party.

    Your buddy,

    Uncle Sam.

  • ||

    They also have the biggest rate of increase in wind power and largest in high-speed rail.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • ||

    A high rate of increase from a very small base is pretty meaningless, you know.

  • Woolly Bully||

    That would be Sam the Sham!

  • Wooly Bully||

    This was meant as a reply to C'mon man.

  • ||

    Sometimes I think that Ron Baley is Sadomasochist ... He know what those clowns wants ''Free lunch under whatever pretext'' but he still go there because his science degree must be used for something.

    Let me help you Ron : Your Science degree was a scam, just like the whole climate change is a scam, there are more people dying of Malaria in third world countries but it is still NOT a desaster, so how the fuck is an increase of 1 degree and 1 foot over 100 YEARS a problem ?

    While you think about the crap of your education that advantage of this trip and find some pretty girls and use condoms

  • Matrix||

    [i]find some pretty girls and [b]use condoms[/b][/i]
    but... that takes most the fun out of it!

  • Matrix||

    pardon me and my n00bish brackets!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Wow, you SF'd style tags. Impressive.

  • ||

    But make sure the condoms don't break. If you fornicate with a broken condom that is an attack upon the world!

  • DJK||

    +1

  • Ed U Kated||

    sssh! we don't talk about the "M" word anymore with that DDT boondoggle'n all.

  • Spartacus||

    But some reject this U.S. plea for developing country accountability as too onerous. “There is no excuse for the U.S. to hold progress on this issue hostage to MRV,” complained Tara Rao of the World Wildlife Fund.

    So, the plan (according to the activist groups) is that we should just hand over truckloads of cash and let the third world tyrants stuff it all into their Swiss bank accounts. Rinse, repeat.

    Does that sound about right?

  • ||

    It's the United Nations way!

  • ||

    When our currency is completely worthless the joke will be on them.

  • ||

    U.S. negotiators are trying to at least get developing countries to agree to an international scheme for monitoring, reporting, and verifying (known as MRV in UN-speak) their emissions and how climate change aid is spent before agreeing to the climate fund. But some reject this U.S. plea for developing country accountability as too onerous. “There is no excuse for the U.S. to hold progress on this issue hostage to MRV,” complained Tara Rao of the World Wildlife Fund.

    Besides, think of how many hookers a dictator can get for $100 billion! Plus plenty of nice shiny tanks to keep the peasants in line.

  • ||

    The question is: how many of these activists and negotiators truly believe that the "Developed World" will actually pony up the bucks for the "Developing World" to retard their economies?

    How many are just sucking at the internationalist teat until the clock runs out and everyone has to admit:
    1. the Rich countries are broke;
    2. the Poor countries are going to develop anyway they can;
    3. the only money changing hands will be within countries in the form of climate-change rent seeking.

  • Jeffersonian||

    This conference is turning into Durban without the drooling anti-semitism.

  • ||

    Jeffersonian: I presume that you know that next year's climate change conference is in Durban? (no smiley face here)

  • Jeffersonian||

    I see an economy-of-scale opportunity here.

  • Jeffersonian||

    But of course, that would remove one opportunity for graft, shakedowns and plunder. Never mind...

  • Bucky||

    when o when is someone call these pompous asses on the freaking carbon footprint of the Climate Change World Tour.

  • stuartl||

    "One hundred billion dollars per year in climate reparations is the bare minimum that the rich countries owe the poor, according to an afternoon panel discussion sponsored by the Chinese Association for Science and Technology."

    "One hundred billion dollars per year is just not sufficient,” asserted Khor.

    This is the best argument I've seen for geo-engineering, where using sulfate aerosols cost around 10-25 billion annually.

    Sadly, we all know the real goal is the shakedown.

  • Brett L||

    Sulfate aerosols? Can we just stop removing the sulfates from our diesel and filtering them from coal smoke or are they somehow stabilizied so as not to create the evul acid rains?

  • Robert||

    Can we just fix it so we get the climate of Cancun?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    This is all so ridiculous.

  • Old Mexican||

    That means the rich countries owe the poor countries $4.1 trillion for their overuse of the atmosphere, or about $100 billion per year from now until 2050. "One hundred billion dollars annually is not a contribution, but a repayment to developing countries," concluded Wang [Mou].

    "Overuse"? Whenever you see someone come up with such made-up baselines, you can know you're facing a crackpot.

  • Wind Rider||

    Mexicans are much more competent at running a U.N. conference than are Danes.

    Oh, I don't know, I think the Danish approach - allowing the entire thing to devolve into the nightmarish circus the entire subject actually has become - was a fairly astute move on the Danes' part.

    Allowing the conference to pretend they are making "progress" on this stupidity only serves the interests of the ideologues that have made chicken little-ism their current career path.

    Allowing for it to be seen as the dangerous clown show that it really is serves the greater good, and mankind, much better.

  • ||

    Ronald,

    You write that Dr. Chu "admitted" that warming had plateaued during the last decade. Would you please provide a direct quote and some context, because it directly contradicts this:

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s.....imate.html

  • ||

    Haha - what an unbelievable scam! I knew it was bad, but not this bad...

  • Brett L||

    $100B? Will they take T-bills or do they want real money?

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    That's almost exactly how many fucked up $100 bills we're sitting on because they are mis-printed. Coincidence?

  • BWM||

    I still go with what Hansen said before he was bought out; until we cover the entire surface of the earth with 50 foot tall towers, which have thermometers every 10 feet, we don't really know the global temperature. Even then, we'd have to have those towers for a substantial amount of time to make long term assessments. Everything we do in climate science now is largely unverified.

  • Would that create green jobs?||

  • دردشة||

    thank u

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • Kevin Durant Shoes||

    so perfect

  • wubai||

    How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.

  • jiusuan||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement