UNFCCC

Should Rich Countries Compensate Poor Countries for Climate Change Damages?

There's optimism a climate change deal can be reached at UN conference in Peru.

|

Futuro Caliente
Reason

Lima, Peru – The 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is about to shift into the high gear as the second week of negotiations takes off. The meeting has attracted delegates from 190 countries, as well as thousands of activists. Delegates take Sunday off as a day of rest from their planet-saving labors. So I went to see the Futuro Caliente (Future Hot) art project at the Parque de la Reserva. The massive walk-through installation consists mostly of bales of smashed cardboard stacked up to thirty feet high. This cardboard structure is adorned with plants growing in plastic bottles and streamers of colorful used plastic bags waving festively over it in the breeze (see photo above). I happened to be viewing the installation just as a group of activists marched in bedecked with palm fronds and other greenery signifying, well, their greenness, I guess (see photo below).

Peru Demonstration
Reason

According to the earnest explanatory literature, Futuro Caliente "proposes to find in a collective manner new alternatives for development, consumption, and living, taking the problem of climate change as an opportunity to put them into practice." While tempted, I did not hang around to watch the eco-porn "Fuck For Forest" documentary being shown at the site later in the evening. The FFF activists assert, "Saving the planet IS sexy! Why not get horny for a good cause?" No matter how you feel about forests, I'll just note that there are numerous other good causes in need of stimulus.

Futuro Caliente
Reason

The main goal of the COP-20 is to hammer out the outlines of some kind of international agreement on how to handle climate change that will be adopted at the COP-21 meeting in Paris in 2015. In contrast to many prior COPs, the crowd here seems to be fairly optimistic about the prospects of reaching an agreement that they would regard as significant. Their spirits are buoyed by the European Union's proposal to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030. They are also heartened by the U.S.-China joint announcement on climate change last month. President Barack Obama pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent below their 2005 levels by 2025 and Chinese President Xi Jinping promised that his country's carbon dioxide emissions would peak by 2030. In addition, China later announced that its consumption of coal would peak before 2020.

Of course, the familiar inch-mile principle applies here, i.e., give activists several inches, they will then demand ten miles. "In Lima, the countries must agree on the long-term goal of phasing out fossil fuel emissions to zero by mid-century while moving towards 100 percent renewable energy for all in a fair transition period," argued Martin Kaiser, the head of the Greenpeace delegation, in a statement. This demand for total phase-out of fossil fuels is motivated, by among other things, the projections of computer climate models that suggest the pledged emissions targets are not enough to put the world on a track to keep average global temperatures from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average. The 2 degree limit was set back in 2009 at the Copenhagen COP. The activists are pushing for an agreement in Paris that embraces procedures that will encourage countries to more rapidly phase out burning fossil fuels and ratchet down their greenhouse gas emissions as the years pass.

Climate activists here in Lima are also somewhat cheered by the fact that rich developed countries have pledged to fill the coffers of the U.N.'s Green Climate Fund (GCF) with $10 billion (the U.S. contribution is largest at $3 billion). The GCF funds are to be distributed to deserving poor country governments who claim to have been adversely impacted by climate change. The GCF amounts to system of climate change reparations. The theory is that rich countries got rich by polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, so they should compensate poor countries for the climate damages their historical emissions are now supposedly causing.

But again, for activists, $10 billion is far from enough. Back at the 2009 Copenhagen COP, the rich countries promised to "mobilize" $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change. In a press release, Greenpeace asserted, even if the world somehow did keep on the 2 degree Celsius temperature track, that transfers from rich countries aimed at helping poor countries to adapt to climate change should rise to $200 to $300 billion per year by 2050. Given a three percent annual growth rate, world GDP will very nearly triple over the next 35 years. Can Greenpeace or other groups really have any idea of how much money will allegedly be needed by some countries for adaptation to climate change in such a wealthier and more technologically adept world?

Tomorrow I begin covering the COP-20 in earnest. Look for my daily dispatches in which I report what governments, activists, and researchers are up to here in Lima.

NEXT: Can Neocons Learn?

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.

  1. Eco porn? Does it see the penis through the pubes?

  2. Eco porn — hairy bathdodgers with no lube?

    1. Do not click the link. I don’t know if I will ever be able to get the images out of my head.

      1. Give in to the fur.

      2. As bad as it looked odds are the stench was even worse.

      3. Hooray for dirty tree-hugging hippies. – _- Trim that shit!

  3. Nuke it from orbit. Just to be sure. Nothing good can possibly come from this.

    1. We could just never gas the whole nest.

      1. We could just never nerve gas the whole nest.

        1. It’s worth the try, but we don’t know if that’s gonna affect them.

        2. Speaking of gassing the whole nest…

          “Several thousand people, some dressed as animal characters, were evacuated from a Hyatt hotel in suburban Rosemont when an “intentional” chlorine gas incident at the hotel, which was hosting the Midwest FurFest convention, sent 19 people to hospitals early Sunday.”

          1. Lmfao! Furries. Bomb the furries.

          2. According to one news story, as the FurFesters were herded back to the building that was gassed one by the name of “Kit McCreedy, a 28-year-old from Madison, Wisconsin, his fox tail swinging behind him as he headed back inside for the last day of the Midwest FurFest” stated that “People are tired but they’re still full of energy.”

  4. Fuck for Forest is such a shameless bid for attention — it’s obvious that the organizers are trying to capitalize on the success of the much better-known Fuck for Forrest, an organization dedicated to funding pensions for the descendants of famous Confederate generals through sex work.

  5. Can one imagine a more irrelevant gathering than this? Seriously, what a waste of . . . everything. Including my time to even scroll past the article.

    1. The “feminist” equivalent? Or what’s that Insane Clown Posse gathering called?

      1. At least the Juggalos didn’t create massive amounts of a substance they claim is literally poisoning the Earth to gather together.

        1. There is that. I was just going by sheer irrelevance.

      2. The only ICP song that was worth a listen was The Neden Game.

  6. What? No plugs for the Paddington flick, the story of Peru’s most famoust native (son) bear? I always thought he ditched town because the forests in Lima were all chopped down.

  7. You know, this is the fucking Peasants’ Crusade all over again. And it’s going to end about as badly.

    1. That’s a pretty good comparison in more ways than one. We’re talking about a bunch of gullible hicks with few reasoning skills or a fraudulent education, coupled with religious fervor and zeal, bunching together to fight the “infidels” who are defiling the Holy Land [i.e. Mother Earth.]

      1. It is religion and nothing more.

        1. Fanaticism*

  8. Give a hoot, don’t pollute, fuck a tree today!

    1. The commercial of the Indian looking at the trash with a tear rolling down his cheek always killed me when it played on the TVs in reservations I lived on. There’s more trash blowing around in any average square mile of any reservation than there is in any average thousand square miles of the rest of the nation. If the average American only had any idea…

      1. Ever seen the midden mounds left over from the Cherokee and other tribes? This idea that the indigenous peoples were somehow ecologically sound is a farce.

  9. Lima, Peru…

    I… I had to stop reading.

    According to the earnest explanatory literature, Futuro Caliente “proposes to find in a collective manner new alternatives for development, consumption, and living, taking the problem of climate change as an opportunity to put them into practice.”

    Pretty much the repetition of the same irrational banalities: the idea that we’re consuming too much and thus destroying the planet, for which the answer is socialism, despite the extremely poor record of socialism’s stewardship of the land.

    1. Intentions trump results.

  10. Tomorrow I begin covering the COP-20 in earnest.

    That’s C3-PO’s sexy sister, isn’t she?

    1. No that would be early 90’s dot matrix printer.

      1. “I was so excited, I couldn’t hold my oil!”

        1. “Goodby virgin alarm!”

  11. The theory is that rich countries got rich by polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, so they should compensate poor countries for the climate damages their historical emissions are now supposedly causing.

    Never mind the real pollution those “poor” countries generate each year by dumping untreated human waste and trash on waterways, by spewing dust and particles on their cities or by giving “concessions” to loggers so they cut huge swaths of pristine woodlands as fast as possible in a replay of a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, all because the governments of those countries are populated by corrupt and lazy kleptomaniacs who disdain property rights.

    This whole thing is a joke, a big charade, designed to line the pockets of UN bureaucrats and their cronies.

    1. “This whole thing is a joke, a big charade, designed to line the pockets of UN bureaucrats and their cronies.”

      Yes.

      The real travesty of the Green Movement as it exists is that it is nothing more than a diversion of enormous amounts of capital into not-simply ‘unproductive’ activity, but activity that actively works against the very-cause they claim to be concerned with

      I’ve always thought Corn Ethanol provides an ideal microcosm case-study of everything the green movement produces = perverse incentives which result in MORE environmental degradation, imposes massive unforseen costs across wide swaths of the economy, and creates boondoggle entitlement-schemes for the very corporations that the Eco-Tards claim to despise.

      They’re not just useless = they’re actively self-destructive.

      Naturally they’re not happy just destroying ‘subsectors’ of the world economy = no, they want to up the game to actually sucking a trillion bucks from ‘wealthy nations’ and throw it at poor-cronies. Because that’s worked so well in the past.

      If you note in the linked article, the typical Foreign Aid-moan is that they lack the ‘system’ to enforce and ensure aid is applied effectively. which is the actual goal of any ‘aid’ = CONTROL.

      Step 1 = ‘throw money at problem’
      Step 2 = note utter failure of money-throwing
      Step 3 = DEMAND MOAR POWER AND CONTROL OVER EVERYONE. FOR THEIR OWN GOOD

      1. “I’ve always thought Corn Ethanol provides an ideal microcosm case-study of everything the green movement produces = perverse incentives which result in MORE environmental degradation, imposes massive unforseen costs across wide swaths of the economy, and creates boondoggle entitlement-schemes for the very corporations that the Eco-Tards claim to despise.”

        I think this is correct. You are incorrect in thinking that environmental activists, or Eco-tards if you prefer, support the corn ethanol programme. These people typically share your views. You have profoundly misunderstood this ‘ideal microcosm’ of yours.

        1. They are like John Kerry, they were for it before they were against it.

          Corn ethanol is far too sensible (wow!) for environmental activists since it is inefficient without actually crippling the economy.

          If it does not seriously cripple the economy, reduce the peasants to middle ages poverty, cause massive death to reduce the load on mother earth, it is just not enough.

          1. I think the Eco-tards oppose corn ethanol for much the same reasons that Gilmore does. And if they’ve changed their minds on the issue over the years, reflects well on them.

            I wouldn’t be so afraid of ‘crippling the economy’ as you are. Granted, I appreciate humanity’s capacity to adapt and innovate more than most here.

      2. Step 1 = ‘throw money at problem’
        Step 2 = ***Refuse to*** note utter failure of money-throwing
        Step 3 = DEMAND MOAR POWER AND CONTROL OVER EVERYONE. FOR THEIR OWN GOOD

        These people would throw money a Hugo Chavez and then wonder why the people of Venezuela don’t have drinking water or toilet paper.

    2. “designed to line the pockets of UN bureaucrats and their cronies”

      Do any of these bureaucrats have names? How about their cronies?

  12. . The massive walk-through installation consists mostly of bales of smashed cardboard

    yerp.

    A group of activists marched in bedecked with palm fronds and other greenery signifying…

    yerp

    “Fuck for Forest”

    I will note = that the genre of “hippy porn” is in fact less popular than either ‘Midget Porn’, ‘Chicks with Dicks’, or ‘Fat Grannies gone-sorta Wildish’

    And for very good reason. Click and see.

    1. Your word is good, no need to click. I’ve already been traumatized enough in this life.

  13. But CO2 is good for plants.

    1. The environmental movement obviously despises plants.

      1. Nope, it is people they despise.

  14. “Should Rich Countries Compensate Poor Countries for Climate Change Damages?”

    No. Next question?

    Also, no “climate change” story is worth reading that doesn’t acknowledge that “climate change” is just a convenient excuse for transfer of wealth and power to globalist socialists and their minions.

  15. So these poor countries are saying they don’t want any industry from the First World? Because lets face it these countries pollute way more than modern countries since our manufacturing is being done there now. They could easily just say no to making the worlds goods but instead they chose jobs. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Well, you can, but they refuse to use common sense pollution controls and who’s fault is that exactly?

  16. You make $27h…good for you! I make up to $85h working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45h to $85h?heres a good example of what I’m doing

    BEST HOME BASE FAMILY DEAL … http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  17. To answer your question Ron, no, rich countries should not pay poor countries for “climate change damage”.

    Those poor countries should be thanking us for our economic development. Our economy has made expensive things much cheeper for them. Cell phones don’t cost $2000 anymore, because Americans were willing to pay $2000 for them when they were a new thing so that now, they are so common, they are affordable to those in poor countries too.

    Our fossil fuel use is the reason why our economy is so robust. If we shut down fossil fuels, they starve to death.

  18. When politicians support environmental causes, it’s almost assuredly because it’s a massive form of wealth redistribution. In this case, the left is trying to achieve one of their longest pipe dreams where the evil imperialist west shifts its wealth to the third world.

    It’s social justice on the largest scale possible for these people.

  19. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here….
    —— w?w?w.s?w?i?p?e?b?o?s?s.c?o?m

  20. “rich developed countries have pledged to fill the coffers of the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) with $10 billion (the U.S. contribution is largest at $3 billion). The GCF funds are to be distributed to deserving poor country governments who claim to have been adversely impacted by climate change.”

    In are the words the rich countries are giving money to the poor countries governments so they won’t develop and cause more climate change.

  21. I see an opportunity for a trade.

    Let’s say all of the poor countries pay back all of the loans, pay for all of the benefits of technology bestowed by the rich nations (everything from life saving drugs to the internet), and pay for all of the military/defense we’ve provided for nearly 100 years now, and then we will pay to rebuild your society once global warming/cooling/hoaxing/whatever destroys your country.

    Do we have a deal?

    1. You appear to lack the highly nuanced sensitivity required to understand this issue. 😉

      1. How about we just start giving all those underprivileged groups all the guns and ammo they can carry? Not the governments, directly to those downtrodden groups.

        And require all the environmentalist go there to live with them.

        Woops, I may be lacking that highly nuanced sensitivity you were mentioning too.

  22. What damages? Who assesses the cost of the damages?

  23. My buddy’s ex-wife makes $84 /hr on the computer . She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her payment was $13167 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    site here ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

  24. I thought eco-porn was a bunch of hippies rolling around in the mud.

  25. The US “government” has pledged $3B to this?

    I don’t consent; I want my $10 back!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.