Climate Change

U.S. Climate Fair Share: 82 Percent Emissions Cut by 2030?

Plus $810 billion in climate debt payments annually to poor countries?

|

Climate Fair Share
Fair Shares

Lima, Peru – "We are people who want to tell the truth about the climate crisis, and the truth is that we are on track to a climate disaster," asserted Alex Rafalowicz at a Friends of the Earth (FOE) press conference at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on Monday. So how does FOE think the world gets off the track? By demanding that rich countries fork over their "climate fair shares." What's fair? It's only fair that by 2030 the rich countries cut their carbon dioxide emissions around 80 percent and pay poor countries more than $1 trillion annually to cut theirs.

How was this level of climate fairness worked out? The FOE press conference featured a statement from activist groups from the "global South," basically developing countries, that demands that rich countries adopt an international treaty with the goal of keeping future man-made warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. "All countries will have to have lower emissions than now by 2025," declared Rafalowicz. Essentially global emissions of carbon dioxide would have to peak this year, with rich countries making steep cuts in their emissions and providing vast outlays of cash to poor countries to help them reduce their emissions.

Rafalowicz explained that keeping future average global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius entails a strict global "carbon budget" in which only about 700 gigatons (billion tons) more of carbon dioxide can be emitted. Given that humanity emitted in 2013 about 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the budget would be used up in just a couple of decades. The Southern Demands statement at the press conference asserts that the budget "has already been largely consumed, mostly by elites, corporations, and the 'developed' countries in the North." The scare quotes around "developed" are a nice, dismissive touch.

So now rich countries must bear and pay for their historical responsibility for using up so much of the planet's carbon budget since 1850 as they industrialized. However, even if the United States were to entirely eliminate its carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow climate model projections suggest that that would not be anywhere near enough to put the planet on a path towards keeping rises in average temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. So what to do? Given their accumulated "climate debt" the rich countries must shoulder their "fair share" of the global effort to stay within the strict carbon dioxide emissions budget by helping poor countries to reduce their future emissions. How much are we talking about?

The Friends of the Earth (FOE) has devised a handy calculator at Climate Fair Shares that allocates emissions cuts and climate debt payments in line with countries historical responsibilities. According to those calculations, the United States must cut its emissions by 67 percent by 2025 (roughly 6,000 million tons of carbon dioxide down to 2,000 million tons) and pay out annually $635 billion to poor countries to help them cut their emissions by around 10,000 million tons. By 2030, the U.S. would be required to cut its emissions by 82 percent below the 2013 levels and supply $810 billion annually in climate debt payments.

As a reference point, the last time annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions amounted to 2,000 million tons was sometime between 1940 and 1950, when the U.S. population was 150 million and real GDP was $2.3 trillion ($16 trillion now). It bears noting, however, that economic growth and growth in carbon dioxide emissions has been somewhat decoupled. Since 2005 U.S. annual carbon dioxide emissions have fallen 10 percent to about the same level as in 1995 when real U.S. GDP was just over $10 trillion.

At the press conference, a journalist from Bangladesh asked what his country's fair share would be under the FOE scheme? After a bit of fumbling by a geographically challenged minion, Bangladesh was eventually located on the Fair Shares map and the results were illustrated on a large screen for the audience. Given how little carbon dioxide the impoverished folk of Bangladesh have emitted in the past, the FOE calculator would sanction Bangladesh's emissions to increase by 80 percent over current levels by 2025. On the other hand, if Bangladesh were to receive $10 billion annually in climate change debt payments, it would be able to reduce its annual emissions by almost 20 percent by then.

Interestingly, the FOE calculator finds that if China received no climate debt compensation, availing itself of its fair share would allow the Middle Kingdom to increase its emissions by nearly 50 percent by 2025. If, however, China were receiving about $500 billion annually in climate debt payments in 2025 from rich countries, then it could lower its emissions by 37 percent below their current levels. In general, FOE calculates that in order to be climatically fair, rich countries should be required to cut their emissions by around two-thirds of their current levels and be paying out about $1.1 trillion in climate debt payments annually by 2525. By 2030, rich country emissions cuts rise to more than 80 percent along with commensurate increases in climate fairness transfers. Keep in mind that total official development assistance from all rich countries to all poor countries in 2013 amounted to $135 billion.

According to the activists, climate debt payments by themselves do not discharge the full climate obligations of rich countries. Those billions are only to help poor countries cut their emissions so that the world can aim to keep average global temperature increases below a modeled 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold. Rich countries are still very much on the hook to help poor countries adapt to whatever climate change comes and for the loss and damage that climate change is now and will supposedly be inflicting on them in the future.

Recall that the rich countries have already promised to "mobilize" $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change. That won't be nearly enough, advises the United Nations Environment Program's Adaptation Gap Report released on Monday.  By 2050, the report suggests the costs for adaptation will "plausibly" be four to five times higher than that. Having now reported on ten of these conferences, climate change negotiations always turn into a big fight over some vast top-down scheme that aims to redistribute tens (now hundreds) of billions in cash from rich country governments to poor country governments.  

My next dispatch will explore how President Obama plans to avoid having to submit next year's Paris climate agreement to the U.S. Senate to obtain its advice and consent prior to having it going into force.

Advertisement

NEXT: Should the N.Y. attorney general investigate N.Y. police killings?

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. “So how does FOE think the world gets off the track? “

    By posting the first comment on Am links every day?

  2. The fact that FOE gets a speaking slot at a UN conference shows how far from the “reality-based community” the UN is.

    1. Do they get the first speaking slot?

      1. I think Fist is one guy.

        1. Maybe he is onto something.

  3. the truth is that we are on track to a climate disaster

    The climate is being gang raped by kkkapitalism!

    1. Socialism is the cure.

        1. *Real* clean socialism hasn’t been tried yet!

          1. But socialism is nothing but butterflies, rainbows and unicorns. Why wouldn’t we want such a glorious system?

            And an unchanging environment for ever and ever, amen.

            1. You mean like in Denmark where they generate 30% of their energy from renewables. It’s pretty funny that right-wingers keep telling us socialism has utterly failed. I’m a stickler for empiricism so I don’t arrive at the same conclusion– Murray rothbard tomes notwithstanding.

              1. Is this why their coal consumption is inc easing?

              2. Re: American Stolid,

                You mean like in Denmark where they generate 30% of their energy from renewables.

                The Danish are quaint in that way.

                It’s pretty funny that right-wingers keep telling us socialism has utterly failed.

                Especially when it has, but never mind that. You still find it funny.

              3. Re: American Stolid,

                I’m a stickler for empiricism so I don’t arrive at the same conclusion

                And your empiricism was derived from empirical research or from an aprioristic determination? And if from empirical experience, what drove you to find out in the first place?

                See? It helps gaining a little knowledge on logic and reason. Maybe you should try it. It may turn you away from socialism, mind you.

              4. american socialist|12.9.14 @ 12:08PM|#
                “You mean like in Denmark where they generate 30% of their energy from renewables”

                Hi, dipshit!
                Gee, I’ll bet an ignorant lefty asshole would compare what amounts to a small town to the entire world!
                Right, ignorant lefty asshole?

              5. It’s pretty funny that right-wingers keep telling us socialism has utterly failed.

                no, more like embarrassing that a truth so glaringly obvious has to be told out loud.

              6. You mean like in Denmark where they generate 30% of their energy from renewables. It’s pretty funny that right-wingers keep telling us socialism has utterly failed. I’m a stickler for empiricism so I don’t arrive at the same conclusion– Murray rothbard tomes notwithstanding.

                “Renewable” energy isn’t socialism you dumb fucking fuckwad.

                1. That would be tax-subsidized wind energy.

                  In classic real-socialist (which is to say, fascist, fashion), it turns out that Danes pay the highest electricity prices in Europe, although oddly their industry pays below average. Nothing says socialism like wealth transfers from The People to the Plutocrats.

                  You must be so proud, american socialist.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..Wind_power

              7. Socialism means whatever it is convenient for it to mean at the time. The kind of socialism (which I would call “real” socialism) where the government owns and controls major industries has been an utter failure everywhere it has been tried. Scandanavia is only special in that it’s attempts at socialism didn’t end in complete disaster and they managed to fairly smoothly shift back toward more free markets.

              8. You mean like in Denmark where they generate 30% of their energy from renewables.

                And if I recall correctly, they have the highest electricity costs in Europe, if not the world.

              9. You know Denmark is called a socialist country but it’s really a capitalist country with high taxes and a “generous” welfare system. It ranks higher than the US on the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index.
                http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

                1. They call it ‘flexicurity’. The ability to hire and fire is made more palatable to the electorate when framed with the context of a disgustingly “generous” welfare system. So yes there are some laws more favorable to employers, insofar as hiring and firing is concerned. But this is balanced out with early morning sodomy sessions from tax bureaucrats.

              10. Denmark isn’t a socialist country. The US Is more progressive than Denmark.

                It’s also tiny and imports mucho of what it needs from neighbors.

                1. And leaves the costs of defense of it’s land and trade routes to others.

              11. amsoc:

                You mean like in Denmark where they generate 30% of their energy from renewables. It’s pretty funny that right-wingers keep telling us socialism has utterly failed. I’m a stickler for empiricism so I don’t arrive at the same conclusion– Murray rothbard tomes notwithstanding.

                When did socialist descope success from “workers’ paradise” down to “30% renewables”?

                Oh, after the 20th century, when the countries that really took socialism to heart and ran with it generated great examples of economic basket cases.

                How empirical.

              12. On another site, Haler44 commented:

                The problem in Germany and neighboring Denmark isn’t just solar power, it’s wind power too. WUWT poster “William” said this: “A September 2009 study report by CEPOS (Center for Politiske Studier), “Wind Energy ? The Case of Denmark” makes for fascinating reading. It addresses the illusions that anyone should hold regarding wind energy.” http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/…..enmark.pdf

                “To green campaigners, it is windfarm heaven, generating a claimed fifth of its power from wind and praised by British ministers as the model to follow. But amid a growing public backlash, Denmark, the world’s most windfarm-intensive country, is turning against the turbines.”

                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ution.html

            2. “And an unchanging environment for ever and ever, amen.”

              Which, to judge by the Socialist/Communist countries now extant is an environment strongly resembling an open pit coal mine.

    2. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

      1. Sounds like I need some power to tell the federal govt. to go fuck themselves.

        Mr. President? You listening?

  4. even if the United States were to entirely eliminate its carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow climate model projections suggest that that would not be anywhere near enough to put the planet on a path towards keeping rises in average temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

    Ron, since climate model projections have yet to correctly project dick, wouldn’t reading chicken entrails be just as valid? Would wiping out Mankind and all of it’s related activities even make climate model projections stable? I am gonna have to guess “no”.

    1. Can we force them to use whale entrails instead of climate models to conduct their forecasts?

      1. It could not be less predicative than the models.

        1. be honest, you’re just a shrill for Big Entrail.

      2. Can we force them to use whale entrails instead of climate models to conduct their forecasts?

        Aren’t whale entrails required for the longer-term forecasts?

      3. I’d prefer THEIR entrails. I don’t have anything against whales, just the imbeciles that worship them.

      4. Cow entrails would make for one less methane fart in the world.

  5. Some of you might have read history books about the middle ages and wondered why did flagellants roam the streets attacking people who refused to mortify their flesh as being agents of Satan?

    How could people be so gullible as to believe the blood of gentile babies was prized by Jews?

    Some of you probably patted yourselves on the back for living in an era where such mad superstitions could drive civilization to commit this sort of petit suicide.

    The truth is that people are just a superstitious, just as prone to obeying destructive commandments by false prophets. The green movement is our modern day version of this madness. And when you look upon it, know that this was the madness your ancestors had to face down and eventually banish from civilization.

    1. A few hundred years from now people will look back and laugh at the AGW religion as they engage in superstitious behavior themselves.

      1. If the ecosocialists succeed in strangling our economy, a few hundred years from now, people may look back and wonder why capitalists didn’t make a better case to the masses than just strict denial.

        Most people aren’t especially rational. The magic of markets makes them seem rational, but that’s in no small part because they take their cues from other people in the market.

        Sans a price signal, they’re probably more likely to fall for an authority than believe an uncredentialed scoffer–even if the scoffer is right. The good news is that there’s plenty of ways to plug holes in the ecosocialists’ policy prescriptions without telling people to just ignore the problem–and take our word for it.

  6. Someone should note that, according to the EIA, greenhouse gas emissions fell between 2005 and 2012 by about 12%–without the assistance of any treaty whatsoever. Hell, we pretty much made what our Kyoto quota would have been just by way of the free market–without any Kyoto treaty.

    And the EIA doesn’t attribute that progress to the recession–actually, greenhouse gas emissions continued to drop even as the economy grew. The EIA attributes almost all of the drop in greenhouse gas emission to the substitution of natural gas for coal, since natural gas is much, much less carbon intensive than coal.

    …which is another way of saying that the biggest improvements we’ve seen in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. have come as a result of the fracking revolution. If Barack Obama puts us into a treaty binding accord (whatever), it’ll be the worst thing that could possibly happen to the opponents of fracking. …because there’s no more economically efficient way to lower greenhouse gas emissions than fracking.

    It should also be noted that as natural gas continues to displace more carbon intensive options like coal, the EIA is projecting that our greenhouse gas emissions here in the U.S. will continue to fall from where they are now well past 2025.

    1. Don’t talk to them about facts! This isn’t about facts! If we’re overly concerned about minor details such as facts and corroboration, we miss the Big Picture, which is the crisis we’re trying to abate!

      I learned that from all the apologias for the Rolling Stone faux sexual assault piece. It fits right in here perfectly as well.

    2. Hell, we pretty much made what our Kyoto quota would have been just by way of the free market–without any Kyoto treaty.

      Not just the free market. The very companies that were decried as pocketing every good scientist and being the enemies of all that is good and pure have lead the way in making the change. They’ve progressed towards solving a/the problem at a pace greenies could barely dream of.

      Hilarious to think that the enviro-cult (and portions of the anti-war cult to a lesser degree) spent so much time and effort blacking the eyes of the people most able to help them achieve their goals.

      1. ^ Yup Yup.

  7. 1. Isn’t warming rate something like .14C/decade, or 1.4C/century, or below their target even with current emission levels?

    2. Moderate warming should be highly beneficial to agriculture. Since poor countries tend to be more agriculture dependent, shouldn’t poor countries pay rich countries for helping increase their agriculturural output by burning fossil fuels?

    1. Also, how much of the US carbon generation goes into production of food sold to developing countries?

      1. Probably less than goes into producing ethanol fuel, one of the past “green” boondoggles the country had foisted upon it.

      2. Also, how much of the US carbon generation goes into production of food sold to developing countries?

        This is stupid punitive economic moralizing, IMO. Brazil increases it’s beef production, it doesn’t have the yields that the US does, but it’s better to have Brazil making beef and the US making… iPhones. The trade (subsidies) depress the price of beef world wide, making farmers generally poorer, but beef more available to more people.

        There’s an assumption of a zero sum game or that you can’t get something from nothing when, in reality, it’s not zero sum and you reclaim something from resources that you were frittering away to nothing.

        1. Disclaimer: my example wasn’t meant to be 100% factual or literal. Just an example of how the mentality of ideological quid pro quo is a bit of a childish mentality wrt international macroeconomics.

  8. How much money, in one lump sum, do rich countries have to give poor countries so they can just shut up and stop whining and asking for a handout every year? Because I would support that.

    1. Why would you deprive future Third World kleptocrats a chance to wet their beaks??!?!?!

      1. Because it would encourage actual work.

    2. Once you pay danegeld, you never get rid of the dane.

      1. Yeah, but The Dane will melt down your gold using Renewables! It’s a win-win!

    3. Be careful: you get more of what you reward.

    4. Dumb question albo.

      Answer: All of it.

    5. A mass of gold the size of the rock of Gibraltar, dropped from orbit. We’d have to pick just ONE poor country, or maybe two or three small ones nestled together, but I think that rest of them would STFU.

      For a while.

  9. “We are people who want to tell the truth about the climate crisis, and the truth is that we are on track to a climate disaster,” asserted Alex Rafalowicz at a Friends of the Earth

    And I believe him when he ways that they are the people who want to tell the truth about the climate crisis. What they believe is the truth. Which means, Friends of the Earth are a bunch of delusional twits.

    1. “… Friends of the Earth are a bunch of delusional twits.”

      Well, yeah. That covers pretty much all their activities.

  10. The Friends of the Earth (FOE) has devised a handy calculator at Climate Fair Shares that allocates emissions cuts and climate debt payments in line with countries historical responsibilities.

    This sounds like an Indulgence scheme, provided by very handy Climate quaestores. If this is not further indication that we’re dealing with a new religion, something like the Pyramid worshipers of the late XIX Century, I don’t know what else you want.

    1. According to the activists, climate debt payments by themselves do not discharge the full climate obligations of rich countries.

      Of course they wouldn’t!

      Rafalowicz explained that keeping future average global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius entails a strict global “carbon budget” in which only about 700 gigatons (billion tons) more of carbon dioxide can be emitted.

      And he knows this because an angel provided him the figures embossed in golden plates.

      1. It was a 900-foot-tall Jesus

      2. Read in a tophat.

      3. “And he knows this because an angel provided him the figures embossed in golden plates.”

        Ha!
        He merely checked the current increase rate and saw that it fit the models so accurately, he….
        took a number he saw on a bumper sticker and ran with it!

        1. Re: Sevo,

          took a number he saw on a bumper sticker and ran with it!

          That… sounds more plausible. Which is kind of creepy, when you think of all those persons who are swallowing this tripe completely.

  11. 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

    1. Yeah, but what’s her carbon footprint?

  12. “… demands that rich countries adopt an international treaty…”

    Or what? How shall these demands be enforced?

    Perhaps they will be very, very angry with us… and they will write a letter, telling us how angry they are.

    1. They’ll use what the French military uses: Strongly-worded letters!

      1. I thought the French Military used foreigners.

        1. That’s AFTER the enemy has been softened up by that barrage of letters.

    2. They’ll threaten to have Naomi Klein write more books.

  13. I left this late in AM links:

    “California drought: Natural patterns, not human-caused climate change, federal study finds”
    […]
    “Natural patterns, not human-caused climate change, produced one of California’s worst droughts, researchers have concluded.”
    http://www.times-standard.com/…..dy-finds/4

    Damned denialists!

    1. In all fairness, how would they know either way?*

      *That’s the perennial critique.

      1. I really don’t know, but the study at least serves to put a sock in a bunch of whiney lefty ‘pundits’.

        1. No kidding. Too bad it won’t stop our glorious march to socialism AGW propaganda for long.

          1. For further confirmation, see JackandAce below.

      2. That’s the question I always have. If there is human caused climate change, then wouldn’t it have something to do with everything that happens in the atmosphere? Butterfly effect and all of that. In a complex, chaotic system, you really don’t have discreet causes and effects like that.

  14. Every scam follows the same pattern;

    1. Present the mark with either a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity or a crisis.

    2. Create a sense of urgency in the mark. They must act quickly, must do something, or the opportunity will be lost forever or the impending disaster will occur.

    3. Create a complex scenario for the solution.

    4. In spite of the complexity of the scenario the solution is simple and always the same: The mark must give money to you.

    1. Shhhhhhhh! Shut up already…..I’m just getting ready to start some of my own climate scams!

      You know Suthen if you want to get in at the “ground level”…..well I’ve said too much…. but you need to let me know today! Don’t let this opportunity slip away!

      CALL NOW!

    2. Hey, we’re talking about climate change here, not Obamacare….oh wait !

  15. Interestingly, the FOE calculator finds that if China received no climate debt compensation, availing itself of its fair share would allow the Middle Kingdom to increase its emissions by nearly 50 percent by 2025. If, however, China were receiving about $500 billion annually in climate debt payments in 2025 from rich countries

    Yeeeeah, if China isn’t considered a “rich country,” then that’s just more reason to not take any of this seriously. They’d be eligible to receive half a trillion annually? These watermelons must have inserted a communist tax credit into their calculations.

    1. I think you’re right. And with all the industry in China, they have to have a huge amount of carbon emissions.

      1. They are mostly fueled by coal, too.

  16. Oh joy. Large scale wealth redistribution. Hooray, global socialism. -_-

    1. “Hooray, global socialism. -_-”

      And mass murder! Don’t forget that.

  17. 82 Percent Emissions Cut by 2030?
    + Plus $810 billion in climate debt payments annually to poor countries?

    GO BIG OR GO HOME

    1. I’ll take go home plz.

  18. I’d like to give these Marxists and assorted leftoids what they want. That we could pack up and move to another dimension and take with us all of the inheritances of European civilization; rational philosophy, the scientific method, free markets, principles of the enlightenment, the abolition of slavery and all of the resultant accumulated capital (to name a few). We’d leave these carbon-fetishists to live in their paradise, a world of rapid death that would surely follow a departure from all of the principles and institutions brought to this earth by the people that they would like to enslave and diminish.

    1. You ever notice in all these dystopian futuristic movies written by liberals where Evil Private Corporations have taken over the planet and destroyed the environment and everthing looks like a pile of trash and all the poor people are slaves everything is a rigid bureaucracy where there are no freedoms….

      …looks remarkably like Detroit or Baltimore?

      1. My favorite is Robocop as far as leftist dystopians go. The premise of ‘evil enterprise run amok’, leaves so many questions to be answered about how we could possibly arrive at that outcome. But I think the reason we see this particular theme so much more than the ‘governments run amok’ version is that we all intuitively know that governments have this capacity for evil, which doesn’t make for edgy storytelling.

        For me, it’s easier to suspend disbelief when the perpetrator of dystopian tyranny in a film is based on the only institution in reality that has historically been a perpetrator of mass murdering dystopian tyranny; fucking governments.

        1. “The premise of ‘evil enterprise run amok’, leaves so many questions to be answered about how we could possibly arrive at that outcome”

          Simple = they simply project their own limitless desire for power and control over people’s lives onto private industry

          1. Well of course enterprise is open to criticism because greed. And furthermore, fair share. Erstwhile, government is good because referee. And furthermore, togetherness.

            Unbeatable arguments right there. Now surely you must admit that Elysium is the most poignant film in the history of cinema because social justice or something.

  19. “The ‘truth’ is that we are on track to a climate disaster,” asserted Alex Rafalowicz at a Friends of the Earth (FOE) press conferenc”

    THIS IS THE LINE OF DEATH = YOU CROSS IT, YOU DIE

  20. “Essentially global emissions of carbon dioxide would have to peak this year, with rich countries making steep cuts in their emissions and providing vast outlays of cash to poor countries to help them reduce their emissions”

    ‘The coroner’s report on the corpse of Capitalism ruled: “Death By Auto-Erotic Asphyxiation”‘

    also =

    this ‘vast outlays of cash to poor countries’?

    We tried that.

    1. We tried that.

      Nuh-uh. It would have worked if we had.

  21. There is growing evidence that going money to poor countries undermines their ability to help themselves. So, which countries do we hate that much?

  22. “My next dispatch will explore how President Obama plans to avoid having to submit next year’s Paris climate agreement to the U.S. Senate to obtain its advice and consent prior to having it going into force.”

    That’s funny, Ronald. Did you forget that the Senate is now going to be run by the GOP, and their Libertarian colleagues? Here is their advice and consent, as stated so many times before: “Climate change is a hoax. Science is wrong, and religion is the better guide. No need to do anything, and therefore no requirement for a treaty.”

    Surely you don’t think I need to provide you real quotes to back up my claim.

    The President should ignore their middle-aged thinking.

    1. I learned so much from your post…about you.

      1. I hope so.

    2. By the way, just look at all the comments from your audience. That should give you a hint of advice and consent from the right.

      1. Jackand Ace|12.9.14 @ 2:31PM|#
        “By the way, just look at all the comments from your audience. That should give you a hint of advice and consent from the right.”

        The “right”?
        That would be to the right of idjits like you.

      2. Clearly we need to replace Rule of Law with more right-thinking liberal rulers.

      3. Your whining is getting keen enough to shatter glass.

    3. Jackand Ace|12.9.14 @ 2:30PM|#
      …”Surely you don’t think I need to provide you real quotes to back up my claim.”

      Of course not. Lefty assholes always make claims without any evidence. Why should you be different?

    4. Right. And the Democrat approach is:

      “You enjoy cheap gasoline and power, self-righteous in the knowledge that CO2 emissions are really someone else’s fault. And we’ll get to those bastards, soon enough. However, we do need to strike a balance with economic growth, taxes, and everyone getting cheap gas and power. Don’t worry though: we’re just about to stick it to those bastards. “

  23. Yesterday I picked up a brand new Lotus Esprit after making $6059 this ? 4 weeks past an would you believe $10 thousand this past-month; this is actually the most-comfortable work I’ve had . I actually started 10-months ago and pretty much immediately got minimum $80 per-hr .

    Get More Info @ == http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  24. Friends of the Earth = FOE. Foe is a synonym for enemy. You can’t make this stuff up.

    1. Also = “Fist of Etiquette” is their secret agent mole sent to infiltrate the Plutocratosphere and get close enough to the Koch brothers to ….uh….. BANNER DROP!!! FTW! HOPE CHANGE FREEDOM COLLECTIVE SUSTAINABILITY PEOPLE NOT PROFITS!

  25. The cool-aid these people have been drinking is strong stuff.

  26. This reads like an Austin Powers script. FOE is demanding one trillion dollars from rich nations… Says bald guy with eastern europeanish accent whilst holding pinky to bottom lip deviously…

  27. I call B.S. on the FOE! Nothing more than a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth to dictators and thugs who thwart the economic prosperity of their own citizens. It’s an easy way of getting money out of other nations that actually contribute something to the world…..

  28. They’ve stopped even trying to hide the fact that Green is an extortion racket by Turd Worlders (who still themselves have chunky water).

  29. My Aunty Mila recently got a nine month old Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 just by parttime work from a computer…
    Try this web-site ::::: http://www.jobsfish.com

  30. Were any of these clowns the same people who trampled the Nazca lines?

  31. Can’t we just nominally annex Subsaharan Africa? Nothing would actually have to change economically or politically. Then things would average out, wouldn’t they? I mean, we’d be little different from China then: give a rich elite the carbon budget derived from a large poor underclass.

  32. Switching to renewable energy will stimulate the economy, create jobs, save money and clean up the environment. “Not all the carbon in the air comes from humans. Problem is, humans send up an extra dose of carbon that nature can’t handle.” http://clmtr.lt/c/RlB0Ba20cMJ

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.