Paris Climate Change Conference

Poor Countries Demand $3.5 Trillion in Climate Finance at Paris Conference

Seventh Dispatch: U.S. reportedly threatens to walk out

|

COP21Protestors
Bailey

The drama begins. Up until today, the Paris climate conference was pervaded with a highly unusual atmosphere of comity and calm. Not anymore. Late Thursday night the French climate conference presidency issued a final draft text with the goal of having an agreed upon final text by Saturday. It made a lot negotiators and activist hangers-on unhappy. "The text is very, very disturbing. It is totally unacceptable," declared Chee Yoke Ling, director of the radical Third World Network. Tamar Lawrence-Samuel representing Corporate Accountability International stated, "The U.S. government is keeping us from the deal we need to save us from the climate crisis." She blamed the situation on lax campaign finance laws that have enabled fossil fuel companies to buy off the U.S. Congress.

The holdup is money. Poor country governments want rich country governments to make explicit promises about how much and when climate finance is going to be flowing their way. They don't want to count loans, export credits, or private investments – climate finance has got to be public money and it's got to be with no strings attached. As Indian climate negotiator Susheel Kumar explained earlier this week, climate finance is not a donation, it's an entitlement. Poor countries deserve the money as reparations from rich countries that have wrecked the climate. As it happens, in the current draft of the universal climate accord, rich countries promise to "mobilize" $100 billion annually as climate finance for poor countries by 2020. In fact, they also agree that $100 billion is a floor and that poor countries can expect to get increasingly larger amounts between 2020 and 2030. But that is evidently not satisfactory.

The Times (London) is reporting that poor country negotiators have demanded behind closed doors that rich country governments hand over $3.5 trillion in climate finance, or they will refuse to accept the Paris accord. India alone is seeking $2.5 trillion in climate finance. India's total GDP in 2014 was just over $2 trillion. This demand may have been sparked by the fact that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry apparently threatened to walk out of conference if the accord was written so as make climate finance a legally binding obligation. He pointed out that Congress would not accept such an obligation. "You can take the U.S. out of this. Take the developed world out of this. Remember, the Earth has a problem. What will you do with the problem on your own?," Kerry reportedly said.

The loss and damage provisions in the current text are also causing friction between the developed country governments and developing country governments. Loss and damage deals with those effects of man-made global warming cannot be adapted to and will be irreversible. The U.S. is strongly pushing a stipulation that loss and damage provisions in the accord will "not involve or provide a basis for liability or compensation nor prejudice existing rights under international law." At press conference earlier today, Mary Minette, the Director of Environmental Education and Advocacy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, rather cluelessly asserted, "With regard to loss and damage, none of these issues is about money; they are about life, livelihoods, culture and justice."

ActionAid International Coordinator Harjeet Singh would beg to differ. He gave away the game later in the afternoon when he said that poor countries and activists "wanted to be silent about liability and compensation" at this conference. He added that "developing countries are not thinking about suing the U.S." Nevertheless, the explicit exclusion of liability and compensation in the loss and damage provisions is "a red line for us." Why? Because "it excludes the right to demand justice." Singh and other activists are also being silent about how much justice might cost in the future.

Today a Bangladeshi spokesman (whose name I unfortunately did not get) for the Most Vulnerable Countries group declared, "Nothing is agreed until finance is agreed in Paris."

As I reported earlier, it's all about the cash.

Note: I am filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate change conference. Final accord it supposed to be triumphantly approved by the negotiators tomorrow (Saturday). I'll keep readers posted.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Semi-Crazy Life of New Yorker Cartoonists

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. It could get ugly if the Western nations’ politicians ever figure out a way to claim a share of the power & money to be given to poorer countries.

    1. Stop giving them ideas!!!!

    2. Part of the package. That money has to be assembled (opportunity for graft) and dispensed (more opportunities for graft). Once they finish slathering the transfer of funds with “targeted” programs, etc., the Western politicians will easily be able to wet their beaks.

  2. What a crock of shit.

    1. Yeah, what a shock–Turd Worlders demanding GIMMEDATs.

    2. Who cares? The American public hates foreign aid. They aren’t getting jack.

  3. All this to keep the moon from falling out of the sky…

    1. If you like your moon…

      1. …you can keep your Ban Ki Moon?

    2. I’m beginning to think that an asteroid insurance business is the way to go.

    3. The moon is moving farther away every year.

  4. Turk and Caicos Banker: WooHoo!

  5. Bloody hell! They’re not following the script!!!

    Teh deadlock was yesterday. This morning we had the Breakthrough After Midnight! The next step is the Cold Light of Day, not a reprise of the Deadlock!

    Who the fuck is the director?!? Which incompetent is messing this up?

  6. Loss and damage deals with those effects of man-made global warming cannot be adapted to and will be irreversible.

    Nearly every word in this sentence requires scare quotes.

    1. Extraordinary claims something something.

      1. …require gender-responsive policy?

        1. With regard to loss and damage, none of these issues is about money; they are about life, livelihoods, culture and justice.

          And here I was thinking “gender-responsive” meant free shit for womyn, but really it is just about feelz. It FEELS like an injustice was committed by all those evil capitalists, and we demand retribution by means of cultural sensitivity training and federally mandated privilege checking.

          1. none of these issues is about money

            Whenever somebody says it isn’t about the money . . . .

    2. Loss and damage like slightly more pleasant temperatures? People vacation in Mexico and not in Canada for a reason.

  7. So people in countries that didn’t sit around fucking sheep and clucking at each other are to blame for wanting to actually improve their lot. Meanwhile, if you have a nation full of dumbfucks that still haven’t gotten to where developed countries were at 300 years ago, you deserve other people’s money, and lots of it.

    I’m very confident however that my money (stolen by people who I never authorized to steal from me) will be used in the most responsible and efficient way. No way would some asshole African dictator use it to build a bigger house or equip more child soldiers.

    Also I’m quite confident in India using that 2.5 trillion dollars. Dalmia routinely reminds us all here how Indians and are a superior people and Hinduism mythology and superstition is the path to true enlightenment.

    1. Meanwhile, if you have a nation full of dumbfucks that still haven’t gotten to where developed countries were at 300 years ago, you deserve other people’s money, and lots of it.

      I feel it cogent to point out that, more than rarely and somewhat obviously the story is not as much “haven’t gotten to where” as much as “got to and then regressed back to where” or even “were propped up to and then collapsed back to where”.

    2. To be fair, the vast majority of Westerners were no more ambitious or hard-working than their non-Western counterparts during that time. Some of the factors that led to Western dominance were just luck — Europe’s mild climate, high proportion of arable land, lack of a dominant power to enforce the status quo, and easy access to the seas were all huge advantages, and they didn’t have squat to do with Westerners’ work ethic.

      1. “Europe’s mild climate, high proportion of arable land, lack of a dominant power to enforce the status quo, and easy access to the seas were all huge advantages”

        You’re right; Switzerland is just…….
        Oh, wait!

          1. I like it too!

        1. Europe’s mild climate,

          Compared to what? China? Africa?

      2. I think the word you are searching for is “”Enlightenment”.

      3. There was a whole lot of bullshit here. Nearly every bit of it would apply to Africa, and could be amplified.

        1. Agreed. The big advantage is in breaking through the tribalism and uniting a larger nation, along with a culture of law that allows for personal ownership and trade. When the government is too corrupt and tries to take too much off the top, the whole thing collapses. When people can’t trust that a deal will be kept (or enforced), business doesn’t happen.

          Places that are backward in this day and age are largely either highly tribal or they have kleptocratic governments that run the country like a feudal lord. Or both.

          1. Illinois ?

            1. On July 27, 1919, an African-American teenager drowned in Lake Michigan after violating the unofficial segregation of Chicago’s beaches and being stoned by a group of white youths. His death, and the police’s refusal to arrest the white man whom eyewitnesses identified as causing it, sparked a week of rioting between gangs of black and white Chicagoans, concentrated on the South Side neighborhood surrounding the stockyards.

              It’s changed so much!

              1. Yea, because in a nation of 350M people from all over the world there can’t possibly be a few bad apples…

    3. We should just all loan each other a few trillion and then we would all be rich !!!!!

  8. Jesus Christ it’s always fear with these fucking people. We need safe spaces, we want the government to make us feel safe, I have the right to feel safe at Starbucks, I/We need saving,

    safe,safe,safe,safe,safe,safe,safe

    Perhaps someone should tell them that life carries a 100% mortality rate….even if you live in a padded room with 100 locks on the door.

  9. Gaia’s purse needs filled dammit! / AGW activist(formerly know as the Weather Underground)

  10. At least the mask came off.

  11. I’m somewhat surprised that Kerry appears to display some backbone.

    1. Drunk? I’m going with drunk.

  12. This morning, somebody here described this whole thing as a wealth transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. That sounds pretty on the nose.

    1. Wow. That IS spot on.

    2. i.e. “foreign aid”

    3. I prefer “From the politically unconnected in rich countries to the politically connected in poor countries until it is then transfered to the politically connected in rich countries”

      1. That my be more accurate, but it’s not as catchy.

  13. I figured Klein would be saying something incredibly stupid today:

    So, given this context, we know that the deal that will be unveiled at the end of the week, on the weekend, is going to steamroll over crucial scientific red lines. We also know, from the paltry levels of financing that wealthy governments have brought to the table, that it is also going to steamroll over equity red lines, which means that wealthy countries that have been emitting fossil fuels on an industrial scale for a couple hundred years will continue to fail to do our fair share of emission reductions, sharing the atmospheric space?failing to share it?and we will continue to pay our fair share for the impacts of that, for loss and damage caused by climate change, and also the resources that are badly needed so that poorer countries can leapfrog over fossil fuels and the car culture, and go directly to renewable energy, community-controlled renewable energy, energy democracy, which is viable, as we’re seeing in countries like Bangladesh, and also leapfrog over car culture and go to modern, renewable-based public transit. It takes resources and technology transfers to happen. We also know that it’s going to steamroll over our legal red lines, because the U.S. has come to these negotiations announcing that the deal cannot be legally binding. Any talk of penalties was off the table before it even began.

    1. This climate disobedience does not make us insensitive. It does not make us hooligans. It is our sacred duty to those suffering in the present day and who stand to lose so much if we fail in this race against time for climate justice. And let me also say this: I hope that the trade union movement and that workers in this city will stand with us on December 12th, because the right to assemble, the right to dissent, is central to all of our movements and all of our victories, past and future, parce que “la libert?” n’est pas qu’un mot. C’est un devoir qu’on doit defendre ensemble, et la solidarit? aussi.

      1. LG: You may find my review of Klein’s climate screed of interest, and my post about her and the Pope.

        1. Does it contain pics? ‘Cause you know I like pics with my screed-reviews.

      2. Christ, who the hell ever decided she was anywhere near a competent writer. She actually managed to produce prose that was simultaneously turgid, jargon-ridden, pretentious and ungrammatical.

        1. sacred duty

          And religious.

          the right to dissent

          Against anything except a super good popular consensus, right?

    2. I got lost after the 5th or 6th run-on sentence.

      1. A good writer’s trick:

        Read your paragraph aloud. One breath per sentence. If you pass out before you get to a period, you’re doing something wrong.

        1. This One Weird Trick to get those slack-jawed Science Deniers to pay attention!

          1. You won’t believe what these ten celebrities said about climate change. Number six will shock you.

        2. Bet an airhead like Naomi Klein can drone for hours.

    3. “…which means that wealthy countries that have been emitting fossil fuels on an industrial scale for a couple hundred years…”

      Oh, you mean the countries that manufactured every useful fucking thing on earth that is consumed by rich and poor alike?

    4. It takes resources and technology transfers to happen

      I’m pretty sure the science upon which generators, turbines, windmills, hydroelectic plants, and solar panels are all based is publicly available

    5. wealthy countries that have been emitting fossil fuels on an industrial scale for a couple hundred years

      Like South Korea, Japan, and Singapore.

    6. “go directly to renewable energy, community-controlled renewable energy, energy democracy, which is viable,”

      If it’s viable, why do developing countries need it subsidized to use it instead of fossil fuels?

      *headdesk*

  14. It’s like Lenin said….you like for the person who will benefit and…uh, uh…

  15. “They don’t want to count loans, export credits, or private investments ? climate finance has got to be public money and it’s got to be with no strings attached.”

    Any western politician — no matter how anti-libertarian, no matter how moronically progressive — who would actually agree to such a demand would go down in history as abysmally stupid even by politician standards.

    “No strings attached,” seriously?!?! Even outright communists like Mao or Kruschev never gave some foreign country public money with no strings attached. There are always strings.

  16. I have yet had the opportunity to ask a proggie climate warrior how they intend to fix those ROADZ they carry on about incessantly without fossil fuels.

    I really believe that these people think that we mine everything from the ground. They don’t know that most of the products we have are made from the by products of fossil fuel distillation and refinement.

    Maybe they think that asphalt and plastic are naturally occurring elements.

    1. Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
      Benjamin: Yes, sir.
      Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
      Benjamin: Yes, I am.
      Mr. McGuire: Bioplastics.
      Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?
      Mr. McGuire: There’s a great future in bioplastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?

    2. A lot of the porgies (going to just leave that autocorrect there) I know hate plastic (blaming it for everything from autism to Alzheimer’s) and cars which, by extension, includes asphalt.

    3. Now you understand why oil and oil products should be controlled by the government. Government can then set correct quotas on CO2 output, making sure it’s done in most efficient way – private cars out, union-driven buses in.

      Less snarky, making asphalt and laying down roads is actually one of the best ways to keep the carbon locked and out of atmosphere for a long time.

      1. But blacktop decreases albedo, driving up the temperature! You need to invent white asphalt!

        -jcr

        1. Looks like someone’s in the pocket of big sunglasses.

        2. white supremacist !!

    4. Maybe they think that asphalt and plastic are naturally occurring elements.

      Not to be pedantic, but asphalt is bitumen, and bitumen is the gloppy pseudo-solid sludge at the base of the petroleum refiner stack. So, yeah, asphalt is a naturally occurring substance that emits no CO2 unless one burns it.

  17. What I find incredible is the notion that any of that $3.5T would actually go to benefit poor people (beyond a few Potemkin villages).

    Everyone knows it would simply go into the hands of kleptocrats and despots.

    1. That’s where they intend it to go.

    2. Well, if those poor people would enlist in the army, they’d give some of the 3.5T.

      1. Seems like poor countries are going to ship the rich countries 3.5T spare people. Doesn’t that count as a carbon credit somehow?

  18. Shake, shake, shake. Shake, shake, shake. Shake that booty. Shake that booty!

    Sing it!

  19. declared Chee Yoke Ling, director of the radical Third World Network

    I can’t help but wonder how much wealthier the “Third World” would be if educated, well-connected, and reasonably well-off activists devoted their energies to producing goods and services the rest of the world wants instead of…whatever it is they do.

    1. whatever it is they do

      Rent seeking from Western governments.

      Probably a lot safer than rent seeking from their own governments or trying to obtain the permits to start business there.

    2. It’s a cargo cult. They see the privileged kids of the successful Western countries doing it and they assume that’s the thing to do. They don’t step back and realize that the successful Western countries got to be successful Western countries because their privileged kids are the descendents of people who created wealth for the privileged kids to leech off of.

      1. Social Security = Generational Ponzi scheme for poor people
        Trust Fund = Antithesis of generational Ponzi scheme for rich people.

  20. How many tanks and fighter jets can 3.5T buy?

    1. If it’s the F-35, not many.

  21. “The Times (London) is reporting that poor country negotiators have demanded behind closed doors that rich country governments hand over $3.5 trillion in climate finance, or they will refuse to accept the Paris accord.”

    Wait, what’s the penalty again?

    1. Removal of cocktail parties privileges.

      1. Emmmm….I suspect that the cocktail party privileges work the other way.

        1. Look, man, you get developing countries angry and Bono invites dry out!

    2. My first thought as well – “You demand?! Or what?”

      1. Everyone will be really sad

        1. And Leonardo DeCaprio and Raquel Zimmerman will think you’re really mean…

        2. Perhaps they will be very, very angry. And then they will write us a letter telling us how angry they are.

      2. Strongly worded letter to follow!

    3. Presumably the penalty is that they won’t comply with the carbon emission limits that everyone was supposed to comply with.

      1. Which betrays exactly how convinced they are that the science is accurate.

        “Won’t write a blank check? Fine, we’ll just let the world end and see how *you* like it!”

  22. poor country negotiators have demanded behind closed doors that rich country governments hand over $3.5 trillion in climate finance

    7% of the annual GDP of the G8, in case anyone is wondering.

    1. Wait, I thought government spending didn’t count towards GDP. Or have I missed a flipping flopping Krug screed?

      1. *Waves hand*

        These aren’t the figures you’re looking for.

        Move along.

    2. 90% of the entire federal 2015 budget you mean. Governments can’t just rob everybody.

  23. There are two kinds of politicians at the summit: Western politicians seeking to maximize State power (preferably under them), and Third World politicians eager to loot the West. That always has been the whole point. Global warming aka climate change aka climte disruption is mere window dressing, providing an excuse for the power/money grab.

  24. I am filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate change conference

    Apparently not all the prepositions are making it across the transatlantic tubes.

  25. . Poor country governments want rich country governments to make explicit promises about how much and when climate finance is going to be flowing their way.

    Fuck that noise.

    Foreign aid only keeps third-world despots in power. The best thing we can do for them is expand trade, not give handouts to their local thugs.

    -jcr

    1. Buying off foreign despots is a lot cheaper then killing them, and creates a far more peaceful stable world then events like the “Arab Spring.”

  26. The U.S. government is keeping us from the deal we need to save us from the climate crisis

    I think AGW is real and has the potential to be very costly (while also having the potential to be relatively minor), but it’s pretty brash to say the crisis is happening *now*. Of course it is also brash to ask for $3.5 trillion based upon what might happen according to models.

    1. Oh shush, why I heard an NPR piece about a girl’s house in the Marshall Islands a few feet above sea level, that *got flood water in it once* recently during a storm.

  27. When will the poor countries pay royalties on all the advanced tech they are using which came from rich countries?

    What’s that they say, rich countries already made a profit from selling the high tech gizmos and advanced medicine, etc?

    Oh, I see, perhaps they can regain the moral high ground by reverting to their pre-contact condition.

    Not acceptable, they say, they want the one without the other?

    Sorry, cake is also a rich country invention. Perhaps they can borrow the slogan, suitably modified, for …. oh wait, no that would be cultural appropriation, not to mention they probably don’t want to pay royalties on the original slogan.

    1. Beat me to it.

      1. And a whole bunch of others beat both of us 🙂

  28. I spent some time in Bolivia. I met every gringo in the country. All you had to do was hang out in the German restaurant or the Swiss restaurant, the only places that served meat. Not one of them was there to ski.

    A few years ago Morales was stomping his feet and demanding money from developed nations because global warming has destroyed the ski industry in Bolivia.

    There is a snapshot of what is going on with this shakedown.

  29. As Indian climate negotiator Susheel Kumar explained earlier this week, climate finance is not a donation, it’s an entitlement. Poor countries deserve the money as reparations from rich countries that have wrecked the climate.

    Let’s assume that’s right for the sake of argument. How much do the “poor countries”* owe the West for getting antibiotics, cell phones, plumbing, the Internet, the automobile, and the entire frickin scientific revolution for free, without having to put in the effort the West did to achieve those things?

    1. How about we start by defining “wrecked”? The climate seems pretty identical to what it was 40 years ago.

    2. “climate finance is not a donation, it’s an entitlement.”

      The leftists in the developed country are being hung by their own retard.

      If you like the end of that comment I have to proactively give credit to another reason poster whose name I don’t remember.

      If you don’t then fuck off slaver.

  30. What a bizarre time period we live in. Now the poorest weakest nations on Earth demand tribute from superpowers instead of the other way around like it was in every other time period in history.

    1. Where’s Russia in all this? They’re usually quick to tell people to fuck off and don’t give a shit if people think they’re “the bad guy”

      1. It’s good to have that attitude when, in some instances, you actually *are* the bad guy.

        Wouldn’t want Russia to suffer self-esteem problems.

        1. Oh, for sure – they often are they bad guy, they just don’t seem to care who knows it.

      2. Russia is the Donald Trump of nations.

        1. But without a shred of humor. Otherwise, yeah, I like it.

        2. No, it is the Hillary of nations – warlike, cynical, and utterly corrupt.

    2. What a bizarre time period we live in. Now the poorest weakest nations on Earth demand tribute from superpowers instead of the other way around like it was in every other time period in history.

      That is why this time period is a historical page turning on eras, and not a long-term trend.

  31. I’m willing to pledge joe’s pension

  32. Yeah, all fun and games until the pickpockets show up.

  33. Interesting that they made the demand behind closed doors. If they are right, their cause is just and their demand is reasonable, why hide it from the general public?

    1. “We made them give us $3.5T $1.5T to share among ourselves!”

  34. Hey, it’s just the starting point of the negotiations.
    When the ‘developing nations’ get a “no”, they’ll up it to $8.5Tn!

  35. “This demand may have been sparked by the fact that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry apparently threatened to walk out of conference if the accord was written so as make climate finance a legally binding obligation.”

    John Kerry and the Obama Administration are treating the “accord” as if it were legally binding?

    Notice, John Kerry didn’t threaten to walk out if the accord was written as a legally binding obligation.

    John Kerry threatened to walk out if the climate finance portion was written as a legally binding obligation. They’re treating the rest of the accord as though it were legally binding.

    There’s a word in English for a legally binding accord between nations. It’s called “a treaty”, and a treaty is toilet paper unless two-thirds of the U.S. Senate votes to ratify it.

    1. No, its not. Obama already proved that as long as you don’t use the word treaty, the Senate only gets a vote to overturn it, if Obama is nice enough to allow that.

  36. “The holdup is money.”

    I see what you did there, Ron.

  37. Like I was saying, the socialists are never satisfied and have an endless list of complaints.

    One day it’s about Zoodlander2 and ‘ its offensive representation of non-binary individuals.’

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..itive.html

    Now they’re crying about seasonal changes in mother nature’s weather patterns with demands for $3.5 trillion in spare change, man.

  38. The really shocking thing about this bullshit is that CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Forty Thousandths of ONE percent. And all these assholes are convinced that if it gets to just a couple thousandths more, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a crock of shit. I predict 25 years from now, people will use this BS as the textbook example of mass hallucination. That is, if we haven’t all burst into flames and been incinerated by global catastrophe. I guess if we just send those trillions to the Third World now, they can develop space travel to get us all safely off this planet before it burns up.

    1. I bet you don’t believe in the ozone layer either…

  39. If Obama rolls over, Trump gains.

    A lot of Americans see all the products made in China and call phone centers in India and would not be happy to also be sending them more money.

    I don’t like Trump, but I could totally see him negotiating better terms than Kerry.

    First of all, I’d agree to pay them for climate change reparation, but then I’d bill them for “USA market access” for all goods and services. “Wow, look at that! Looks like you owe us $10 billion!”

  40. Finally, the comedy that is the climate crisis is laid bare. Oh my gosh,… It’s actually game theory redistribution. Color me shocked.

  41. So the logical thing to do, if you are a rich country citizen, is to move to a “vulnerable” country. You can keep driving your Escalade with the AC running full blast and enjoy generous handouts paid for by your former nation. Or you can stay put, have to drive a shared electric golf cart, and be reminded every day that you are paying for your past sins that are killing polar bears and starving kiddies in the third world.

  42. So, apparently they’ve stopped even pretending that this is other than a shakedown.

  43. So let me get this straight – These countries not only didn’t pay attention to the lessons already learned by others; namely not to throw shit in the streets or make the rivers chunky, they got leapfrogged to modernity without having to contribute all the intermediate steps. This happened because the First World went looking for new markets, not because the Third embraced market principles beyond mercantilism.

    Let’s be straight about that – most of the heavy lifting to pull these guys up came from the West and Japan and their capitalistic actions, and any of their own efforts was to the extent that they embraced same.

    Now we have the vile ecos on one side demand that even the little bit of progress that’s been made stop, and on the other side, an assortment of laughable little pissants flatly demanding bribes, just like their little pissant cultures enshrine.

    It’s unbelievable.

  44. Fuck ’em.
    We gave ’em toilet paper. For that alone I figure they owe us billions.

  45. Let developing countries emit as much carbon as they want to as they make their way to where we’re at. It’ll certainly take them less time than it took us. Interested parties would have an incentive to provide their own capital towards helping them to reduce their carbon– in whatever forms they desire.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.