There have now been 29 Conferences of the Parties or COPs to try and come to some agreement about what the nations of the world should do about climate change – that’s if they can actually do anything.
Doesn’t that tell you the exercise has been pretty much a waste of time since COP 1 at Berlin in 1995.
The latest incarnation in oil rich Azerbaijan has been farcical. Essentially the story is this – poor nations believe the rich nations of the world should pay them a trillion dollars a year, that’s one thousand billion dollars annually, by 2035 to help them mitigate the impact of a changing climate.
It’s laughable, but some seriously cheeky delegates in Baku over the last few days have become mightily upset when those with the money told those who don’t to get stuffed.
Walkouts, protests and last minute negotiations that lasted through the night finally allowed the COP to agree on a compromise of a mere $300 billion per year.
But here’s the rub. The world’s largest emitter is China. It’s responsible for 30 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and for 90 percent of the increase in CO2 emissions in the last ten years.
So with that you’d expect China to pony up the largest chunk of the $300 billion. Like maybe 30 percent of it?
Nah.
COP 29’s agreement allows China’s contributions to remain “voluntary.”
That’s because the often bizarre but always gutless United Nations still classes China as a “developing” nation, despite it having 17.86 percent of the world’s GDP to be the second largest economy on the planet behind the USA’s 25.32 percent.
So while China gets away with paying as much as it wants, which is most likely to be sweet Fanny Adams, New Zealand is expected to put its hands in its pockets to make a contribution to this sham.
As we produce 0.17 percent of the world’s GHGs, perhaps 0.17 percent of $300 billion might be a fair contribution? But that’s still a ridiculous $510 million annually.
What we actually pay now is a bit of a mystery. Between 2022 and next year we’ve agreed to pay $1.3 billion to developing nations.
But as well, we have a commitment under the infamous Paris Agreement, to spend up to $30 billion between now and 2030 to buy carbon credits because we won’t be able to reduce our GHGs to 2005 levels by that year.
Don’t you get the feeling we’re just pissing money down the drain? Money that we don’t have anyway.
Here’s another thing. Oxfam reported last month that $41 billion in World Bank climate finance is unaccounted for due to poor record keeping. Oxfam say there is no clear public record showing where the money went, how it was used and whether or not it had any impact.
So why should any rich developed nation pay money to poorer developing nations? In UN speak it’s the Global North paying the Global South, except that us muggins, who are about as far south as you can come and live comfortably, are expected to pay up.
As for the COP itself, there were 66,778 delegates registered to attend. Obviously Baku is not the attraction Dubai was last year because the number of attendees dropped from the monstrous 83,000 that rocked up in the Emirates 12 months ago.
New Zealand’s official delegation was 18 people. They included the Minister for Climate Change Simon Watts and the country’s Chief Negotiator on these matters Todd Croad from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
But to this modest number add what are known as the “overflow” participants. New Zealand had 74 of them taking the total New Zealand delegation to 92 participants.
Among the overflow were Labour MP Rachel Brooking, Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick and – drum roll please – the man she replaced James Shaw! To be fair he was there representing his new company Morrison, but who paid the air fares so he could discharge a few more tonnes of aviation induced CO2 en route to Baku?
But wait there’s more. An Excel spreadsheet of every registered delegate is accessible through carbonbrief.org
Without looking through more than 66 thousand names it didn’t take long to find under Non-Governmental Organisations a New Zealand Youth Delegation which comprised indigenous advisers – and an interpreter.
So all up it looks like there were about a hundred New Zealanders there.
That pales in comparison with the host nation (2229), Brazil (1914) and Turkey (1862).
Oh, and let’s not forget the Taliban who were invited to be “observers.” Apparently they now want a cut of the action from the Global North so they can invest in programmes to improve the rights of women and children.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
So what did COP 29 achieve?
As with the previous 28 COPs, not much. The attempted extortion from smaller nations basically failed. That’s not to say places like the Marshall Islands and Samoa won’t be back in a year’s time asking for the same – or more.
But by then Donald Trump will be in the White House and the US will likely be out of the Paris Accord.
Therefore the US won’t be paying. China may make a cursory contribution but nothing more because it’s still a “developing” nation.
FFS. Makes you wonder why we bother.
Oh, and the International Energy Agency says that next year a record 103.8 million barrels of oil will be consumed around the globe very day. The IEA also tells us that gas production was up 3 percent in the first half of this year and coal use increased 3.1 percent last year to reach an all time high.
Nothing’s changing.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
It’s laughable, but some seriously cheeky delegates in Baku over the last few days have become mightily upset when those with the money told those who don’t to get stuffed.
Walkouts, protests and last minute negotiations that lasted through the night finally allowed the COP to agree on a compromise of a mere $300 billion per year.
But here’s the rub. The world’s largest emitter is China. It’s responsible for 30 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and for 90 percent of the increase in CO2 emissions in the last ten years.
So with that you’d expect China to pony up the largest chunk of the $300 billion. Like maybe 30 percent of it?
Nah.
COP 29’s agreement allows China’s contributions to remain “voluntary.”
That’s because the often bizarre but always gutless United Nations still classes China as a “developing” nation, despite it having 17.86 percent of the world’s GDP to be the second largest economy on the planet behind the USA’s 25.32 percent.
So while China gets away with paying as much as it wants, which is most likely to be sweet Fanny Adams, New Zealand is expected to put its hands in its pockets to make a contribution to this sham.
As we produce 0.17 percent of the world’s GHGs, perhaps 0.17 percent of $300 billion might be a fair contribution? But that’s still a ridiculous $510 million annually.
What we actually pay now is a bit of a mystery. Between 2022 and next year we’ve agreed to pay $1.3 billion to developing nations.
But as well, we have a commitment under the infamous Paris Agreement, to spend up to $30 billion between now and 2030 to buy carbon credits because we won’t be able to reduce our GHGs to 2005 levels by that year.
Don’t you get the feeling we’re just pissing money down the drain? Money that we don’t have anyway.
Here’s another thing. Oxfam reported last month that $41 billion in World Bank climate finance is unaccounted for due to poor record keeping. Oxfam say there is no clear public record showing where the money went, how it was used and whether or not it had any impact.
So why should any rich developed nation pay money to poorer developing nations? In UN speak it’s the Global North paying the Global South, except that us muggins, who are about as far south as you can come and live comfortably, are expected to pay up.
As for the COP itself, there were 66,778 delegates registered to attend. Obviously Baku is not the attraction Dubai was last year because the number of attendees dropped from the monstrous 83,000 that rocked up in the Emirates 12 months ago.
New Zealand’s official delegation was 18 people. They included the Minister for Climate Change Simon Watts and the country’s Chief Negotiator on these matters Todd Croad from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
But to this modest number add what are known as the “overflow” participants. New Zealand had 74 of them taking the total New Zealand delegation to 92 participants.
Among the overflow were Labour MP Rachel Brooking, Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick and – drum roll please – the man she replaced James Shaw! To be fair he was there representing his new company Morrison, but who paid the air fares so he could discharge a few more tonnes of aviation induced CO2 en route to Baku?
But wait there’s more. An Excel spreadsheet of every registered delegate is accessible through carbonbrief.org
Without looking through more than 66 thousand names it didn’t take long to find under Non-Governmental Organisations a New Zealand Youth Delegation which comprised indigenous advisers – and an interpreter.
So all up it looks like there were about a hundred New Zealanders there.
That pales in comparison with the host nation (2229), Brazil (1914) and Turkey (1862).
Oh, and let’s not forget the Taliban who were invited to be “observers.” Apparently they now want a cut of the action from the Global North so they can invest in programmes to improve the rights of women and children.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
So what did COP 29 achieve?
As with the previous 28 COPs, not much. The attempted extortion from smaller nations basically failed. That’s not to say places like the Marshall Islands and Samoa won’t be back in a year’s time asking for the same – or more.
But by then Donald Trump will be in the White House and the US will likely be out of the Paris Accord.
Therefore the US won’t be paying. China may make a cursory contribution but nothing more because it’s still a “developing” nation.
FFS. Makes you wonder why we bother.
Oh, and the International Energy Agency says that next year a record 103.8 million barrels of oil will be consumed around the globe very day. The IEA also tells us that gas production was up 3 percent in the first half of this year and coal use increased 3.1 percent last year to reach an all time high.
Nothing’s changing.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
It may sound ridiculous with "developing nations" asking for those unaccounted for handouts, but no more farcical than the handouts and gratuitous racial spending on Maori and Pacifica people by our government. Whose paying for the Indigenous youth group (and translator, presumably from English to Maori) to fly around the world to this conference, complainingthat everything is so for them?
That’s a marvellous account of human stupidity Peter. Why can’t we have leadership like Donald Trump. He knows it’s a con. Most intelligent people know it’s a con but the madness continues. It’s the greatest lie ever told, invented by the Club of Rome dating back to 1968. The bloated and impotent UN hijacked the lie and turned it into a political religion. I’m praying that when the new US govt intelligently withdraws from the Paris Climate Accord for the second time, our govt puts its big boy pants on and does the same.
Any smart 12 year-old can see the holes in the climate arguments.
But , the post - 2030 ( and post- Bretton Woods ) world will focus on social levelling ( i.e. the new marxism) where critical control levers will be health and environment/climate. Key players ( convinced they will rule the world -e.g. Swarbrick), attend these talk fests to network and conjure up garbled strategy to stay on top of their green heap.
As foreign aid dwindles ( due to tough times in the high- income nations), the developing world (many with extensive resources but massive wealth /poverty gaps ) must find a new cash cow: this is climate change!
Our 12 year- old would suggest a Zoom conference
to minimize their carbon footprint.
You are right Peter. Just another case of gullible politicians playing the blame game and telling us money will put everything right. Sounds very similar to Māori Treaty Settlement claims. When the Ukraine/Russia, and Israel/Palestine conflicts continue to pollute the atmosphere hugely, we are being conned mightily.
Quote 'As for the COP itself, there were 66,778 delegates registered to attend.'
Do 'they' all get a carbon neutral bamboo shirt such as APEC, for the obligatory photo shoot?
'I need a farmer 3 times a day, I don't need a politician'
BUT Peter - China is a major trading partner with NZ, so much so that allowed the "theft " of a specific kiwi fruit plant, that they now grow in that Country. Not to forget those products that we originally made (here in NZ) and those companies found that they could have them manufactured -cheaper - in China & reimport them - possibly to find that China sold the same product elsewhere in the World.
Now India, oh how our current Minister of Trade - Todd McClay would love them to import our dairy products - I am not sure what else we have to trade with them - maybe bananas grown in Northland?
As a side not, dear readers - go to YouTube and thru the search engine locate the videos of industrial domains (mostly homebased work shops - you will also get an idea of industrial pollution) in India and please take note of the serious attempt at Health & Safety.
Do NOT forget our NZ muggins, Hon PM Luxon who still believes in Carbon Zero, and spouts on about it as if it is possible . God Forbid he still lasts as PM after xmas.
I used to write political satire for amusement, but everything got so weird and woke that it simply became too hard to differentiate between 'real-life' and satire. The Climate scam was a favourite one to pick holes in but seriously, siphoning money from NZ taxpayers to send overseas to Third World despots to keep their populations energy-poor is highly unethical at best. Impact on NZ is a double-whammy as takes money from the local economy and also hurts our trade balance (neither of which are in good shape). All for absolutely nothing.
It does seem farcical as Peter and others have observed. Even if wealthier nations do decide to provide money to poorer nations, the likelihood of corruption siphoning off most of the funds is high . What caveats might be in place? What quality controls? China exempted - give me a break!
Post a Comment