Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion (£2.3 trillion) in payments to developing nations to secure a deal in Paris to curb global warming. Developing countries have added a clause to the latest draft of the text under which they would be paid the “full costs” of meeting plans to cut emissions.
That’ll work. Even John Kerry was almost made to seem a man of sense:
The night saw an ugly brawl as US secretary of state John Kerry threatened that developed countries, including the US, would walk out of the agreement if it held up the wall of differentiation or if it was asked to commit to a road-map or a goal to deliver on its financial obligations in the Paris agreement. “You can take the US 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?” he said behind closed doors in negotiations to other ministers on the second revised draft of the Paris agreement.
He added, “We can’t afford in the hours we are left with to nit-pick every single word and to believe there is an effort here that separates developed countries from developing countries. That’s not where we are in 2015. Don’t think this agreement reflects that kind of differentiation.”
The debt and deficits everywhere make action on climate – that is, you known, tearing down our existing power grid while giving trillions to others – a bit unaffordable. So here’s the line up of issues that have delayed the agreement, which boils down to everyone demanding that someone else pays while they receive:
1. Should developed countries have a legal obligation to deliver finances against a road-map
2. Should developing countries that do not have historical responsibility for emissions also contribute to climate flows
3. Should the burden sharing in the agreement be based on self-differentiation based on current economic capacities or on both, historical emissions and current economic conditions
4. Should the actions of developing countries be linked, even if weakly, to the provision of finance and technology or should they be treated as par with developed countries during next ratchet up of emission reduction commitments
5. Should there be a periodic review of delivery of finance and technology by developed world or not
6. Should the long term goal of the agreement unambiguously be to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degree by 2100 or should the agreement refer hedge on this goal
7. Should poor and vulnerable countries continue to hold rights to file for damages and liability against permanent loss and damage caused due to climate change
The only climate change there has been has been in the climate of opinion within the populations of developed economies.
Law of Markets 