Apparently this year's climate conference is due to try and reach agreement on the subject of "loss and damage" caused allegedly by climate change caused by global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The linked article, below, discusses this and points out the obvious difficulties of dealing with such a nebulous subject, but as it points out, once the principle has been accepted then some funding becomes expected. Yet another drain on the taxpayer. It is too easy for politicians to spend or give away other people's money to make caring and generous gestures
COP27 — the Camel’s Nose of Loss and Damage Enters the Talks – Watts Up With That?
As far as contributions to the co2 atmosphere, the United States is the leader on a historical contribution. Other countries in being able to use energy find it easiest to go to fossil fuels rather than renewable energy. Its better to leap frog over the fossil fuels rather than damaging fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteOK, so what do you think your country should give away?
ReplyDeleteenough to influence them to RE instead of FF. Leapfrogging FF.
ReplyDeleteI think you are being a bit naïve if you think that India and China etc will just do what you want if you give them enough money. They will pocket the money and then say it's not enough! Have you seen what they are asking for? It's $ trillions!! This is what the whole climate change issue is all about - the money!!
ReplyDeleteIts not about giving money, its about taxing carbon intensity of the products as they come into our border. China will realize they can make more money by having less carbon in the making of the products they want to sell to us. Carbon border tax.
DeleteThe blog article was about compensation for loss and damage being given to third world countries by the developed nations. It was not about a border tax. I say that the principle of loss and damage must not be accepted for the reasons given in the article.
ReplyDeleteFrom a different point of view, its the best investment to bring down carbon into the atmosphere. It is cheaper to invest in foreign countries because the money goes farther.. Put a channeling on the money how it is to be used.
DeleteSince you mention a border tax, can you imagine what the effect of that will be on trade? It would lead to immediate retaliation, resulting in higher prices for consumers with a recession all but certain. The world is in a very precarious state, so be very careful what you wish for
ReplyDeleteIts done gradually and slowly, not as punishment but incentive to change. Up in the air thoughts, 2 to 5 years before starting giving countries time to align themselves world wide. Not that this would happen, the carbon tax could be sent back to the host country only in the form of investment for RE to make their products to sell. This doesn't have to hostile.
Delete