Pay Us Reparations for Global Warming, Rich Nations.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

I've often said that the "global warming" issue was primarily a method of soaking the US taxpayer to the benefit of special interests. Not one single thing the "poor" countries are claiming is true (i.e., we caused xyz disaster via global warming) but because of the decades long drumbeat of the social justice warriors they sense an opportunity to pile on and get some of the money that's flowing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/09/12/kostigen-climate-change-reparations/72014440/

Thomas M. Kostigen, Special for USA TODAY wrote:Poor nations want U.S. to pay reparations for extreme weather

Poorer nations suffering from extreme weather disasters, so much so that their citizens are seeking refuge in safer terrains outside their borders, want rich nations like the United States to pay for reparations and to relocate populations.

Preparatory talks ahead of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change to be held in Paris in December has representatives from developing nations asking for more than an already agreed upon $100 billion per year for climate change mitigation measures. They want additional compensation for weather-related disasters as well as a "displacement coordination facility" for refugees. And they want all this to be legally binding as part of the larger anticipated Paris accord.

The U.S. and wealthier nations in the European Union are balking.

The rationale for the additional funds and refugee facility is based on donor country failures to follow through cohesively on aid pledges following weather-related disasters. For example, last March, Cyclone Pam devastated islands in the South Pacific but attention quickly turned to the massive earthquake in Nepal soon thereafter. That left small nations such as Vanuatu, which was devastated, to manage its own cleanup without much in the way of international assistance.

Poorer nations blame extreme weather-related disasters on climate change stemming from emission-polluting countries that have more developed and wealthier economies.

The U.N. Paris conference aims to reach an international, legally biding agreement on climate change that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thwart global temperature rise. A separate agreement is being eyed to address losses and damages from extreme weather events, thought to be a result of climate change.

As it stands, the Warsaw Mechanism, adopted in 2013 at the U.N. climate conference in Poland, established a structure to address losses and damages associated with climate change impacts. However that mechanism is due to expire this year when a new climate agreement is reached. Poorer nations who say they are on the front lines of climate change and suffer the worst of its extreme weather ramifications aren't pleased by the expiration. They want loss and damage provisions to be extended and expanded upon.

Reports indicate a compromise will be sought whereby the Warsaw Mechanism is extended, yet carved out from any legally binding agreement.

Meanwhile, environmental groups are lobbying to make reparations even more punitive and require polluting companies in the private sector to step up and also pay for extreme weather-related damages.

Property and casualty losses have been a point of contention for years in climate-change discussions. How to handle refugee claims is a relatively new issue that comes at a time when Europe is facing a separate refugee crisis of its own, with hordes of people seeking asylum from war-torn countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Nine civil wars are raging in countries from Pakistan to Nigeria.

Adding climate refugees to those numbers may be too much for government representatives to take on at the moment. Without question, however, a refugee facility needs to be discussed if not negotiated, as do further compensation measures for poor countries.

The $100 billion-a-year-commitment by 2020 seems like a lot of money, but increasingly it isn't looking like enough funding. With extreme weather events on the rise, so too will be the costs of cleanup and the tolls on people's lives.

**DarkLink**

Pretty sure it's been a decade or so since Western nations were the primary source of pollutants. Developing industrial nations like China have long since surpassed us.

**TheCustomLime**

DarkLink wrote:
Pretty sure it's been a decade or so since Western nations were the primary source of pollutants. Developing industrial nations like China have long since surpassed us.

It's not a matter of responsibility. It's a matter of who is willing to pay up. I doubt China would give any money away to a developing nation even if it was the source of it's woes.

**dogma**

Breotan wrote:
Not one single thing the "poor" countries are claiming is true (i.e., we caused xyz disaster via global warming) but because of the decades long drumbeat of the social justice warriors they sense an opportunity to pile on and get some of the money that's flowing.

The Article You Posted, But Did Not Read. wrote:The rationale for the additional funds and refugee facility is based on donor country failures to follow through cohesively on aid pledges following weather-related disasters.

**Bran Dawri**

US is still one of the biggest pollutants per head in the world, although as said, I do believe China has surpassed you.

ALso, seriously, you don't accept global warming?

**Sigvatr**

Sure, we'll just cut any sum you want as "reparations" from the foreign aid fund. Deal?

**angelofvengeance**

Let's be honest here, the only reason the continent of Africa is in a gak heap, is because after they kicked the Westerners out years ago, the guys at the top didn't have a clue what they were doing. Were it not for 2 world wars in the space of a couple of decades, Africa would still be referred to as the bread basket of the world.

So we now have corrupt governments there and a gak load of aid money not going where it needs to as well as famine and disease. A friend of mine had a grandfather who used to be in the Merchant Navy for years. Every time he pulled into an African port, there would always be guys there pedalling the aid goods.

**Chongara**

angelofvengeance wrote:
Let's be honest here, the only reason the continent of Africa is in a gak heap, is because after they kicked the Westerners out years ago, the guys at the top didn't have a clue what they were doing. Were it not for 2 world wars in the space of a couple of decades, Africa would still be referred to as the bread basket of the world.

So we now have corrupt governments there and a gak load of aid money not going where it needs to as well as famine and disease. A friend of mine had a grandfather who used to be in the Merchant Navy for years. Every time he pulled into an African port, there would always be guys there pedalling the aid goods.

Man, sounds like they should have kept the western powers in charge over there. Why would they kick them out? Sounds like they were lucky to get them in the first place. Actually could you refresh my memory on how they got their in the first place and why? I'm just feeling a bit fuzzy on the point right now.

**Breotan**

Bran Dawri wrote:
ALso, seriously, you don't accept global warming?

The global warming movement championed by the likes of Al Gore is less about science and fixing things and more about modern day alchemy - turning carbon into gold. Al Gore has made a LOT of money from his company that deals in carbon credits.

There are very real things which can be done to address long term climate change but the choice always seems to come down to how much money can be made from "polluters" and tax payers. That is the root of my cynicism.

**angelofvengeance**

Chongara wrote:
angelofvengeance wrote:
Let's be honest here, the only reason the continent of Africa is in a gak heap, is because after they kicked the Westerners out years ago, the guys at the top didn't have a clue what they were doing. Were it not for 2 world wars in the space of a couple of decades, Africa would still be referred to as the bread basket of the world.

So we now have corrupt governments there and a gak load of aid money not going where it needs to as well as famine and disease. A friend of mine had a grandfather who used to be in the Merchant Navy for years. Every time he pulled into an African port, there would always be guys there pedalling the aid goods.

Man, sounds like they should have kept the western powers in charge over there. Why would they kick them out? Sounds like they were lucky to get them in the first place. Actually could you refresh my memory on how they got their in the first place and why?

Well, by Western powers, I mean the British Empire and to some extent France and Germany as well. We got kicked out properly after the Apartheid (1948-1994) cause there was a gakload of racist bigots in charge over there making life hell for anyone who wasn't caucasian. If that had been handled better, I think Africa as a whole would have come out better for it.

**Ouze**

(edit - why even?)

**HiveFleetPlastic**

When you talk about the emissions of China, don't forget that a significiant amount of their emissions (~25%) are from producing goods that are consumed by countries like the US.

**Experiment 626**

Hooray! Another BS gathering of UN propaganda that's only aim is to seemingly vilify Canada as the single worst climate evil the world has ever seen!

**Ketara**

Chongara wrote:
angelofvengeance wrote:
Let's be honest here, the only reason the continent of Africa is in a gak heap, is because after they kicked the Westerners out years ago, the guys at the top didn't have a clue what they were doing. Were it not for 2 world wars in the space of a couple of decades, Africa would still be referred to as the bread basket of the world.

So we now have corrupt governments there and a gak load of aid money not going where it needs to as well as famine and disease. A friend of mine had a grandfather who used to be in the Merchant Navy for years. Every time he pulled into an African port, there would always be guys there pedalling the aid goods.

Man, sounds like they should have kept the western powers in charge over there. Why would they kick them out? Sounds like they were lucky to get them in the first place. Actually could you refresh my memory on how they got their in the first place and why? I'm just feeling a bit fuzzy on the point right now.

What you did there. I see it.

**jhe90**

China and India are hugely polluting.

The Ganges River alone is regarded as one of worlds very worst, China is a environmental disaster,

Yellow River is very bad, the water in places is contaminated to the very ground water levels.

.

**welshhoppo**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Hooray! Another BS gathering of UN propaganda that's only aim is to seemingly vilify Canada as the single worst climate evil the world has ever seen!

Tbf, you guys were the worlds worst suppliers of asbestos.

**whembly**

How 'bout "no".

There... next question please.

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
(edit - why even?)

Any thread that included "social justice warriors" in the opening lost is a lost cause to begin with.

**Ashiraya**

d-usa wrote:
Ouze wrote:
(edit - why even?)

Any thread that included "social justice warriors" in the opening lost is a lost cause to begin with.

Truth.

**yellowfever**

I think the U.S. should use our money to help our nation first. Once we fix our problems then we can help others if we deem it necessary.

**whembly**

yellowfever wrote:
I think the U.S. should use our money to help our nation first. Once we fix our problems then we can help others if we deem it necessary.

I think many are losing the perspective that the US (and other Western Nations) do, in fact, provide plenty of assistances worldwide.

**Frazzled**

I think its a great idea. Lets form a committee to study it.

**Ketara**

Frazzled wrote:
I think its a great idea. Lets form a committee to study it.

Right after we make an action plan to allocate group memberships for the task force to decide who'll sit on the committee. We don't want to rush into things without considering every angle.

**TheCustomLime**

Of course, we have to put a bill through Congress to get funding for the action plan to form this committee.

**jhe90**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Of course, we have to put a bill through Congress to get funding for the action plan to form this committee.

Forgot a multi agency congressional planning committee for the funding of the funding committee!

**Ketara**

TheCustomLime wrote:
Of course, we have to put a bill through Congress to get funding for the action plan to form this committee.

It can't just be Congress, this is going out to every rich country that's caused pollution. So we'll also need to create a multi-national task force responsible for applying for funds in every relevant jurisidiction/political system. But before we can do that, as this is a project with international scope, we'd have to get a UN resolution on the matter passed first, with the agreement of the full G8. If any opf them disagree with the proposal, we'll negotiate and redraft until everyone is satisfied.

And that, boys and girls, is what it's like to try and do anything in any company with more than fifty employees.

**cincydooley**

I keep waiting for the U.S. to go all half baked on the UN.

**Kilkrazy**

You did that a long time ago.

**cincydooley**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You did that a long time ago.

Well, no. Not officially at least.

Still a member state.

**Ouze**

yellowfever wrote:
I think the U.S. should use our money to help our nation first. Once we fix our problems then we can help others if we deem it necessary.

So, I won't - I can't - argue with the fundamentals of your argument, "us before them". That being said, I want to mention two things that might have you reconsider your opinion.

The average American has a wildly inflated idea of how much money we spend on foreign aid. The average guess is 25% (!) of our economy goes to foreign aid. In reality, it's a little less than 1%. So, just something to consider.

Additionally, foreign aid isn't some gift we give because "we're the good guys, yay!". Yeah, some of it is like that, but mostly we give aid because we perceive it buys us goodwill in return. For example, you probably know we give a lot of money to our "ally", Pakistan. We don't do so because we're bros, we do so because if we stop giving Pakistan and their crumbling economy and fundamentalist zealot ridden corrupt government money, they might decide to do fundraising in a different way, such as with the nuclear weapons they own. Because subtly blackmailing is what "allies" do. In other areas, it lets us extend force and influence without doing it directly, such as what we give to Israel.

Another way it gets used is on the only kind of welfare the US right wing likes: corporate, military-industrial welfare. For this, again the example is Israel.You might know that we give money to Israel, but did you know it comes with a lot of restrictions... such as where they can spend it? A lot of it must go back to American defense contractors on either new equipment, or to support the equipment we've already given them. A lot of Israelis have pointed out that the aid the US gives them isn't actually a super great deal for Israel, but it's OK, because being used as another nation's belligerent proxy is what "allies" do. Some of they money has a direct military benefit to the US, such as the Iron Dome system we helped fund: it's essentially a test bed for future US weapon systems.

Finally, a lot of it goes to help with diseases abroad, such as AIDS and so on. George W. Bush rightfully gets a lot of gak for being one of the countries most mediocre presidents, but the one thing he deserves credit for (and usually gets screwed out of) is greatly boosting HIV/AIDS funding overseas. This has saved millions of lives directly. These are lives that may remember our assistance when radical, death-to-america ISIL types come knocking, or just when we show up to mine out all their cobalt.

Either way, there is an expectation of return. So, a penny out of every dollar, and it's not given without strings.