Vacuous promises? probably

Vacuous because at least one parliament or congress agree to the funding in 2023. Unless a rabbit is pulled out of a hat in 2022.


Nearly 200 nations agreed to establish a fund to help poor countries cope with climate disasters, completing a decades-long effort.

1 Like

Even if the legislatures vote to contribute the money (dubious) I would be surprised if much of it actually helped the developing countries construct useful infrastructure to protect from the effects of global warming (instead of being diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians).
Sorry for being so cynical.


As always, don’t forget to carry a lump of NaCl. A dozen years ago the Green Climate Fund was set up by the UN which was to administer the billions raised. Industrialized nations pledged to generate $100 billion a year by 2020. Over the years total pledges amounted to $10 billion, with no change in the last five years. The “confirmed” amount is $8 billion. In 2020 the Fund did manage to spend $64 million on administrative and board activities.



There is a very good reason for spending the money this way. But we are not being sold on it. In other words no one is coming to us and saying get behind this.

The reason is a sort of Marshall Plan for developing nations. Making them much better trading partners. Like we did in the aftermath of WW II for Germany and Japan.

In that light it does make sense. It can be excellent for the west. It allows a country like China in of course but China is reeling back on her heels from the Belts and Roads initiative. The difference being China lent that money and often now her banks are not getting paid back.

This all can be excellent for the west while reducing greenhouse emissions. It is premised in larger part on that. Bringing less expensive electricity to the masses. Remember a larger part of our sunken costs in power grids etc we no longer see, but the money sunk in is huge. Local power ie solar and wind are less expensive in that.

Bob, there has been an economic ideological shift in the US visa vie the EU. The timing is better now to do this.

1 Like

Only if you think it is a good idea to begin with. It may be, but the whole idea of basing money transfers on ‘loss and damage’ is pretty shaky.



Maybe it’s the “JC” mind set: that money fixes everything, that is in action.

Recall the disconnect between railroad management and the workers: management talks about how much the workers are paid, and how big a raise is being offered. The workers are talking about the inability to plan any personal time, due to the road’s requiring them to be “on call” 24/7. I had the same experience. The “JCs” would offer me an extra nickle, from time to time, but the problem was their attitude that they could get an infinite amount of work out of me, if they beat on me enough.

Maybe the third world residents would rather not have the sea rise the forecast 2.5-4 feet (or 1/16th of an inch, according to one “thought leader”), rather than the money, which would mostly be skimmed off by their own “JC” class?

Maybe some USians would rather be treated fairly, rather than have “reparations for slavery”?



It is true that corruption is always a problem.

You had mentioned that the sea level rise projection was for 300 years in the future. Three centuries (even one century) is far longer than infrastructure planning looks at. As Albaby has pointed out a number of times, cities are being rebuilt all of the time and over eight decades or ten or thirty decades the building stock changes dramatically as do population patterns.

In addition, the projections may be wrong. For example:

Getting back to the current COP27 meeting, the delegates have more or less given up on doing much about the burning of fossil fuels (as the increase is being driven by the very same lesser developed countries. The focus this time around, as noted above is on massive money transfers for ‘loss and damage’.

Of course there are massive problems with the approach including how to figure out what the losses and damages are. We can discuss those if you would like.


The article says sea rise 25% less over a century that predicted, but it doesn’t put a specific number on it.

Yes, rising sea levels would compel cities to be moved and rebuilt, all in one shot, rather than slowly over a century, as the original location becomes untenable. What would it cost to pick up the entire “lower 9th ward” in New Orleans and move it above sea level, in one shot? That is a lot of spending to mitigate the results, rather than a lot of spending now to minimize the consequences. Some places can’t be rebuilt on higher land, because there is no higher land on the island.

Of course, to a “JC”, not spending on his watch, and leaving the mitigation expense to someone who comes later, is certainly Shiny.

I have mentioned (a thought leader) insisting sea rise will only by 1/16" over 300 years. He was using that piece of delusional, fake, “data”, as a lever to advocate for repeal of all environmental protection regs. Of course, (thought leader) will be long gone before the consequences of his position manifest themselves. My (thought leader) following neighbor has bought a condo in Florida. I have not asked where it is, don’t care. Nor have I asked him how long he can tread water. :^)


1 Like

Great Xmas gift: A pool noodle.

1 Like

COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New “Loss and Damage” Fund
The cover decision, known as the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan, highlights that a global transformation to a low-carbon economy is expected to require investments of at least $4-6 trillion a year

Serious concern was expressed that the goal of developed country Parties to mobilize jointly $100 billion per year by 2020 has not yet been met


Heard about many of the topics involved last night on NPR. The amount of money has been building and the $100 b per year will be met next year.

I will believe it when it happens. Since 2017 the UN Climate Fund has stayed at $8 billion – total, not per year.


1 Like


Your data is way off. You are completely wrong.

Keep in mind when discussing grants that can mean the Gates Foundation etc…but can also mean government monies. What it means is administration of monies either way. Government monies can come from different entities such a universities especially if they involved tech or city planning or even agricultural projects.

1 Like

Not all of China’s projects are loans. Take a look at how they structured this deal:

To settle the bill, China gets to keep 80 percent of Ecuador’s most valuable export — oil — because many of the contracts are repaid in petroleum, not dollars. In fact, China gets the oil at a discount, then sells it for an additional profit.



Ecuador has sovereign power. It will get exercised. Meaning the projects can be nationalized and China stripped of her contracts. Matter of time.

Even the Congo much earlier this year or late last year stripped China of a major mining interest in the country. Nationalized it.

The Saudis did they strip American oil companies to nationalize their interests? The Venezuelans did. Others did as well.

The movement to nationalize properties the Chinese sought as total rip offs will fail China and will gain momentum.

Also the report says…“loans”. Meaning this is running through China’s banking system in all likelihood like the rest of China’s Belt and Road crap. The Chinese government orders the banks to make these loans. The Chinese are not happy with the government orders.

There is a way to protect contracts from sovereign national power—military force. The US has enforced its international contractual interests through its sovereign national power for more than a century. China could do the same. So far the difference between China and the US as rising and declining hegemonic powers respectively is that the former hasn’t used military might to enforce its national interests while the later has always done so.

1 Like

That is totally mixed. Latin America has gone through waves of nationalizations. There have been ramifications from America but generally they are not direct military involvement.

Anyway China is in a permanent decline. While the military weapons were piling up the country has mounting economic problems.

No. The numbers for the UN Climate Fund can be found at the link provided upthread.

The Nature article is about other monies for mitigation and adaptation, including bank loans. What was new out of COP27 was funding for ‘loss and damage’. This article is a decent introduction:


1 Like


That is the point. It is not just developed nations giving to underdeveloped nations. The totals were always supposed to be from different developed nations’ resources.

Your source is behind a paywall. But you are doing it again. Misleading the conversation when it is explained that foundation monies, government grants, university research and other projects…etc…are all included. You are changing the topic inaccurately. DC is using soft diplomacy. That is expressions of US wealth from many quarters in our foreign policy. It all counts.

Not so. In the original post you linked an article entitled “In a First, Rich Countries Agree to Pay for Climate Damages in Poor Nations”.

That indeed is what is new at COP27, payments for ‘loss and damage’. As noted, the Nature article was about monies for mitigation and adaptation, including bank loans.