U.S. rejects key climate fund

Not enough private sector involvement, say U.S. officials


The U.S. is refusing to sign off on a key climate fund that emerged from annual talks on global greenhouse gas emissions, just days before a UN climate conference is to be held in Durban, South Africa. Along with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. won’t sign the Green Climate Fund, the blueprint for channeling US $100 billion that wealthy countries have committed to put forward by 2020. As reported in the Financial Times, the Americans want more private sector involvement in the plan, while Saudi Arabia wants guaranteed compensation to oil producing countries for lost revenues incurred by measures to curb emissions. The Durban conference is seen as a vital meeting to set up a new global agreement on the reduction of carbon emissions, the driving force behind global warming. The existing Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012.

The Financial Times

Filed under:

U.S. rejects key climate fund

  1. Looks like Canada isn’t the only fossil in the world today.

  2. Here are the facts on the accelerating CO2 emissions.
    Check the data in this bbc link.


    China is putting out 26.5% of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
    China is increasing emissions by 10%/year.
    Canada is putting out 1.5% of the world’s CO2 emmissions.
    China’s annual increase in emmissions is 150% of Canada’s total annual emmissions.
    To suggest Canada reduce its CO2 emmissions and transfer funds to China, while China continues this expansion of emmissions, with UN agreement, is outrageous.
    This is what the UN. GreenPeace and Kyoto advocate.
    If anything China should be transfering funds to Canada.

    As for that ridiculous argument that Canada has to pay China because of its’ past emmissions.
    In the last 10 years China’s total emmissions exceed Canada’s total for the last century.
    By this logic Canada should look to China for reparations.the earth’s atmosphere does not care how many people live in your country.
    It is the total emmissions into the atmosphere that count. Not the per capita emmissions.
    The “per capita emmission” argument is a tecinicality used to allow over populated countries like China to continue expanding industry and increasing pollution.

    Time to end this charade and attempt to rob the west.Kyoto begone…..

    • But we have  basically outsourced our manufacturing to them.  Easy to keep emissions down when you don’t manufactuer the bulk of your consumer goods. 

    • Well, you’re definitely right about at least one thing. The earth doesn’t care what country emissions come from.

      So our choice is we let China develop itself the same way we did, through an extremely GHG intensive process of cheap coal plants etc, or we look at helping them skip a generation and move to the latest in GHG reducing technology on their power generation needs.  

      Per capita emissions *is* important when you consider just how many people they have, and what the impacts will be if we let them ramp up the slow and dirty way like we did.

      The problem is that the money isn’t just “reparations” — that’s what the inactivists would have you believe. The money is tech development.

      • This argument is emotional – not pragmatic. It means only smaller countries or countries with smaller population should have the right to develop!!!! This type of views will raise a whole lot of arguments, some of which will impinge on the history of mankind and geographical divisions – on whether it is artificial and man made or not.

        • Really? China is a smaller country or has a smaller population?

          Care to try again Sherlock? Your idiocy might not be blatant enough.

  3. Well past time the world fessed up to being scammed by the UN and the enviro-weinies.

    Let them collect pop-bottles if they want to carry on with their religion.

    • Proof please.

  4. Glo-Bull Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history.

    • Proof please.

Sign in to comment.