mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Limping to Paris
No One’s Happy with the State of Climate Talks
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Oh, please! Climate conferences, are a waste of time and money which pump enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the second largest emitter (US) has reduced emissions 20%. Can we just stop talking about this sideshow.

  • CapitalHawk

    If I was assessed my “fair share” as determined by a bunch of liberals, my taxes would far exceed my income. This “fair share” business is the same when applied to plant food, aka carbon dioxide.

  • Proud Skeptic

    Actually, with the poor countries being underdeveloped and energy poor, they should be able to just develop using the new technologies being developed and proven (and paid for) by the wealthy countries.
    So called “wealthy” countries’ expenses to switch over to green solutions will be much more expensive because they have to replace existing technologies which they are already paying for.
    So developing countries pay once and developed countries pay twice.

    • Jim__L

      Trouble is, those new technologies are more expensive than coal. Developing countries would keep paying, and paying, and paying…

      • Proud Skeptic

        No. The technology would be developed in developed countries and sold to them. I’m sure that there would be favorable financing, etc.
        Besides…either you are a real, grown up country that has developing its own economy as an objective or you aren’t worth the investment.
        These countries are poor for a reason and it has nothing to do with developed countries. They are usually poor because either the land that they live on isn’t fit to inhabit or they have governments that rape and pillage. Either of these things is enough for me to decide not to waste any money on them.

        • Jim__L

          So you’ve slipped into the subjunctive from the “proven” in your first post.

          Developed countries have not developed green energy that’s cheaper than coal. It may not even be possible.

          • Proud Skeptic

            My original post was to assert that the entire justification behind paying for “climate justice” was absurd and did not reflect any reality relating to how the technology would be deployed. Since the developing countries are starting essentially from scratch, then they only have to do this once to get to whatever magic carbonless energy eventually comes out of technology.
            My second post is a prediction that their will be no “development” of energy technology done in developing countries. All R&D costs will be borne by developed countries and, no doubt, sold to all those backward, tin pot dictator ruled countries who are looking for the big payout.
            Let me skip to my bottom line…simple declarative sentences… I don’t care if these countries think they are owed money by us. They should not get it. Let them act like real, grown up countries and do what the US, Europe, and every other successful country did and make it happen on their own.

  • themaskedblogger

    It beggars belief anybody thinks the first world nations will pay the third world to have cheap, CO2 rich energy, while bending over and taking it with no grease in their own economies. It doesn’t really matter how many brain dead politicos riding the green energy crony capitalist train make who knows how many promises in Paris. Bloviation is all it will be. The Rabid Green Weenies™ will not be allowed to reduce the first world to North Korean living standards, and reduce Sub-Sahelian Africa and most of South Asia to starvation, in pursuit of their green chimera. The closer they come to accomplishing the task, the more they risk swinging from an inoperative street light.

  • Rick Johnson

    A failed climate change conference is good news for the world. Hooray.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service