What’s the UN’s COP26 Global Warming Conference About? Money.


Staff member
What’s the UN’s COP26 Global Warming Conference About? Money.
By Daniel Greenfield

You could just as easily broaden that question to, “What is the entire environmentalist movement about?” And the answer, as with much of the Left, would be daddy issues and money.

At the grand international level, third world countries are happy to show up to an international forum, eat lunches in fine dining establishment, and play into the lefty chicken little business, as long as they’re getting paid.

After 11 days of climate talks that have included progress on protecting forests, phasing out coal and transitioning to electric cars, the future of our planet has boiled down to one key thing: who’s going to pay for the mess we’re in?

You are. Obviously.

In what has been the fiercest opposition to the summit’s draft agreement published Wednesday, Bolivia’s chief negotiator Diego Pacheco said his country and 21 other allied nations — including major emitters like China, India and Saudi Arabia — would oppose the entire section on climate change mitigation.

Rendering the entire thing pointless.

That section contains all of the agreement’s language around reducing emissions

The issue at the heart of this sentiment is money. He made clear that making such a transition would be impossible if rich nations didn’t start paying their fair share — including for developing countries to adapt to the impacts of the crisis. Developing nations have repeatedly complained about so-called climate finance this week, and it and has emerged as the biggest sticking point stalling the talks.

The bottom line is that third world countries participate in international forums to get payoffs in exchange for their support. The climate nonsense is no different. And we’re expected to pay.

Rich countries agreed more than 10 years ago to transfer $100 billion a year to developing nations to help their transformation to low-carbon economies and to adapt to the climate crisis. Adaptation can involve anything from building sea walls to prevent flooding, to moving communities back from the coast and retrofitting homes to netter withstand extreme weather events.

Not only has the rich world failed to deliver the $100 billion by the 2020 deadline, developing nations say it’s nowhere near enough in the first place. They also want a 50-50 split between mitigation — measures to reduce emissions — and adaptation. Far more money has flowed to measures focused on cutting emissions.

Cutting emissions is not fun. But “mitigation” projects are basically free infrastructure. And they would like us to pay for their infrastructure, but have much less interest in mitigation. Now if they actually believed the world was ending, they wouldn’t feel that way. But since it’s all about the money, that’s exactly how they do feel.

And we’ll pay. Not to save the planet, but to increase the value of “socially responsible investments” and “climate portfolios” now held by much of the leftist ruling class.

But they’ll demand more money.

If Gore can make a fortune, why shouldn’t they.