Doha's climate justice: will China now pay the rest of the world?

Do ha, so good.

One result of Doha is to allow the dumbest countries on Earth to continue poisoning their economies by extending the pointless Kyoto Protocol (which no longer includes Japan, New Zealand, Russia and Canada, and has never included the US, or any developing countries) until 2020. Even the Kiwis are smart enough to have bailed out, but not Australia, with Greg Combet proudly shackling us to the stern of the Titanic as she sinks beneath the waves.

More important than that is talk of “compensation” for “loss and damage” to developing countries caused by climate change.

As Tim Wilson puts it in The Australian this morning:

Unsurprisingly, developing countries want a blank cheque. Doing so would give life to the comments at the start of the summit from the chief of the UN climate body, Christiana Figueres, that “in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world”.

If anything will ensure failure to secure a new global treaty to cut emissions, it is that statement. But for many countries a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world” is what they are hoping to achieve with climate change as their Trojan horse. (source)

But once again, the muddled thinking would, if taken to its logical conclusion, result in unintended consequences.

China and India are two of the worlds largest emitters – China is THE largest. So I guess compensation should flow from China and India to, say, Australia, for the costs that we will incur adapting to rising sea levels [allegedly] caused by those emissions? Why should funds flow from Australia to pay countries that emit many, many times more CO2 than Australia?

No wait, they say. You evil developed countries started all this with the Industrial Revolution. Maybe, we say, but there was less than one degree of warming in 150 years. Look at the predictions now – 4 to 6 degrees in just 88 years! Your emissions, developing countries, are swamping everything we did since the 1850s.

The likelihood, of course, is that the compensation won’t actually be for our emissions, but for the behaviour of the Sun, or natural multi-decadal climate cycles, or some other factor the IPCC has missed or ignored, over which we have no control whatsoever, essentially reducing all of this to little more than global wealth distribution.


  1. Richard Abbott says:

    Mug Australia will probably borrow their financial contribution from China…….

  2. Just dropped fifty bucks into your tip jar, Simon. So now you’re only down $350 on the FOI cost.

    Thanks, mate, for what you’re doing.

  3. No, China and India will be responsible countries and tell the UN and its Dohar flunkies to get lost and do something good for the world’s poor.

  4. “The protocol locks in only developed nations. It excludes major developing countries such as China and India, as well as the United States, which refuses to ratify it.”

    The worlds largest emitter will not have to pay a cent!

  5. Look at the upside at least we will be first to jump over the cliff. What a bunch of clowns we have leading this country.

  6. Betty Whiffin says:

    How can any country including Australia be so stupid. It beggars belief BORROW and then GIVE out of those borrowings to the same country

  7. John Barrett says:

    Let’s just say SORRY (we didn’t know any better). Then tell them (the one’s with their hands out) it’s their turn. We just sell them the cheap coal to do it. Everyone wins in the end. Revenge on their part and we can balance our budget (after we get rid of the Green Labor party).

  8. Toscamaster says:

    I am actually beginning to feel sorry for Combet! He knows Kyoto is D,E,A,D, dead. He’s just taking too long to get through the grieving process.

    People grieve when presented with new information that conflicts with previous beliefs. Combet’s drone-like presentations betray his mental state. He’s depressed.

    Previously Combet believed that human sources of atmospheric CO2 would cause CGW. Now he actually knows the truth – it never has and never will. Let alone Australia’s human sources of CO2.

    Being in denial is the first stage of Combet’s grief about CAGW and Kyoto.

    Now he is moving into stage two. This is continuing to oppose the truth that CAGW is chicanery and using anger and bargaining in trying to avoid the truth that Kyoto is D,E,A,D. Meanwhile the Japanese, Russians and Canadians have moved on. To them and many others Kyoto is a JOKE.

    Third, Combet will inevitably accept as self-evident that CAGW is a total fraud. It’s just a matter of time (and our economic welfare.)

    Stage three is commonly associated with depression. Being in opposition and/or no longer being an MP will exacerbate this mental condition.

    As a compassionate person I recommend that Greg gets onto grief and depression counselling soon.

  9. Lol. Go get the money from India!

  10. Given that China & India did not invent the Industrial Revolution and it’s associated scientific & technical advances that have allowed the developed countries to move from high birth rate/high death rate societies to low birth rate/low death rate societies with a life expectancy > 30 years higher than it was prior to the industrial revolution.

    Given that China & India (and any other developing country) are now adopting the fruits of the last 150 years of scientific, technical & industrial development (which they did not have to pay for) – it is rational that if they subscribe to the idea of a CO2 debt that they must also pay for the fruits of those CO2 emissions.

    Not holding my breath

    • Peter O'Brien says:

      Spot On Ex Warmist. I was just about to say the same thing when I spotted your comment. Where would the emerging nations be now without the Industrial Revolution?

  11. Will China now pay the rest of the world?

    Well, they probably are willing to lend the money, so others can pay themselves into oblivion.

  12. Doug Proctor says:

    The foolishness of Doha 2012 is not unique. The personnel at Doha 2012 are not fools, however. You have to ask yourself what is “really” going on.

    The non-political Westerner sees truth and reality as the basis for action, even though he might agree that truth and reality are difficult to determine and have some subjective aspect. Does the rest of the World think like this, though? Do those whose cultures go back thousands of years think that action, most particularly for “others”, should be based on such relatively determinable, falsifiable terms?

    I wonder. I wonder if the perambulations, chest-puffing and disingenuous blustering isn’t the way the World actually acts. Witness the British esteemed MPs and Lords in action, American congressman on the stump or the ravings of Palestinian, Iranian and Israeli spokesmen: little of what pass through the lips of any of these is fit to be interpreted literally.

    Jockeying for position appears to be the prime activity of our Leaders (and their assistants). So Doha 2012 says we should shut our Western world and give the non-Western world our wealth, without commitment to either changeing the nonconstructive but non-Western ways that are also worthy of change, or even of agreeing to be accountable for achieving in their lands with our Western wealth what the wealth is supposed to achieve.

    Does anyone really believe what is said at these events? Does anyone care enough to call others on what they say?

    Perhaps bluster and fluff is all about making sure people are talking instead of fighting. Perhaps it is all a way to delay doing things that powerful people object violently to, with the idea that tomorrow the situation may resolve itself by going away. Perhaps the real foolishness is that rational, i.e. Western acculturated semi-democratic, citizens expect others to generally say what they mean, and mean what they say. That results-oriented meetings are the point of Doha 2012s.

    I’ll agree that suff happens at the Doha events that we need to pay attention to. But perhaps the blustering is just about trying to see what the gullible will fall for, as each participant is looking out for his ultimate best outcome, not for what intrinsically “makes sense”. If nobody objects, maybe that stuff is made real, and it works because each side has a way to spin it or game it so that each side comes away smiling.

    Even if they have to hide that smile to the rest of us, the true fools in the parade.

  13. Nick Caddick via Facebook says:

    Doha conference, unsurprisingly, achieved nothing.

  14. In reality, there is absolutely no concerns associated with the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 … a vital plant food, which necessary for growing the green canopy of the planet.

    Remember this… the IPCC said it in its 2007 AR4 report … 97% of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere each year is from natural sources. The remaining 3% is from human activities e.g. burning fossil fuels; land use, etc.

    The 3% human contribution by any measure is not material, and scientifically insignificant.

  15. Shadeburst says:

    I am one hundred per cent in favour of rich countries paying compensation. I live in a “poor” country and every little bit helps.

%d bloggers like this: