UN Summit Strikes Climate Deal Promising "Damage Aid" To Poor Nations

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UN Summit Strikes Climate Deal Promising "Damage Aid" To Poor Nations

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday December 9, 2012 @02:20AM from the that-should-take-care-of-that dept.

Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that UN climate talks in Doha have closed, with a historic shift in principle agreed to by nearly 200 nations, extending the Kyoto Protocol through 2020 and establishing for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change. Until now rich nations have agreed to help developing countries to get clean energy and adapt to climate change, but they have stopped short of accepting responsibility for damage caused by climate change elsewhere. 'It is a breakthrough,' says Martin Khor of the South Center — an association of 52 developing nations. 'The term Loss and Damage is in the text — this is a huge step in principle. Next comes the fight for cash.' U.S. negotiators made certain that neither the word 'compensation,' nor any other term connoting legal liability, was used, to avoid opening the floodgates to litigation – instead, the money will be judged as aid. Ronny Jumea, from the Seychelles, told rich nations earlier that discussion of compensation would not have been needed if they had cut emissions earlier. 'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?' While the United States has not adopted a comprehensive approach to climate change, the Obama administration has put in place a significant auto emissions reduction program and a plan to regulate carbon dioxide from new power plants. 'What this meeting reinforced is that while this is an important forum, it is not the only one in which progress can and must be made,' says Jennifer Haverkamp, director of the international climate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund. The disconnect between the level of ambition the parties are showing here and what needs to happen to avoid dangerous climate change is profound.'"

29 of 212 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ah, so there we go.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-09 02:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

With this, we see their real purpose.
Climate change.... Well, it's always changing, so the money will always have to flow. Another unending stream.
What a shock.
1. Re:Ah, so there we go.... by khallow · 2012-12-09 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Do you seriously think that these negotiators are so stupid that they cannot distinguish between natural and anthropomorphic climate change?
  Well, a large portion of them probably are that stupid. Most of the rest are looking for loot.
  
  The only shock here is that one individual believes that they are more intelligent and have a better grasp of the environment, economics, and politics than the thousands of people who (directly or indirectly) contribute to these negotiations.
  What's sad here is that the individual is probably right. When you have a revenue stream of tens to hundreds of billions per year, then that's plenty of incentive to be as wrong as you can get away with. It's interesting how this move followed a round of discoveries which claim harm of global warming is worse and more urgent than first claimed,
  
  Maybe there's a real threat from AGW, but this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious.
2. Re:Ah, so there we go.... by flaming+error · 2012-12-09 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious."
  As you evaluate the various competing claims before you, consider that perhaps laymen swayed by appearances and compelled to impute motives on strangers might not have the intellectual high ground over people who have studied and debated the topic for decades and live by the scientific method.
3. Re:Ah, so there we go.... by argStyopa · 2012-12-09 08:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's always, nakedly, been about wealth redistribution.
  Why do you think India and China - the fastest growing (and now largest) emitters of CO2 - were omitted from the original Kyoto accord?
  Oh, there's a pastiche of 'let's save the planet' but then the road to hell has always been paved with what, again?
  There's a reason they so bitterly hate the term ecomarxists....it strikes waaay too close.
  Go ahead mod me down as 'flamebait' and 'troll'. As the 'climate changers' keep telling everyone, truth isn't based on popular opinion.
  
  --
  -Styopa
4. Re:Ah, so there we go.... by lennier · 2012-12-09 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's always, nakedly, been about wealth redistribution.
  Oh, the humanity! Those nasty, wicked, impoverished nations teeming with starving people who have all the money and social rank and political power and weapons will force - at gunpoint, even! or maybe just with their hectoring, angry words! or their faces! - a tiny beseiged elite of virtuous billionaires to solve a problem facing everyone and which just drowned New York. But the problem can't be solved, because drowning countries is right and just and honourable and we all know it. And yet they pass bad laws like this. It's horrible, that's what it is. But oh well. It's not like educated billionaires who own mega-corporations have any power in the world, is it? Always they're the ones who get downtrodden and stepped on by the naked jackboot of the filthy masses. All those poor people, swarming everywhere! Eating and breeding and voting! Every day, vote vote vote! Like it's a democracy or something! Filling the world's governments with twisted, perverse policies that benefit the middle-class! Don't the billionaires get any say at all? Those long-suffering saints! One day things must change! One day, just once, a billionaire will stand up and say "No!" to a poor person! One day Atlas must shrug!
  Yeah, I don't think that's how the balance of social power actually works anywhere outside Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan's mind.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
5. Re:Ah, so there we go.... by TapeCutter · 2012-12-09 09:42 · Score: 2
  
  It's interesting how this move followed a round of discoveries which claim harm of global warming is worse and more urgent than first claimed,
  This "move" was a key part of the Kyoto treaty and was the stated reason why the USA didn't join, that makes it at least 15yrs old, the yearly conferences have only been going for 18yrs in total so it's a pretty good bet this "move" started before the talking. The rest of your post is just an irrational anti-science rant that does not belong on a geek site.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
6. Re:Ah, so there we go.... by Namarrgon · 2012-12-09 15:11 · Score: 2
  
  In Tuvalu, sea level rises of an average of 5mm/year over the last 60 years have now resulted in regular tidal flooding of low-lying areas like the main airport. Inland salt water seeps are destroying their coconut and taro crops. Tuvalu's vulnerability to strengthening tropical cyclones is significantly increased, as in the case of Tropical Cyclone Bebe, which in 1972 sent a storm surge right over the entire main island, destroying many buildings and uprooting 90% of the trees.
  There is now a regular exodus of Tuvaluans to New Zealand, which has agreed to absorb the entire population in the event that Tuvalu becomes completely uninhabitable.
  
  --
  Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
7. Re:Ah, so there we go.... by pete6677 · 2012-12-09 16:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And by what standard do you judge corruption?
  As a Chicago resident, by the number of Democrats involved.
If they can still print the email by paiute · 2012-12-09 02:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Dear Seychelles,

We are sincerely sorry that your small island nation has been covered over by the Indian Ocean.

Attached is a coupon for 10% off any Boeing or Raytheon product. Simply print the coupon and present it at your local dealership to redeem.

Best wishes,
The United States of America

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
1. Re:If they can still print the email by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-12-09 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  So . . . what will actually, legally, happen when the Seychelles go under? I mean, no land, no country, right? Or will they have some legal entity elsewhere that represents the waters over the islands? Another empty seat at the UN? What about long term debt? Can you still own land underwater? Maybe real estate investors might want to start building under water hotels? Maybe the submerged country will be a scuba divers' paradise?
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
2. Re:If they can still print the email by budgenator · 2012-12-09 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Most of the islands of the Seychelles are coral islands and atolls, which means they will always look like they are on the verge of becoming inundated, no matter what the sea levels do. Sealevel rises measured in millimeters per decade just don't seem that scary, hasn't been any significant warming for 16 years; these people are more worried about the gravy-train ending than anything else.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-09 02:44 · Score: 2, Informative

I want to know where all of this "compensation" is going to come from. Our debt to gdp ratio is approaching 100 percent and rising, and the Europeans aren't exactly in good shape either. I don't know how Europeans feel, but I think when there is a choice between maintaining social security, medicare, and the military or giving money to brown people in a foreign country, Americans will choose the former.
1. Re:LOL by ashelton · 2012-12-09 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't really commit anyone to anything. It's mostly so they could get something out and not look like they'd just had a junket.
US bribes help stop climate action by FriendlyLurker · 2012-12-09 02:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

WikiLeaks reveals US bribes help stop climate action
Re:Just another money grab. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-09 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

What an idiotic comment. Rich countries have generally contributed to the problem far more than the rest, but the rest will (and are) facing the brunt if the problems. Sandy was bad, but others have had it worse. This principle has been around for decades but rich countries have dragged their feet in doing anything I even this latest deal doesn't amount to much. The charade is the rich countries pretending that they are concerned.
Seems like by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-12-09 03:10 · Score: 3, Informative

There are two different stories here. One says that wealthier nations will offer humanitarian aid to disaster struck areas, the other claims that general compensation is due for damages. Two completely different things, and the actual facts of the matter seem to be more towards humanitarian aid.
1. Re:Seems like by phantomfive · 2012-12-09 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It looks like they agreed to encourage the member states to set aside up to $10billion a year, in order to aid countries affected by global warming. It also appears that money will not go to those countries until they actually have a disaster. In order to get countries like the US to agree to this, they chose to add that money to the crisis relief fund, instead of creating a new global warming relief fund. In other words, an imaginary line on a budget somewhere was increased. Also, the Kyoto agreement was extended for a few years.
  
  If you pay attention, you'll see when a disaster strikes a country, hundreds of countries around the world promise millions, or even billions, in aid to the affected country. As time passes and the world news stops focusing on the disaster, everyone forgets, and most of those countries that promised aid don't actually deliver. I suspect here is nothing different.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Annnnnd.... by HappyCycling · 2012-12-09 03:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is why people think climate change is just a huge scam masquerading as an environmental cause.
1. Re:Annnnnd.... by timeOday · 2012-12-09 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Mind if I ask where you live? I have a few truckloads of garbage to dump somewhere.
2. Re:Annnnnd.... by timeOday · 2012-12-09 04:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Garbage is a different issue.
  
  Perhaps, since garbage can always be carted away later.
  Maybe a better analogy would be a government that decides not to compensate residents when it builds a dam to make a reservoir out of a valley where people were living.
3. Re:Annnnnd.... by bunratty · 2012-12-09 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  Ah... so disbelieving AGW has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Thank you for clearing that up once and for all.
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
4. Re:Annnnnd.... by khallow · 2012-12-09 14:35 · Score: 2
  
  If it gets 5 degrees warmer they sink ... what has that to do with evidence?
  "If". That's what it has to do with evidence.
  
  Plus, there's the matter of timing. You're claiming 40 years till those people have to move. If instead, it's two centuries, then that changes the strategy. It no longer is such a good idea to pile up a lot of cash flow for something that's not going to happen anytime soon.
  
  Simple logic, melting ice on greenland, and perhaps a few ice bergs breaking of from antarctica is enough.
  No evidence that stuff "will" happen like you claim to justify your concern. For example, Antartica currently is accumulating ice and Greenland is within historical range for melting and a later paper indicates earlier results overestimated melt rate by a huge amount (about a factor of two or three allegedly, can't really tell from the story).
  
  In other words, the ice fields that matter aren't melting particularly fast for a threat that supposedly will be bothering us in 40 years. For example, that last paper above estimates 2 mm of sea level rise from the melting of Greenland's ice fields over a six year period (2003-2009). That's under 2 cm of rise, if it continues as is through 2050.
  
  OTOH, you need something more like 2 meters of rise. I doubt you'll see that by 2100, much less 2050.
Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay by rubycodez · 2012-12-09 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

hypocrite. the use of coal and oil fueled western civilization and increased average human lifespan by over two times, Modern material, medicine, health, food, all the blessing of hydrocarbon fuel. you are alive and well fed because of it. without it you would likely be dead already.
yes, we need to go to something else with little pollution, like well designed nuclear power reactors. but the planet has been made better for humans by fossil fuel
Re:Better Yet by MightyMartian · 2012-12-09 04:56 · Score: 2

Better translation: Fuck you, I got mine ... and yours.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Israel is already dead by Weezul · 2012-12-09 05:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Israel will die within 100 years. An average increase of 4 degrees C translates into a much greater increase over land because the earth is 70% covered by water and the temperature won't change as much over water. In the Mediterranean, that average 4C increase should translate into a 9C overland increase. Israel routinely hangs out above 36C during the summer. Israel routinely has 98% humidity in the summer. Humans cannot survive 100% humidity at 45C. I'd therefore expect that Israel will be effectively uninhabitable by humans in 2100, although obviously their humidity might change before then.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Re:Screw Africa by MightyMartian · 2012-12-09 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

What a hideous distortion. First of all the "First World" has been plundering sub-Saharan Africa for over five centuries, and second of all a good deal of the economic woes of the region are due directly to those policies.
Third; you're an ignoramus (and probably a crypto racist). There were sub Saharan kingdoms of a fairly sophisticated nature.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay by MightyMartian · 2012-12-09 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit. At any rate, the benefits of cheap hydrocarbons are now being outweighed by the dangerously ill effects.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
already given... by harvey+the+nerd · 2012-12-09 08:12 · Score: 2

Actually most people alive today would never have existed without the fossil fueled economies. Some might argue that this is bad for the species since so many are marginally independent at best, a la Heinlein. Consumers only...
Re:Screw Africa by stenvar · 2012-12-09 11:08 · Score: 2

Third; you're an ignoramus (and probably a crypto racist). There were sub Saharan kingdoms of a fairly sophisticated nature.
You can find a list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa
"Fairly sophisticated" compared to what? Large cities, writing, legal codes, democracy, entire empires existed in the Mediterranean and Asia for thousands of years BC. The Olmec empire in the Americas started in 1500BC. What has sub-Saharan Africa produced that comes even close?