Skip to content

BBC Push Third World Climate Demands

July 17, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Robin Guenier

 

The usual balanced reporting from Matt McGrath!

 

 

 image

More than 100 developing countries have set out their key negotiating demands ahead of the COP26 climate meeting in Glasgow.

These include funding for poorer nations to fight and adapt to climate change and compensation for the impacts they will be subjected to.

Those backing the plan represent more than half of the world’s countries.

Without progress on these points, they say that COP26 will be worthless and will end in failure.

But this new position paper is a warning shot from more than 100 of the world’s poorer countries, which are dismayed by the lack of progress they’ve seen so far – particularly at the G7 meeting in the UK in June.

They’ve set out five key issues which they say are critical for them in the negotiations:

  • Cutting emissions: Despite some progress, the sum total of climate policies in place will not keep global warming within the limits that governments agreed in Paris in 2015. An acceleration of net zero targets is urgently needed, led by those with the biggest responsibility and capacity.
  • Finance: At the failed Copenhagen COP in 2009, richer countries promised $100bn a year in climate finance by 2020, with increased annual sums from 2025. That target has not been met, say the developing countries – and it needs fixing if they are to trust the richer countries to keep to what they negotiate. This fund is intended to help those lower-income countries adapt to and fight climate change.
  • Adaptation: The developing countries are calling for at least 50% of climate finance to be used to help the most vulnerable to adapt to the effects of global warming.
  • Loss and damage: The historical failure of richer countries to cut their emissions adequately means that the most vulnerable are already experiencing permanent losses and damage. Responsibilities have to be acknowledged, say the poorer countries and promised measures delivered.
  • Implementation: Since Paris, rich and poor have haggled over issues like carbon trading and transparency. The developing countries want to see these questions finally resolved and want all countries to agree five-year common timeframes for their national climate plans.

"Highly vulnerable countries like Somalia are already suffering disproportionally from the impacts of climate change," said Mahdi M Gulaid, deputy prime minister of Somalia, one of the countries behind the plan.

In the report, the countries lay out what’s termed a "fair share accounting", which allocates emissions cuts based on historical responsibility and the capacity to act.

Under that scenario, the US would need to reduce emissions by 195% below 2005 levels by 2030. This could be made up of a 70% cut in domestic emissions plus $80bn a year in support for developing countries.

For the UK, a similar approach would see a 70% emissions cut by 2030 plus $46bn a year in climate finance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57839368

 

Judging by his uncritical reporting of these demands, I assume McGrath is happy for the UK to shell out $46bn a year in climate aid, about £1200 per household, in addition to the economy wrecking cut in emissions.

As for the absurd suggestion that third world countries are worse off because of the industrial revolution and subsequent economic growth, does the idiot McGrath really want them and the rest of us to return to the economic conditions of the 19thC?

World-Poverty-Since-1820

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

 

 

Yet again we see a report from the BBC’s Environment Dept which is totally devoid of any content critical of the green agenda.

21 Comments
  1. Harry Davidson permalink
    July 17, 2021 6:49 pm

    The decline in the number of people living in absolute poverty is real, real good. An achievement the world can be pleased with. May it continue to improve.

    I am sorry if that is simple and cliched, but sometimes that covers it.

  2. mjr permalink
    July 17, 2021 7:07 pm

    BBC also pushing the North american heatwave and fires as being down to global warming.
    Even the european flooding is down to global warming …. Here’s Harrabin https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57871308 (but interestingly Mcgrath extolling tree planting to make more rain in europe just a few weeks ago) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57722879
    And the other noddy, Rowlatt had a top of the show 10 oclock news feature on the floodsbl blaming it all on global warming .

  3. Gamecock permalink
    July 17, 2021 7:38 pm

    ‘These include funding for poorer nations to fight and adapt to climate change and compensation for the impacts they will be subjected to.’

    In Western law, you claim compensation for impacts. Compensation for ‘impacts they will be subjected to’ is just goofy.

    “They say that COP26 will be worthless and will end in failure.”

    Fixed it.

    ‘But this new position paper is a warning shot from more than 100 of the world’s poorer countries’

    Warning ?!?! Threats from Somalia ??? Ha ha ha ha! They going to team up with the Maldives and come and get you?

    • Dave Fair permalink
      July 18, 2021 1:27 am

      No, they are just going to show the hypocrisy of the West when we don’t agree to shell out billions at COP26. If the Western fancy-pants at COP26 try to guarantee billions, voters will kick out any politicians trying to effectuate such promises. Obama only dumped a billion on the mendicants on his way out the door.

  4. Ben Vorlich permalink
    July 17, 2021 7:55 pm

    This came up on Google. Don’t really understand the science or if the conclusions are correct.

    Multidecadal observations of the Antarctic ice sheet from restored analog radar records

    https://www.pnas.org/content/116/38/18867

    • Dave Fair permalink
      July 18, 2021 1:32 am

      “… Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica had thinned between 10 and 33% between 1978 and 2009.” A range of only 230%.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    July 17, 2021 8:13 pm

    “An acceleration of net zero targets is urgently needed, led by those with the biggest responsibility and capacity.”

    As far a one can tell, there are no well-defined net-zero targets to accelerate to. Net-zero, by definition, means large negative emissions…carbon storage in huge amounts would be needed to make a difference to the climate. The only published numerical target seems to be that of James Hansen and activist Bill McKibben…350 ppm. To achieve that would mean the permanent storage of ~65 ppm…or ~500 billion metric tons. And in the end we would wind up with the climate of 1987. How does that help?

  6. tom0mason permalink
    July 17, 2021 8:27 pm

    Matt McGrath was born in Tipperary, Republic of Ireland, this blarney merchant has NO scientific qualifications, and appears to misunderstand the very basics of chemistry, physics and biology.
    He apparently is a qualified ‘science journalist’ (A 9 month course from MIT — see _https://oyaop.com/opportunity/scholarships-and-fellowships/fully-funded-the-knight-science-journalism-fellowship-program-at-mit/).

    Qualification
    If fact is has been extremely hard to find much about any of his qualifications as they appear to have been wiped from his BBC webpage, and Wikipedia. I wonder what he’s hiding — all the travel, and his lack of scientific qualifications? Funny that, because he’ll often disparage scientific people for not being ‘qualified’ in certain fields, and disparages those people who wish to holiday abroad (see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/tourisms-carbon-impact-three-times-larger-than-estimated/ ).

    There is this snippet from https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/matt-mcgrath

    Matt obtained a degree from University College Cork in 1985 and a master of Arts degree in Journalism from Bournemouth University in the United Kingdom. He also completed a science journalism fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010-2011), funded by a Knight Science Journalism Fellowships grant, the most prestigious of its kind in science and environmental reporting. [3]

    WARNING [3] reference only takes you to the BBC webpage that lists all the blarney he has come out with recently and personal references I cannot find.

    He does however get to travel all over the world courtesy of his employer (the BBC) using public money. He used to blog about his travels at _http://mattmcgrath.me, where he spoke of visiting over 50 countries, however this too has since been purged of ALL information.

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      July 17, 2021 8:59 pm

      It seems to me that appropriate subject qualifications have become optional these days.
      To repeat a post I put on the recent thread regarding meat eating,

      “Here is a fascinating article in the Guardian authored by “Rosemary Green is an associate professor in sustainability, nutrition and health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine”
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/16/britains-meat-consumption-national-food-strategy-diet-climate
      Her Linked-In page is very illuminating
      https://uk.linkedin.com/in/rosemary-green-37042473
      Can somebody, anybody(!) explain to me how a BA in Music from the University of Nottingham gets you into such an elevated position.

    • tom0mason permalink
      July 17, 2021 9:08 pm

      Note —
      From Rachael Buchanan MIT report _https://shass.mit.edu/news/news-rachael-buchanan-knight-science-journalism-fellow-14-15
      The Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Program (a 9-month research fellowships, based at its headquarters) at the MIT School of Humanities, Art, and Social Sciences (SHASS) to elite staff and freelance journalists specializing in coverage of science and technology, medicine, or the environment.
      [my bold]

    • mjr permalink
      July 17, 2021 10:22 pm

      none of the bbc environment correspondences has any scientific qualifications .

  7. Harry Passfield permalink
    July 17, 2021 8:53 pm

    An acceleration of net zero targets is urgently needed, led by those with the biggest responsibility and capacity.

    Oh good! They’re going to start with China, India and Russia! Or maybe not… Fakers! The lot of them!

  8. July 17, 2021 10:30 pm

    Message to poorer countries: A rising tide lifts all boats.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rising_tide_lifts_all_boats

  9. GeoffB permalink
    July 17, 2021 10:46 pm

    More Rolls Royce’s, Palaces and Private jets for third world dictators…or am I just cynical….

    • Crowcatcher permalink
      July 18, 2021 4:18 pm

      Nowhere near as cynical as I am!!!!

  10. Broadlands permalink
    July 18, 2021 1:53 am

    Having (in the distant past) been a judge for the AAAS-Westinghouse Science Journalism awards, articles in newspapers and magazines, I can testify that none of the award winners, including the acclaimed New York Times science writer, Walter Sullivan, was someone with a scientific background or advanced degree. The problem is not with journalist’s scientific backgrounds, the problem is with their ideology. Good objective journalists do not openly display that in how and what they write. Few and far between when “climate change” or global warming is the issue. Maybe Holman Jenkins, Wall Street Journal?

  11. NeilC permalink
    July 18, 2021 4:35 am

    Get rid of capitalism (the UN aim) and the third world won’t get any money, because the western world won’t have any. But I don’t suppose they have thought that far..

  12. Robin Guenier permalink
    July 18, 2021 9:59 am

    In the lead-up to COP26 we’re likely to see yet more references to the alleged promise by developed countries at COP15 in Copenhagen to provide $100 billion p.a. climate finance to developing countries by 2020. Developed countries made no such promise: the alleged promise is contained in the Copenhagen Accord which was agreed by only five countries (the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa). Of these only the US is a developed country.

    In any case, the Accord was not legally binding: COP15 delegates only ‘took note’ of it. It contains no information about where the $100 billion in funds would come from nor any agreement on how much individual countries would contribute to or benefit from such funds.

    And the Accord’s statement that the undertaking is made ‘In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency’ refers to the US position that the funds will be available only if major developing countries such as China and India accept binding and verifiable emission reduction commitments: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/17/17climatewire-hillary-clinton-pledges-100b-for-developing-96794.html.

  13. David Wojick permalink
    July 18, 2021 3:04 pm

    The more impossible the demands, the greater the failure. Looking forward to COP 26.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: