• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One graphic $ays it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund

ludin said:
and nature emits way more CO2 than the US does in 1 year.
Click to expand...

The biosphere and oceans have not only had a net contribution of approximately zero to CO2 increases over the past one hundred or two hundred or two thousand years, they have actually absorbed more than half of human emissions according to NASA:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

All of this extra carbon needs to go somewhere. So far, land plants and the ocean have taken up about 55 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere while about 45 percent has stayed in the atmosphere.​

It's difficult to say whether the contrary claims are made out of ignorance or dishonesty, but it's quite disappointing either way.

ludin said:
All these funds are nothing more than wealth transfers to other countries who have 0 obligation to do anything with the money.
so therefore why should we give the fund 1 single dime of it.
Click to expand...

Given your track record in the above, I'm sure you can understand why no-one but the choir is likely to take your word for that. Maybe some evidence...?

It would make no difference to the deception and fallacy on which the premise of this thread is based of course, but it sounds like an interesting allegation which is worth hearing about.
 
Last edited:
Trippy Trekker said:
You may have noticed DP has graphics too to reflect donations. Some people give generously... and others (have you looked in the mirror today?), not so much. Your posts and track record speaks volumes!
Click to expand...



Is donation a requirement to have equal say here? You can throw your money wherever you want, as far as I know, there is no fee to post here.
 
Mithrae said:
It's disappointing that Russia has not yet chosen to pull its weight in international climate change efforts: So is that the standard by which to make America great again?

<snipped for brevity>

I did that because the New York Times (which the graphic in the OP lists as one of its sources) provides a breakdown of some countries' financial contribution to the solution per capita:

What Is the Green Climate Fund and How Much Does the U.S. Actually Pay? | New York Times

Industrialized countries have voluntarily pledged $10.3 billion since 2013 to help poorer nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the effects of climate change. The United States has pledged by far the most — $3 billion, twice that of the second-largest pledger, Japan. But on a per-capita basis, many other countries have offered more than the United States. Swedes, for example, will contribute nearly $60 each.

View attachment 67218472​

Not surprisingly, it seems that countries which are among the biggest polluters such as the US, Canada and Australia also happen to have the most powerful anti-science 'scepticism' and lobbies, and therefore somewhat underwhelming gestures towards the solution.

But still better than Russia... at least until now :(
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this. I'd prefer to see overall numbers, though, as I think that is a more honest measure in this context.

An argument can be made for India being a developing country, but personally I think they're beyond that status now. China and Russia certainly are NOT still developing countries, and should be ponying up some serious cash. The fact that they're not, IMO, is an example of negotiating weakness on our part and on our allies part.
 
Mithrae said:
The biosphere and oceans have not only had a net contribution of approximately zero to CO2 increases over the past one hundred or two hundred or two thousand years, they have actually absorbed more than half of human emissions according to NASA:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

All of this extra carbon needs to go somewhere. So far, land plants and the ocean have taken up about 55 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere while about 45 percent has stayed in the atmosphere.​

It's difficult to say whether the contrary claims are made out of ignorance or dishonesty, but it's quite disappointing either way.
Click to expand...

not at all.
both the IPCC and the EPA have confirmed and admitted that humans only contribute 3-5% of all co2 contributions in a given year.
so unless you want to say that these organizations are now dishonest in what they are saying this is a fact. it has been confirmed over the years as well.

Sorry but nature doesn't care where carbon comes from. so it is impossible to say that the extra carbon is all man made.
How Much of Atmospheric CO2 Increase is Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD


Given your track record in the above, I'm sure you can understand why no-one but the choir is likely to take your word for that. Maybe some evidence...?
It would make no difference to the deception and fallacy on which the premise of this thread is based of course, but it sounds like an interesting allegation which is worth hearing about.
Click to expand...

LOL I showed say given your track record on the issue no one should take your word for anything.
so far nothing points from anything but a natural warming cycle that is occurring.
which as been a .2 degree increase per decade.

that is well within any past warming cycle increase.
also ignoring past trends is something that zealot warmers do.

Obama pledged a 21% reduction in emissions. that will have massive costs and really do nothing to the overall trend.
those massive costs will be passed onto working families in higher energy bills.

provide an unspecified amount of taxpayer dollars “to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation

https://www.ft.com/content/b59fc2c0-456c-11e7-8d27-59b4dd6296b8

Obama also pledge 3 billion dollars to start.
there was no fallacy.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Is donation a requirement to have equal say here? You can throw your money wherever you want, as far as I know, there is no fee to post here.
Click to expand...

Your apparent long history with DP makes you far more qualified than me to answer your question.

Decisions to donate or not donate reflect underlying values. When it comes to charity, I have ample experience... and have learned to give on my terms.

When it comes to venues that I actively participate or have a vested interest in, I make a deliberate effort to add value. If I err, I prefer to err on the generous side. How about you Rev?
 
radcen said:
Thank you for posting this. I'd prefer to see overall numbers, though, as I think that is a more honest measure in this context.

An argument can be made for India being a developing country, but personally I think they're beyond that status now. China and Russia certainly are NOT still developing countries, and should be ponying up some serious cash. The fact that they're not, IMO, is an example of negotiating weakness on our part and on our allies part.
Click to expand...

China is variously ranked 78th to 81st in the world with its GDP per capita of $14-$16 thousand. That's lower than countries like Iraq, Iran, Mexico, Thailand and Botswana.

India is ranked 123rd, with a GDP per capita of $6-$7 thousand. On the Human Development Index, China is ranked 90th and India is rank 131. Yet even so, as I posted earlier China apparently did match US commitments dollar for dollar in "support" for other developing countries to address climate change:
Mithrae in post #31 said:
China's historical contributions to global warming have been relatively small as I showed, only escalating in recent decades. But for what it's worth, in 2015 it announced that it "will make available ¥20 billion," apparently matching the US dollar for dollar (it's about US$2.94 billion at today's rates) in commitments to help developing countries tackle climate change:

15. The United States and China recognize the importance of mobilizing climate finance to support low-carbon, climate-resilient development in developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, small island developing states, and African countries. In this connection, the United States reaffirms its $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and China announces that it will make available ¥20 billion for setting up the China South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to support other developing countries to combat climate change, including to enhance their capacity to access GCF funds. Going forward and through these steps and other actions, the two sides are determined to work constructively and cooperatively together and along with all Parties to the UNFCCC to support developing countries to transition to green and low-carbon development and build climate resilience.​
Click to expand...

Scrutiny and fair scepticism is certainly appropriate both for UN-related climate initiatives and China's own measures, because this is politics and the sums of money - while paltry compared to industries such as 'defense,' arms deals, development loans and even conventional foreign 'aid' - are still quite substantial. I would guess that the solutions advanced by such programs are somewhat less than perfect, but considerably better than nothing. Even so it's quite clear that the narrative promoted by the OP and others in this thread - the fantasy that the United States has done all this on its own - is patently false to the point of dishonesty. Given its lower historical emissions, even China's commitments are proportionately greater than the USA's initial pledge that it's now reneged on, and half a dozen major developed economies (Sweden, Norway, UK, France, Germany and Japan) have actually put more money in the fund already than the full US pledge, relative to their historical emissions.

I haven't particularly looked or found anything to redeem Russia, which has always been a relatively high emitter. Maybe that is partly due to negotiating weakness of other countries - but is it a good reason to excuse or praise President Trump's contempt for his country's signed pledge which was already somewhat underwhelming to begin with?
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
The biosphere and oceans have not only had a net contribution of approximately zero to CO2 increases over the past one hundred or two hundred or two thousand years, they have actually absorbed more than half of human emissions according to NASA:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

All of this extra carbon needs to go somewhere. So far, land plants and the ocean have taken up about 55 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere while about 45 percent has stayed in the atmosphere.​

It's difficult to say whether the contrary claims are made out of ignorance or dishonesty, but it's quite disappointing either way.
Click to expand...

Over the last 150 yrs. carbon emissions from land use and land cover change accounted for roughly 30% human involved carbon emissions into the atmosphere. From 1990 to 2010 that dropped down to roughly 12% due supposedly to a rise in the use a fossil fuels.

#1. I reject the notion CO2 is a pollutant. If so it should kill plant life rather than increase their growth.

#2. I have doubts in the reliability of these models. Apparently, there are several different kinds of models researches can use to acquire data. So far as I can tell they are all over the place rather than having closely related data for each given year. To me it is analogous to a bunch of different model types calculating the height of Hillary Clinton and providing wildly different measurements. One model calculating her height at being 20 foot tall, another and 3 foot, another at 7 foot, yet another at 4 foot 6 inches.

#3. Given number two, this increases my doubts that accurate "average" temperatures for the earth are likely very flawed calculations.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5125/2012/bg-9-5125-2012.pdf
 
To clarify my point #2 in post #59. I suppose I'm expressing doubt in the precision of the data when combining several different model types pertaining to estimated CO2 emissions over many years.

https://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/Experimental%20Design/accuracyprecision.htm

Accuracy and Precision:


Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. For example, if in lab you obtain a weight measurement of 3.2 kg for a given substance, but the actual or known weight is 10 kg, then your measurement is not accurate. In this case, your measurement is not close to the known value.

Precision refers to the closeness of two or more measurements to each other.
Click to expand...

 
ludin said:
not at all.
both the IPCC and the EPA have confirmed and admitted that humans only contribute 3-5% of all co2 contributions in a given year.
so unless you want to say that these organizations are now dishonest in what they are saying this is a fact. it has been confirmed over the years as well.

Sorry but nature doesn't care where carbon comes from. so it is impossible to say that the extra carbon is all man made.
How Much of Atmospheric CO2 Increase is Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD




LOL I showed say given your track record on the issue no one should take your word for anything.
so far nothing points from anything but a natural warming cycle that is occurring.
which as been a .2 degree increase per decade.

that is well within any past warming cycle increase.
also ignoring past trends is something that zealot warmers do.

Obama pledged a 21% reduction in emissions. that will have massive costs and really do nothing to the overall trend.
those massive costs will be passed onto working families in higher energy bills.

provide an unspecified amount of taxpayer dollars “to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation

https://www.ft.com/content/b59fc2c0-456c-11e7-8d27-59b4dd6296b8

Obama also pledge 3 billion dollars to start.
there was no fallacy.
Click to expand...



You using Roy Spencer as a source is very laughable as his work is constantly under scrutiny. He has all kinds of ties to the Oil industry which usually trickles back the Koch brothers. Koch brothers have many foundations and scientists on their pay roll to combat climate change authenticity.

climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html
 
katzgar said:
when you say the chart is useless when talking actual payment you are ignoring the column that shows payments made...dishonest post.
Click to expand...

The payments made are in multiple currencies...something Mithrae made clear. As such, that list of amounts paid is useless. There is no relevancies between the different amounts.

Tell me, did Japan at 77014 pay more than the US at 1000? Or did they pay less?
 
FastPace said:
Over the last 150 yrs. carbon emissions from land use and land cover change accounted for roughly 30% human involved carbon emissions into the atmosphere. From 1990 to 2010 that dropped down to roughly 12% due supposedly to a rise in the use a fossil fuels.

#1. I reject the notion CO2 is a pollutant. If so it should kill plant life rather than increase their growth.

#2. I have doubts in the reliability of these models. Apparently, there are several different kinds of models researches can use to acquire data. So far as I can tell they are all over the place rather than having closely related data for each given year. To me it is analogous to a bunch of different model types calculating the height of Hillary Clinton and providing wildly different measurements. One model calculating her height at being 20 foot tall, another and 3 foot, another at 7 foot, yet another at 4 foot 6 inches.

#3. Given number two, this increases my doubts that accurate "average" temperatures for the earth are likely very flawed calculations.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5125/2012/bg-9-5125-2012.pdf
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum :) There's a separate sub-section for discussing climate science itself. As I suggested earlier, there is pretty compelling evidence suggesting that in some countries - especially those with the highest levels of emissions, but not only those - there is a powerful current of anti-scientific propaganda and political ideology. But that really has no bearing on the premise of the thread, which suggests that there was something especially unfair about the United States' pledged commitments to the Green Climate Fund. The OP and thread title are not asserting that we are all victims of some vast conspiracy by virtually all the world's climate scientists, in all the world's countries and across multiple decades despite all ebbs and flows of political influence.

If it did assert that, I'm sure we could all have a good laugh over it. As things stand though, questioning the science is pretty much just a tangent to the thread which looks very much like a fall-back position in light of the data showing America's rather underwhelming contributions amongst its developed-world peers, and even compared with China.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
You've also contributed the most harm through greenhouse gas emissions. By far. I didn't think this was all that difficult to understand, but I'll help you out even further: If you multiply the US dollars per capita pledged (as provided by the New York Times) by the percentage of pledges so far paid, then divide by the (very rough estimate of) annual CO2 emissions per capita from 1980-2013 I provided in post #27, you get an estimate of real, hard, actual payments of US dollars so far per annual gigaton of CO2 emitted:

Code: 
Country		$pc pledged	% paid	CO2pc		$/GtCo2
				
Sweden		59.31		100	6.47		9.17
Norway		50.2		50	9.57		2.62
UK		18.77		56	8.9		1.18
France		15.64		32	6.67		0.75
Japan		11.8		50	9.1		0.65
Germany		12.4		50	9.9		0.63
China		2.14*			3.77		0.57 (pledged)
Australia	7.92		65	15.63		0.33
Italy		4.54		50	7.5		0.30
Canada		7.79		56	15.8		0.28
USA		9.41		33	18.83		0.16 (0.48 pledged, and mostly reneged)
S. Korea	1.99		37	7.87		0.09
Spain		3.46		14	5.63		0.09

* To "the China South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to support other developing countries to combat climate change"

It's a rough estimate, but more than enough to show how far the US lags behind most other major developed economies in providing financial support for solutions commensurate with their contribution to the problem. Many countries have already paid proportionately more than the USA had even pledged, before reneging!

However you still didn't answer my question about how high or how low you think the bar should be set for American 'greatness,' so I can probably guess what your next response will be: "But... but... Russia! :boohoo: "
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Still...you spout the difference between apples and oranges.

Per-capita...pledged...CO2...forget it.

Who actually gave cash...and how MUCH did they give? That's what's important. Did ANYONE give a billion dollars?

The fund wants the cash and they don't mind spinning and twisting numbers to get their former cash cow...the US...to give it. That's over.
 
Mithrae said:
It's disappointing that Russia has not yet chosen to pull its weight in international climate change efforts: So is that the standard by which to make America great again?

Just out of interest, I checked Wikipedia for the CO2 emissions per capita of a few countries of interest in the years 1980 (Googled some USSR data in place of Russia for that year), 1995 and the most recent data in 2013. An average of those data points gives a very vague idea of each countries cumulative per capita emissions over time, their actual historical per capita contributions to the problem of global warming:
Code: 
		1980	1995	2013		Average
United States	20.8	19.3	16.4		18.83
Canada		18	15.9	13.5		15.80
Australia	15	15.6	16.3		15.63
Russia		~12.8	11	12.5		~12
Germany			10.6	9.2		9.90
Norway		9.3	7.7	11.7		9.57
Japan		8.1	9.4	9.8		9.10
South Korea	3.5	8.3	11.8		7.87
Sweden		8.6	6.2	4.6		6.47
Spain		5.7	6.1	5.1		5.63
China		1.5	2.2	7.6		3.77
India		0.5	0.8	1.6		0.97

I did that because the New York Times (which the graphic in the OP lists as one of its sources) provides a breakdown of some countries' financial contribution to the solution per capita:

What Is the Green Climate Fund and How Much Does the U.S. Actually Pay? | New York Times

Industrialized countries have voluntarily pledged $10.3 billion since 2013 to help poorer nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the effects of climate change. The United States has pledged by far the most — $3 billion, twice that of the second-largest pledger, Japan. But on a per-capita basis, many other countries have offered more than the United States. Swedes, for example, will contribute nearly $60 each.

View attachment 67218472​

Not surprisingly, it seems that countries which are among the biggest polluters such as the US, Canada and Australia also happen to have the most powerful anti-science 'scepticism' and lobbies, and therefore somewhat underwhelming gestures towards the solution.

But still better than Russia... at least until now :(
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what their pledges are. They currently haven't done anything.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Still...you spout the difference between apples and oranges.

Per-capita...pledged...CO2...forget it.

Who actually gave cash...and how MUCH did they give? That's what's important. Did ANYONE give a billion dollars?

The fund wants the cash and they don't mind spinning and twisting numbers to get their former cash cow...the US...to give it. That's over.
Click to expand...

You should have told me from the beginning that your starting point was denying the science and assuming that it's all just a money grab. If I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered trying explain these tricky concepts like 'contributions to the problem' relative to 'contributions to the solution.'

I suppose you did kind of imply it, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And I probably will to the next person I discuss something with too. I'm one of those folk who just never learns, though I prefer to think of it as trying to see the best in people ;)
 
ludin said:
and nature emits way more CO2 than the US does in 1 year.
since the EPA has confirmed that Man made dioxide is only about 3% of the total in a year.
the US contribution to that is less than 1%.

so it really is a small amount.





All these funds are nothing more than wealth transfers to other countries who have 0 obligation to do anything with the money.
so therefore why should we give the fund 1 single dime of it.

I see no reason to see my hard earned tax dollars go to something that is nothing more than a slush fund to corrupt governments
to fight something that really isn't an issue.
Click to expand...

Whoever gave you that 3% number tricked you with the math. They ignored natures absorption.
 
reinoe said:
It doesn't matter what their pledges are. They currently haven't done anything.
Click to expand...

The very next column says paid, this isn't ****in rocket science.
 
Deuce said:
Whoever gave you that 3% number tricked you with the math. They ignored natures absorption.
Click to expand...

It would be generous to think he'd been tricked. But in Ludin's very next post he referenced a blog article by Dr. Roy Spencer, who added a note at the top claiming that he had initially been unaware of the data which pretty much invalidates his whole position: The fact that for thousands of years past (Spencer cites a 1,000 year record, though others go back much further) atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between about 274 and 284ppm.

Dr. Roy Spencer said:
NOTE: The following post has led to many good comments. The best argument advanced that I am wrong is from a ~1,000 year record of CO2 from the Law Dome ice core (a record I was unaware of) which suggests the recent CO2 increase is almost entirely anthropogenic in origin.
Click to expand...

If humans had not emitted any CO2 into the atmosphere, temperatures would never have exceeded the Medieval or Roman warm periods and likewise atmospheric CO2 levels would never have exceeded the ~284ppm levels it reached in those periods. Since we're now passing 404ppm of atmospheric CO2, it's clear that ~100% of the past 120ppm increase is attributable to human activity.

As you know, this is absolutely basic stuff that anyone with even a cursory honest interest in the subject will soon learn, which I had already hinted at in my own posts, and which Ludin's own source pointed out for him (however reluctantly). Suggesting that he's been "tricked" is very generous indeed! :lol:

But again, questioning the science looks like a tangential fall-back from the thread's initial premise in any case.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
The payments made are in multiple currencies...something Mithrae made clear. As such, that list of amounts paid is useless. There is no relevancies between the different amounts.

Tell me, did Japan at 77014 pay more than the US at 1000? Or did they pay less?
Click to expand...

Combining and extrapolating data provided by Mithroe in posts #27 and #33 can give us a fairly accurate estimate of each country's contribution. One post provided information on the amounts pledged... and the other, on the percentage paid.

I don't expect you to take the time to make the calculations because of your contrarian nature.
 
Mycroft said:
The payments made are in multiple currencies...something Mithrae made clear. As such, that list of amounts paid is useless. There is no relevancies between the different amounts.

Tell me, did Japan at 77014 pay more than the US at 1000? Or did they pay less?
Click to expand...


Your post is irrelevant. The point is payments were made
 
Mithrae said:
You should have told me from the beginning that your starting point was denying the science and assuming that it's all just a money grab. If I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered trying explain these tricky concepts like 'contributions to the problem' relative to 'contributions to the solution.'

I suppose you did kind of imply it, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. And I probably will to the next person I discuss something with too. I'm one of those folk who just never learns, though I prefer to think of it as trying to see the best in people ;)
Click to expand...

shrug...

I came right out the gate talking about the MONEY.

Mycroft said:
I notice China isn't on the per-capita list of payers, though they are on the per-capita list of CO2 producers.

On a per-capita basis. Okay. Another way of saying, "I got to spin the numbers to make the US look bad." Per-capita is useless. Total amounts actually paid are useful.

Look...even that little reminder..."If the US fulfills its original $3 billion commitment"...is spin. How much has the US actually paid? $1 billion. How much have other countries paid? When it comes time to dole out that money, what matters...how much was pledged or how much was actually paid in cold hard cash? Heck, if it wasn't for the US, that fund probably wouldn't have ANY money to dole out.

Trump hit them hard by pulling out. THAT'S why they don't like it. The money.
Click to expand...

Why are you surprised that I continue to talk about the money?
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Combining and extrapolating data provided by Mithroe in posts #27 and #33 can give us a fairly accurate estimate of each country's contribution. One post provided information on the amounts pledged... and the other, on the percentage paid.

I don't expect you to take the time to make the calculations because of your contrarian nature.
Click to expand...

shrug...

Let me know when any other country ponies up for a billion dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom