EU should give more Money?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8408821.stm

EU's climate aid pledge dismissed

Developing countries and aid agencies have derided the latest pledges by richer states to tackle global warming.

EU leaders ended a summit in Brussels having agreed to pay 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn; $10.6bn) over three years to help poorer nations cope with climate change.

The EU contribution is part of a global "fast start" package being debated at the UN Copenhagen summit.

But leaders of poorer nations described the sum as inadequate.

The 7.2bn euros is Europe's contribution to a proposed package of $10bn (7bn euros) a year designed to help Africa, island nations and other vulnerable states cope with climate change from next January until 2012.

The money could help them boost coastal protection, deal with droughts, prevent deforestation and use more solar and wind energy.

Groups representing poorer nations most at risk from climate change added their voices to the call for a bigger financial commitment.

Bruno Tseliso Sekoli, chairman of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) bloc, told the BBC that the EU pledge "cannot be enough for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the LDCs".

"Any money that would flow from the developed to developing worlds would be welcome but these numbers are very, very low," he said.

Dessima Williams, chairwoman of the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), said even the global sum on the table at Copenhagen was not enough.

"We just had a (Commonwealth) meeting in Trinidad where the figure of $10bn per year was put on the table and that was woefully inadequate," she said.

"One cannot do sustainable development - making the transformations in energy for example - with such a small pot of money."

'Recycled' money

Some aid groups said the EU pledges included funds from existing budgets.

“ This money is not even new - it's made up of a recycling of past promises, and payments that have already been made ”
Tim Gore Oxfam EU climate change adviser

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose nation held the rotating EU presidency during the summit, acknowledged that the pledges were "a combination of new and old resources".

"Almost all of the money is likely to be simply a relabelling of existing aid commitments," said Anne-Catherine Claude, of ActionAid.

"Many EU members have a track record of repackaging or re-announcing existing aid commitments. This appears to be the case here too," she added.

Oxfam EU climate change adviser Tim Gore was also disappointed.

"In Brussels today, EU leaders only offered small sums of short-term cash. Worst of all, this money is not even new - it's made up of a recycling of past promises, and payments that have already been made," he added.

'Fair share'

Announcing the deal at the Brussels summit, Mr Reinfeldt said all 27 EU member nations would contribute and that the EU was doing its "fair share".

The UK was the largest contributor at £500m ($800m; 553m euros) a year followed by France and Germany.

Eastern European countries, which had protested they were too poor to pay, have also made contributions although some are merely symbolic, says the BBC's Oana Lungescu in Brussels.

Many, like Poland, say they are unable to give cash and have offered instead a percentage of the future sale of unused carbon credits.

But diplomats admit there is no guarantee how many of those will be sold, our correspondent adds.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8408821.stm

Published: 2009/12/11 17:42:56 GMT

© BBC MMIX

With the global crisis you think this is a fare share of money....or just simply enough!

I don't know if that's the tone that countries receiving aid should take.

Call me an isolationist, but doesn't the EU have issues of its own to take care of regarding climate change?

Originally posted by inimalist
Call me an isolationist, but doesn't the EU have issues of its own to take care of regarding climate change?

But yes, I'd be interested what this aid is based on anyways. I mean what is the reason for the EU to pay it. Good will? Reparations? Self service?

Related topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6788399/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Brown-pledges-1.5bn-global-warming-aid-to-poor-countries.html

Copenhagen climate summit: Brown pledges £1.5bn global warming aid to poor countries

The European Union has agreed a £6.5 billion three-year package to fast-track the response to global warming in the poorest countries, of which Gordon Brown has pledged to provide £1.5 billion, it has been announced.

Published: 1:02PM GMT 11 Dec 2009

Asked why the British contribution was the biggest, Mr Brown said: ''I think we have done the right thing. This offer is one of the ways we can get a global agreement at Copenhagen.''

He said that because of its Commonwealth background, Britain was historically committed to helping poor nations, particularly in Africa - and he predicted that Germany and France would also increase their contributions to the so-called ''fast start'' fund to help the developing nations meet their share of the financial burden of a global deal.

The Prime Minister also confirmed that EU leaders meeting in Brussels have agreed they will offer a 30 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, if other countries are willing to commit themselves to ambitious reductions in Copenhagen.

This offer falls short of Mr Brown's call earlier this week for the EU to commit itself to 30 per cent cuts regardless of what other developed countries do.

Mr Brown said the unanimous decisions amounted to ''a very significant move forward in the search for a Copenhagen agreement''.

Europe wants a $10 billion-a-year (£6.14 bn) fund to be set up for the period 2010/12 to allow the developing world to take immediate action on mitigating emissions and adapting to the impact of global warming in the period before whatever agreement is reached in Copenhagen takes effect in 2013.

The promise of 2.4 billion euros (£2.17bn) a year is more generous than the 2 billion euros expected before the Brussels meeting of the European Council. It amounts to around $3.6 billion and meets more than one-third of the total fund.

Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, Mr Brown said: ''Britain's contribution is one that we are proud we are making, and that is 800 million dollars or £500 million a year.

''That makes it possible for the poorest countries to come to the table knowing that they can mitigate carbon emissions and adapt to climate change.''

Cash from the fast-track fund will go towards changes to help poor countries deal with the impact of global warming, such as sea walls, hurricane defences and low-water agricultural techniques, as well as measures to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, such as protecting rainforests and cutting emissions.

''This means that Europe is contributing its best towards the Copenhagen settlement over these next few days,'' Mr Brown said.

The Prime Minister said EU leaders had agreed to do ''everything in our power'' to achieve an ambitious outcome to the UN-sponsored Copenhagen summit, which is trying to put a framework in place for the period after the Kyoto climate change agreement expires in 2012.

The EU was ''prepared to go to 30 per cent as a cut in carbon emissions as the EU, as long as we have ambition from other countries as well'', Mr Brown added.

He said the EU would back moves to put a $100 billion fund in place by 2020 to help poor countries meet the challenges of climate change.

Mr Brown said: ''I will do my best, working with other countries, to contribute to the success of the Copenhagen process.

''I believe there is goodwill now, that there is a determination that things move forward. Obviously we are hoping that other countries respond to the generous offers that Europe has made but we look forward to a successful outcome.''

The cash pledge meant developing nations could now ''see that their needs are being taken seriously'', he said, adding that he hoped to go to Copenhagen early next week to meet with African and other developing countries' representatives.

He said he would also co-chair, with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, a meeting with African nations to discuss a deal on deforestation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess the point about climate change is that we are all somewhat in the same boat.

So I can expect someone from Trinidad and Tobago to come up here and put some environmentally sound windows in my home?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But yes, I'd be interested what this aid is based on anyways. I mean what is the reason for the EU to pay it. Good will? Reparations? Self service?

poor countries don't have the money to do it themselves and, because of their lack of infrastructure will be disproportionately effected by climate change.

Originally posted by inimalist
So I can expect someone from Trinidad and Tobago to come up here and put some environmentally sound windows in my home?

Not likely.

Originally posted by inimalist
poor countries don't have the money to do it themselves and, because of their lack of infrastructure will be disproportionately effected by climate change.

So it is help out of the kindness of the EU's hearts? I think the reaction is rather crass then.

Originally posted by inimalist
Call me an isolationist, but doesn't the EU have issues of its own to take care of regarding climate change?

Not that it matters. Anything the US and Europe does to decrease pollution into the air and water on their end, will be offset(many times over) by countries like China and India.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know if that's the tone that countries receiving aid should take.

You think. I'd send bombs, with that shit attitude.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So it is help out of the kindness of the EU's hearts? I think the reaction is rather crass then.

the policies of international aid have left a sense of entitlement in poorer nations. Their failures are seen as a failure of the international community. While there is some truth to this, in the legacy of Colonialism and the exploitation of corrupt regimes by Western corporations/governments, the onus is placed entirely on Western nations to make them into functional nations.

It is really weird. On one hand, I think its great that we can help out the poor in other nations, but when they feel it is my obligation to take care of them because of where I was born, it sort of rubs me the wrong way. So yes, I agree, crass.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not that it matters. Anything the US and Europe does to decrease pollution into the air and water on their end, will be offset(many times over) by countries like China and India.

its more issues like raising sea levels. While this will have marginal impact on Western nations, poor island nations are in huge risk of loosing communities and having thousands of displaced peoples. Warmer climates effect fish and other wildlife populations which disrupt local economies.

These issues also lead to increased conflict among people.

Its not even the pollution at this point, just the ability to adapt to what the pollution is going to do to the world.

A total friggin hoax. If they stop the sun´s cycles and Vulconoes erupting then they might change something. The climate isn´t a set thing that has to be a certain temperature, but a fluctuating thing which is now being used as another fear creator.

Pouring crap into our air and rivers/oceans isn´t a good thing mind, so progress in a cleaner direction is obviously a good thing. So stop the oil companies buying up patents on inventions which put their business in danger, and blocking their advancement!!!

I don't mind our country giving money to help other countries, but I'd rather Mr. Brown thought of our country first, we have problems here that could use a lot of money.

I'd also like to know where this money will actually end up... if it even does go to the people who actually NEED it.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
A total friggin hoax. If they stop the sun´s cycles and Vulconoes erupting then they might change something. The climate isn´t a set thing that has to be a certain temperature, but a fluctuating thing which is now being used as another fear creator.

Pouring crap into our air and rivers/oceans isn´t a good thing mind, so progress in a cleaner direction is obviously a good thing. So stop the oil companies buying up patents on inventions which put their business in danger, and blocking their advancement!!!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970's when the modern global warming trend began.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm

The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet is steadily accumulating heat. There is direct empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 26.4 Gigatonnes per year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising by 15 gigatonnes per year. Humans are emitting 26 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans are dramatically altering the composition of our climate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

A full reading of Tung 2008 finds a distinct 11 year solar signal in the global temperature record. However, this 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend. In fact, the authors go on to estimate climate sensitivity from their findings, calculate a value between 2.3 to 4.1°C. This confirms the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity.

the respective links have more full answers. Lets stop the meme game and have a real science discussion on this, svp

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

the respective links have more full answers. Lets stop the meme game and have a real science discussion on this, svp

Alright, let's do science:

Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today.

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Also, the US is seeing record lows all over the place, as of late.

Also, the global mean temperature, from satellite, shows almost no change in temperature, if not cooling ...for the last 30 years (As I've cited before.) The "faulty" numbers come from ground based data that comes from faulty or poor locations. Sine Meteorologists predict a cooling trend...some show a cooling trend in the last decade.

Right now in Earth's history, it is cold. Way below average. Our C02 content is also way below average.

I have yet to see solid evidence for global warming. Sure, warming may be happening, but so is cooling. This global warming shit really took with El Nino. I think that's what got everyone shitting themselves.

What we SHOULD do is improve our energy technologies from polluting the environment. That would be a much better environmental and economic goal.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Alright, let's do science:

wouldn't those just prove that Earth's climate is linked to CO2 levels and show how vulnerable it is to changes in them?

also:

When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, the US is seeing record lows all over the place, as of late.

Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2°C per decade. However, weather imposes it's own dramatic ups and downs over the long term trend. We expect to see record cold temperatures even during global warming. Nevertheless over the last decade, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows. This tendency towards hotter days is expected to increase as global warming continues into the 21st Century.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, the global mean temperature, from satellite, shows almost no change in temperature, if not cooling ...for the last 30 years (As I've cited before.)

Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
The "faulty" numbers come from ground based data that comes from faulty or poor locations. Sine Meteorologists predict a cooling trend...some show a cooling trend in the last decade.

While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Early estimates of ocean heat from the Argo showed a cooling bias due to pressure sensor issues. Recent estimates of ocean heat that take this bias into account show continued warming of the upper ocean. This is confirmed by independent estimates of ocean heat as well as more comprehensive measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres deep.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

The radiative forcing from CO2 increases greatly outstrips the forcing from solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right now in Earth's history, it is cold. Way below average. Our C02 content is also way below average.

irrelevant

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have yet to see solid evidence for global warming.

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet is steadily accumulating heat. There is direct empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

again, check the links for more thorough and well cited arguments.

Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't those just prove that Earth's climate is linked to CO2 levels and show how vulnerable it is to changes in them?

also:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

irrelevant

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

again, check the links for more thorough and well cited arguments.

Ah, so you only have one source, which happens to be heavily "pro-human caused global warming."

Where are these record highs that they predicted? Satellite measurements indicate little to no change. However, we ARE setting quite a few record lows.

That one little blurb from an obviously biased source does nothing to disprove what I've stated and cited previously. Let me show you what you've done, "I'll ignore the fact that an analysis of the ground temperature recording devices turned up 89% failure rates on proper placement and setup, ignore the more accurate satellite measurements, and, instead, go with an obviously biased source that conveniently states that th satellite measurements had some statistical errors."

Your next point is factually incorrect. See the previous point as to why.

Your next three points can easily be refuted by any number of studies that show a cooling trend or cooling measures in other environs as well. Doing spot comparisons is is pointless. (We'd have to compare the planet as a whole, as you've already pointed out.)

The fact that the Earth is cold is not irrelevant. You can't just brush aside the climate history of the Earth when talking about climate change. If you do that, you destroy the very foundation that you stand on, yourself.

Also, I've already cited no less than two sources that show the sun as being almost the entire source for any global warming trends noticed, any cooling trends noticed, etc.

I can certainly provide you with an equally biased and cited source as your skepitcalscience website.

Here, read every article every done on this website (lol):

http://www.iceagenow.com/

Here's a fact for you: C laming that humans have caused some of global warming is not fact. It is a theory. Claiming that the Earth is warming in the last decade may be fact, but there are conflicting studies. The may start to cool off as early as 2013, destroying the global warming theory (based on SOME sun activity models.)

I still stand by, and will always stand by the following statement:

What we SHOULD do is improve our energy technologies from polluting the environment. That would be a much better environmental and economic goal.

Edit - Also, you have yet to provide a counter for the Earth being in a stage that had 18 times the CO2, yet had temperatures around the same as they are now. Are you placing the blame on Carbon emissions?

So, you obviously didn't follow the links, which have very detailed arguments citing peer-reviewed climate science. Other than that you dismissed, for no real reason, everything that site had to say and restated issues already addressed (but by a biased source, of course).

cool.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

NASA: "2012 is not the end of the world"

KMC FORUM: "woo hoo, go NASA, stupid people who doubt science"

NASA: "Global warming is man made"

KMC FORUM: "boo NASA, bloated over funded partisan waste of money"

Stop pumping money into Africa and just bomb it already.

Good riddance.