Whats not OK about being rich?

Nothing, so long as you didn’t rely on an externality to do it.

The options for funding are just that, options. What finally emerges from the all the negotiations remains to be seen, but international taxes/levies of any kind look very unlikely.

The “crazy talk” comes from you: “the UNFCCC adaptation and mitigation funds will become global socialist funds.”

Here’s one CDM project that is far from a disaster.

Read: “other points”. Not CDM’s.

Massive revenues will come from adaptation fund and mitigation, and possibly technology fund. Proposals for how these will be funded vary, they could be assigned units and then auction them off, or there may be a charge (suggested US$2) per unit etc

Tin foil hat. Yes very mature.

Its actually all contained in the text (if you would read it instead of just proclaiming to have a superior understanding of UNFCCC):

http://unfccc.int/resource/doc...../inf01.pdf

Try Section 4, titled “Enhanced Action on Financing”

For example, this dozey:

“the level of the new funding is initially set at between o.5 to 1per cent of the GDP of developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II of the Convention; and
(d) the Executive Board, established to govern and manage the financial mechanism shall determine the allocations for mitigation and adaptation, to be periodically reviewed, taking into account the historical imbalances in and the urgency of funding for adaptation.”

SO does this not suggest we are giving aid (climate aid), but are losing oversight and control to the UN ‘Executive Board’?

These are all only alternative proposals at this stage, sure. But I am fine to be worried that even if they are not accepted this time around they are sure to pop up again, and even a compromise would be significant, I imagine 0.1% of GDP of developed country parties is a significant number.

(But para 173 and alternative options are the real killers – I urge you, please read them, and stop dismissing this as crazy talk (option 1: 0.5-2% of GDP, option 2: % of all aau’s, option 3: US$2 per unit levy, option4: international travel and transport tax (would hurt nz exports more than US tariff bill), option 5: travel tax, option 6: share of trading proceeds, option 7: A 2% TAX ON ALL FOREX TRANSACTIONS (again would hurt trade), option 8: penalties and fines on developed countries for not meeting targets, plus domestic ETS leverage and 3rd world debt relief in exchange for mitigation) some list right?)

There will be no “massive UN revenues”, because CDMs etc are counter party deals. The rules for such may be set by protocols mediated by the UN, but the UN does not hold or intermediate funds. These things are designed to work within the current system, not impose a new one. Unless, of course, you’re wearing a tinfoil hat.

Your second point is confused. Yes international linkage will allow least cost solutions. But it is the CDM that I am critical of. These are a disaster. I do not believe the CDM works to minimise global emissions at least cost.

You could also address some of my other points, ie the massive UN revenues, oversight and control issues.

…we run it out of NZ. Fund from the government level.

Ahem. Are you now arguing for massive government intervention?

International linkage is supposed to deliver access to least cost emissions reductions, and thereby minimise the cost to NZ. Doing it all within NZ is a nice idea, and I certainly think we should do as much as we can within our own borders, but not if the most cost-effective reductions are available overseas…

Does our government not already spend money on foreign aid?

Equity does not mean the rich give money to the poor, it is where deals are fair and equal. Is it fair NZ is punished for producing food? While Russia is rewarded for dirty industry in the 90’s, and an economic collapse after the USSR collapsed?

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. These funds may be intended for the good of the world, but I fear they will become bureaucratic slush funds. Impossible to have the necessary oversight, susceptible to corruption. Where are we going to be in 20 years (don’t answer something about warming- im talking politically)? Is the UN going to have larger revenues than most nations?

My thoughts are if we want to engage in this we run it out of NZ. Fund from the government level. We then have oversight and control.

(replying to Gareth, regards adaptation and mitigation funds)

Gareth, you laugh at my comment. Do you disagree that the funds being proposed under the UNFCCC negotiating process will result in a transfer of wealth from rich nations to the poor? Is this not socialism?

If you don’t believe that the UN is a socialist organisation watch the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PePbtEABzGk