Many people are aware that the COP29 climate conference was going on in Baku, Azerbaijan, a petro-state. But how many were aware that across the world in Brazil, the G20 Summit was going on at the same time?That matters too, because they're linked in a scheme to transfer money from developed countries, to the Third World.For example, in 2018 Robert Lyman, energy economist, former public servant and diplomat with some 37 years experience in policy matters, commented: "The G20 Finance Ministers and central bank officials committed to trying to facilitate the mobilization of $90 trillion over the period to 2030, which averages $6 trillion per year. They made no statement concerning what level of funding they would try to encourage beyond that. Since then, deciding on the right level of climate finance or aid that the wealthier countries should provide to the developing countries has been a recurring topic at the annual meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, usually referred to as the COPs.”“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analysis and group-think is focused on restraining global temperatures to 2100 and beyond, so one has to assume they don't plan to let up in 2030. Extending $6 trillion a year to 2100 means spending $510,000,000,000,000, which is $510 trillion, or over half a quadrillion U.S. dollars by then.”The more recent meetings of the COP have also focused on the money. Last year, the developing countries said they wanted at least $2 trillion a year in aid to reduce emissions and adapt their economies to climate changes that they blame on the richer countries. Making little progress at the COP meetings, they are now seeking support from the G20 governments.Not much has changed. Commenting as the last G20 and COP wrapped up, Lyman says, “The volume of documentation produced by the UNFCCC (COP 29) and its various committees and sub-committees is so large that I cannot lay my hands on the latest background paper setting out the demands of the developing countries for ever-more funding. At COP 28, the demands were for at least USD $1.3 trillion per year for mitigation, at least USD $600 billion per year for adaptation and an open-ended, basically unlimited, amount of money for so-called "loss and damages".”“Loss and damages” are the monies that industrialized Western nations are supposed to pay to the so-called Global South because the claim is that our use of fossil fuels for decades, has made those countries have more extreme weather events. This is not supported by the scientific evidence, but wallet raiders don’t want substantiating evidence for their claims. They just want your money. Lots of it.Lyman continues: “I recall reading one background paper at the time of the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn in June 2024 in which a semi-official estimate was made of the need for climate aid to be at least USD $5.6 trillion per year until 2050.”If we look at the COP29 negotiations and those of the G20, we find that what began as small document of 9 pages on this topic, has mushroomed into a >30 page document filled with hedging comments in square brackets. So many that no one can make sense of it anymore.According to Lyman, there are an almost unlimited number of unresolved issues concerning the quantum of aid, who will pay, who will receive, how much will be grants and how much loans, the measures needed to make the whole package more "gender-responsive" and so on and so on. Added to the complication is the fact that there are gaps in the reporting by the donor countries as to how much they already donate, and disputes over what should be considered "climate aid" and which should be considered part of traditional Official Development Assistance.I was aghast to learn from him that the global spending on "climate measures" is already over US$1.3 trillion per year, dominated by China, the EU and North America. According to the UNFCCC's Sixth Biennial Assessment of Climate Finance Flows prepared for COP 29, in 2022 the multilateral development banks provided US$60.7 billion in climate finance to developing countries in 2022, and private financial institutions "mobilized by bilateral and multilateral channels" (whatever that means) increased to US$22 billion in 2022.The calls for US$2 trillion and more in climate aid per year are based on fantasy. Everyone knows that developed countries, already dealing with huge debt burdens, will not commit to pay such outrageous amounts. One supposes the goal of the debate is simply to see how much in additional funds can be extracted while of course making it appear that the developed countries (but not China) are somehow guilty for being so stingy and not wanting to save the planet enough. Of course, the planet doesn't need saving because CO2 is net beneficial, and we are too cold! The benefits of CO2 fertilization are far greater than any harmful effects.But the outlandish financial demands will also serve as good excuses as to why the developing countries will not attain the unrealistic emissions reduction targets.Despite there having been about a thousand meetings over the course of the past year on these climate and finance issues, as usual, at COP29, it all comes down to the wire and a ticking clock. I remember reading “You Can Negotiate Anything” by Herb Cohen, years ago. He noted that this was a surefire way to make a terrible deal.
