Tad Cronn warned us about this. The poor–called “developing nations”–want to be paid a lot of money to go along with the global warming hoax. I don’t really blame them. If they were going to seriously give up the internal combustion engine, the cost to their people would be unimaginable.
In fact, there is not enough money in the world to make it feasible.
The result is a double layer of fraud. Poor governments want to pretend to care about their carbon footprint and wealthier governments pretend to dump money on them. They are giving some money away, but not as much as they claim. Associated Press reports,
Simon Buckle of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), wrote a report, tallying how much of the $100 billion-a-year target has been pledged. It’s about $62 billion a year as of 2014, his report said.
India, however, looked at the same report and said the real number was probably less than $1 billion a year. It issued a report of its own calling the OECD document full of “inflated numbers.”
In an interview with the AP, Indian Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar dismissed the OECD report as “a double-counting exercise.” He said actual climate finance flowing to developing countries was much smaller.
“It’s absolutely dismal,” he said. “There is no finance on the table.”
Buckle told The Associated Press: “I’ll stand by it to the death.”
And sometimes they try to count loans as aid.
A lot of the money comes in the form of loans. While it seems OK to count loans that are given at a discount rate or zero interest because that helps the nation, many of the loans are given at market rate, meaning they aren’t really aid, said Tim Gore of Oxfam International.
Many say those market-rate loans, often called non-concessional, shouldn’t be counted because they have to be paid back with interest. When the money is paid back, does the loan no longer count or is it negative aid?
And some of the money that is given is not remotely related to global warming.
But University of Zurich’s Axel Michaelowa, who studies climate aid grants, found “there was a huge misrepresentation. Governments were actually really not able to report properly” on aid that was supposed to help countries reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
His study, conducted on specific climate grants four years ago, showed a list of “projects without any conceivable climate change connotation,” such as Belgium funding for a “love movie festival” in the early 2000s in Africa, a U.S.-funded study on Savannah elephant sounds, and uniforms for park guardians in Central America with aid from Spain.
It is obvious that the point of this exercise is to claim there is some kind of planet-saving plan in place so that we will cooperate with being plundered by carbon taxes.