Your thoughts on providing a "Climate Fund" to help poorer countries reduce their carbon emissions?

I think that a fund to buy the patent rights to best practice technologies and make those technologies available to everyone would be a good idea. Secondly, Western countries should not trade with, or provide aid to third world countries that don't use the best practice technologies they are given. Access to Western markets is a sufficient carrot to encourage the use of best practices. A handout is not needed. The Anglo-French idea will have negligible results beyond recapitalizing the Swiss bank accounts of third world despots and their cronies. The third world saw Western politicians create huge pots of money for bankers to embezzle and they are saying me too. A better use of my money is to buy goods made in Canada with hydro electricity in preference to goods made in another country with coal generated electricity. If limiting, or directing the economic growth of third world countries is an act of war as Conservative suggests, then so be it.

Great idea!

Just look how successful it's been to fling tons of money at a bureaucracy today and in the past.

Someone said something about how we have to make sure the money is being spent as it was intended.

When the f*ck has that EVER happened with a bureaucracy or governmental organization before?

Corrupt people will get their claws on that money just as they always have. To think otherwise is naive at best.

We simply cannot hold back the tide of climate change, whether the temperature goes up or down.

Humans uniting as a whole? It ain't gonna happen, it's totally contrary to what makes us what we are.

Look, I believe that AGW is probably true. I have no hopes of humanity uniting for a common cause.

Siberia (largest forest on the planet) will be logged until it's a desert - it's a pipe dream to think that people living from hand to mouth will sacrifice their destitute lifestyles for an even more bleak one.

China, though pledging to reduce it's projected Co2 output, will continue to pump ever more Co2 into the atmosphere annually than it did the year before, as will India... etc.

People will continue to breed and exponentially increase the Co2/human impact on the planet.

It is what it is. Better figure out how to adapt to the inevitable because we cannot hold back the tides of reality.

As they say, "Wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which one fills up."

I agree with the basic premise of the study, but I question anyone who proposes figures to back up their argument. It is common sense to believe that if carbon emissions create alterations in weather patterns and that those alterations will cause arable farmland to dry up then that alone would cost the world a great deal of money. If you factor in the damage caused by hurricanes, shore erosion and tornadoes that otherwise would not have been created, the amount of the loss will increase exponentially. If you notice, however, I did not throw around percentages and dollar amounts because I honestly believe that trying to quantify the future is an exercises in futility.

It is the wealthy nations that are polluting the most along with China & India. They should just use the money to cut their own emissions, I don't understand how sending aid to a low carbon emission producing country would be of any benefit.

edit: look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

China / America / European Union / Russia / India, produce 66% of the worlds carbon emissions.

Explain to me why the top producers don't use all the money they can instead of shipping billions to countries that barely produce any harmful emissions?

I think it's a great idea with the one caveat that a strong oversight system would need to be put in place to ensure the funds were indeed used for the intended purpose. Reducing deforestation in particular is a critical step in addressing global warming.

I was reading a blog the other day which was trying to argue how hypocritical it is for politicians and scientists to travel to international conferences and talk about how developing countries need to reduce their emissions while the poor Brazilian farmer is cutting down rainforest just to make a living.

Fair enough, so this is the solution to that problem. The wealthy nations can agree to provide funds which will allow those poor Brazilian farmers to earn a living without needing to cut down rainforest. Instead of complaining about the problem, we need to look for solutions like these.

Nothing more that a scam to shake down the "rich" countires and even out the playing field so your standard of living will go down and thiers up. What governmental system does that sound like to you? I'll give you three guesses and democracy or representative republic is not the answer.

A case could be made either way. It sounds like a great idea but will probably just line the wrong people's pockets.

a pure waste of money, like many other program where richer country lost loan to political scoundrel who lived it large on behave of their people.

What we need to do is ensure that poorer countries are allowed to develop their resources and use coal burning power plants to bring them up to a par with the rest of the world in terms of economic status.

Preventing them from doing this is an act of war.

I am shocked, shocked! that global politicians would use the fight against global warming to justify redistributionist policies.

But I'm not worried. All the elitist scientists here assure me that AGW has nothing to do with socialism.