The NY Times reports:
Year after year, calls have steadily grown louder for industrialized nations responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions already heating up the planet to own up to the problem — and pay for the damage. ...I guess the argument is that the Industrial Revolution somehow made Bengladesh worse off. But that is absurd. It previously had much worse poverty and famines and other problems. Those countries have no damages at all.
“The term ‘loss and damage’ is a euphemism for terms we’re not allowed to use, which are ‘liability and compensation,’” Mr. Huq said. “‘Reparations’ is even worse.”
The United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases historically, has long been cool to the idea. But in Glasgow, it signed a statement agreeing to “increase resources” for loss and damage, without committing to anything more specific. ...
Estimates of the amount of money required to address loss and damage varies widely, from roughly $300 to $600 billion a year by 2030. At the moment, rich countries have failed to shore up the $100 billion they promised to deliver annually by 2020. That aid is designed to help countries adapt to climate change; it doesn’t include funds to address permanent damage.
Another NY Times article reveals:
Documents show how the conservative group worked with lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices could go before running afoul of federal laws.The paper acts as if it has stolen documents to reveal a scandal. But all it tells us is that a conservative group was careful to abide by the law.
Update: Today's Science Friday is on:
Activists And Vulnerable Nations At COP26 Seek More Than PromisesI haven't heard it yet, but leftists have taken over science communications, so I am sure it favors paying Third World reparations.
Action on climate change is slower than many activists would like. And why payment for “loss and damage” is crucial for vulnerable nations.