Mathematics of COP15

The leaders of World are now assembling in Copenhagen to save the World from burn-up by transferring a certain amount of money from the rich to the poor world to help the poor go green. The big one question is: How much money?

Emission cut is secondary since it cannot be checked nor controled if violated.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown seeks to give a “final push” towards a global deal:

• Over the next three days the leaders of almost every nation on earth will gather in Copenhagen. Their role; their opportunity; their responsibility: to shape the future of humanity. It is a defining moment.
  

Gordon Brown offers $300 million as start-up with a possible increase to $1-2 billon or about 0.5-1% of the UK budget deficit. Per year. If there are 5 billion poor people in the World, that would mean about 20 cents a year. Altogether from EU maybe $2 per year per poor person to go green. Altogether, from the rich world, say $5 per poor person per year to go green.

The trouble with CO2 emission is that everything counts: If a poor person uses a piece of wood to cook a meal, that adds to the total global emission. Supposing that an emissionfree meal would cost $1 extra, the $5 dollar would cover 5 days. But there are 360 more days in a year.

It means that the contemplated transfer to the poor world to go green, may be two orders of magnitude too small. With a cost $1 per day, which is still small, the yearly global cost would be $2 trillion about twice as much as the estimated 2010 budget deficit of the US.

The energy cost per person and day is about $5-10 in the rich world and  $1-2 in the poor world. To equilibrate + go green could require $10 trillion, to be compared with the US or EU 2008 GDP of about $15 trillion of a World total of $60 trillion. Thus the transfer would have to be of the same size as the US or EU GDP. Is it realistic?

No wonder that AP now reports that Climate talks deadlocked as clashes erupt outside.

Sweden offers $0.3 billion per year until 2012 to start go green for poor countries. New money? No, it is taken from the foreign aid budget intended for health care and education. Clever? 

Japan proposes a total of $5 billion a year until 2012, up from a EU bid of $3 billion. The gap to the required amount starting at $1000 billion = $1 trillion, is enormous. No wonder that no agreement will be reached. Climate alarmism is now collapsing as a result of a shaky scientific foundation incapable of carrying any economical weight.

The double hidden agenda of limiting the use of fossil fuel in poor countries in order to use it instead in rich countries, and using green money in poor countries for anything but climate, has now been uncovered, and confidence is at zero. 

If you don't buy this analysis right off, compare with what Janos Pasztor—the Director of U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Change Support Team, says:

• This is not a climate-change negotiation … It’s about something much more fundamental. It’s about economic strength.
• The nations at the negotiation just have to slug it out.

According to The Heritage Foundation’s Steven Groves and Ben Lieberman, this should be interpreted as:

• It is an international political debate over global redistribution of wealth and control of energy resources, masquerading as an environmental conference.