• Total voters
6
That nice Hilary Clinton has pledged a fund worth $100 billion (£62 billion) a year by 2020 of US citizens money, to help developing nation's cope with climate change. How much of that money do you think will be syphoned off to pay for things other than "coping with global warming" such as: Inflating politicians personal swiss bank accounts and funding lavish lifestyles of the few. Invested in military to be used in ethnic cleansing and intimidating/suppressing political opponents and invading neighbouring countries. Bribing influential people to support and condone illigitimate "democracies" and suppress disconsenting views. ## Answers and Replies mgb_phys Science Advisor Homework Helper Firstly It's a$100Bn worldwide, not from the US
Most of it will never actually exist as money, eg. China spends $10Bn building a dam rather than a coal station =$10bn spent in the 3rd world reducing climate change.

Then all aid to the 3rd world has strings attached, the same donation that 30years ago was for fighting communism, 20years ago was fighting drugs, 10years ago was fighting poverty is now fighting global warming

DrClapeyron
$100 billion to cope with climate change. How many grief councilors' salary can that pay? lol russ_watters Mentor Most of it will never actually exist as money, eg. China spends$10Bn building a dam rather than a coal station = $10bn spent in the 3rd world reducing climate change. I'm not following - the 1st world is supposed to be paying the 3rd world - so doesn't mean that that$10 billion power plant is paid for by the 1st world? Isn't this a direct cash subsidy we're talking about?

I'm not following - the 1st world is supposed to be paying the 3rd world - so doesn't mean that that $10 billion power plant is paid for by the 1st world? Isn't this a direct cash subsidy we're talking about? Well it's from rich countries that decided to support the fund. A few months ago a study was done that concluded it would costs between 75-100Bn a year to help developing nations adapt to climate change. I think that China is a rich country of this world; yet they are still developing. So if China decides to fund something in it's own country it will be counted. (Assuming China is involved in this fund, which I have no idea about.) However a dam in my opinion will not help a country adapt to global warming in the future... it may help reduce China's effect but it will not help them adapt which is what this fund is all about.$100Bn a year from the rich nations I'm sure isn't exactly a huge number. Europe is involved in this fund and America... so... I think you are being misleading in the OP, maybe next time post a source?

I think the question is legit though in anycase. The developing countries are plagued for the most part with large scale corruption. Much of the support money that we give to these countries gets siphoned away for personal needs or stolen. I do not think however we will be giving this fund in a 'direct cash' method. It will be done probably through various projects as mgb as suggested. I think a big factor for most of these countries will be food sources since agriculture will be effected and food supples for many of them is short already.

Last edited:
arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Why should the "rich" states subsidize the continued infantilization of incompetent states?

I would say from a balance sheet point of view most of these "rich" countries would look quite poor. I don't understand why in a time where most of the world should be deleveraging from their debt obligations some insist that increasing that debt load would be a better financial move in the long run. Pouring money into an unproven infastrature is not a very wise investment financially when it would be better suited in paying down debt.

mgb_phys
Homework Helper
I'm not following - the 1st world is supposed to be paying the 3rd world
The deal doesn't say that $100Bn will be given to the third world. Countries will simply count investment in their own projects toward it. The little bit of foreign investment will go the same way it used to do with USAID. Money is pledged to help the third world, so USAID goes to a US construction company to build a dam in Africa, since the company is working for the government the normal defense contract price and time overruns apply, as well as all the 'extra-contractual payments'. The company gets a nice subsidy, the country gets a half finished or unmaintanable dam they didn't need, the politicians get to say they spent$Bn helping the third world and the US gets to support a staunchly anti-communist leader and a gains few concessions about airbases.

(Repeat process for UK, the French and the USSR)

Token amounts will find their way to the target, just so she and those who crafted its theft will be able to say, "look how we're using the funds! Thanks! May we have somemore?"

I'm glad at least 3 out of 4 polltakers thus far aren't so easily hoodwinked as the majority of Americans.

ETA: Wow. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=986107" [Broken] If we're being slammed over offering a billion, I say let's take back the offer and go home!

Last edited by a moderator: