robzo100 on 04 June 2017
| Final-Fan said: Where is the $100 billion coming from? Is it like 2.5-4 billion per year over the whole expected lifetime of the Paris Agreement? $100 billion over 30 years is chump change to the USA, and even more chump change compared to the impact of rising sea levels on premium coastal real estate (and entire coastal cities).
Projects related to reducing global cimate change can't really be called "extraneous" to nations that exist on this planet IMO. I believe all the signatories to the Paris Agreement do. |
- "So as part of the Paris agreement, richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries. And that amount is set to increase over time. Again, like the other provisions of the agreement, this isn’t an absolute mandate.
From here: 4 Things to Know About the Agreement
I'm not irked by any means, this is how you find out about facts you didn't know, knew partially, had wrong, whathaveyou. Not that that will swing your opinion, but the financial aspect isn't a small deal, especially in the context of the US 2017 Budget:
Climate change that affects the planet negatively is not "extraneous" in and of itself. But the fact remains we are currently not scientifically sure how negatively impactful it is, how much of that impact can be changed by human activity(and at what cost), and how much is actually affected by humans versus other processes. I've not seen anyone be able to dispute the plainess of that, not only here, but in general(public, friends, family, other online forums, etc.).
Below is Obama's 2016 budget before that. Percentage-wise, not huge changes, and in the context of 100-billion certainly no significant changes at all. Keep in mind there are many specific spending bills and general finance structures already in place from 8 years of previous administration, so it could play a part, who knows how much or little it will change next year.
