18 May 2015

Upcoming UN Paris Climate Meetings Open Up Gravy Train

Climate Change, Shameless Self-Promotion 12 Comments

My latest at IER. An excerpt:

In this post I’ll focus specifically on the enormous wealth transfers from rich to poor countries that are being proposed in the draft—as high as annual transfers in excess of $100 billion from the United States alone, according to some of the language. To be sure, at this stage these ludicrous suggestions are merely a “wish list,” but average Americans should realize just how much of their money will be on the buffet line when the UN delegates meet in December. In November President Obama already pledged $3 billion for such efforts, and the new UN proposal shows how much more the most zealous advocates have in mind.

12 Responses to “Upcoming UN Paris Climate Meetings Open Up Gravy Train”

  1. GabbyD says:

    Are you against all forms of aid, or just against climate change related aid?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      I’m against the US federal government spending money. I have personally sent financial donations to international relief agencies etc. and I am happy if other Americans do, too.

      • GabbyD says:

        did you mean “spending” money? or “sending” money?

        if it is “sending” money, why are you against it? perhaps a future blog post.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          I meant spending, which includes sending. US government gets its money ultimately through taxation (or monetary inflation). In present environment I think both are coercive means of spending.

          • Bala says:

            Why do you say “In present environment”? Aren’t taxation and monetary inflation (of fiat money) coercive means of obtaining spending money irrespective of the environment?

        • Tel says:

          Aid money always has strings attached, the US is buying influence, and a whole bucket brigade of handlers in the middle are getting looked after in the process. Often the money gets looped back to industry from the developed world based on who has the key connections. The money always goes to government at the far end, then government gets to decide who really gets looked after.

          Here’s one example among many:


          So in summary, “spending” is the correct word. When money changes hands in one direction, look closely for goods changing hands in the opposite direction.

    • Scott D says:

      Not to mention the likelihood that, if there truly are climate change victims by the year 2020, these regimes would actually use that money to give them aid. Color me skeptical.

    • Jan Masek says:

      Dr. Murphy went to Haiti after the earthquake to physically lend a hand, if I am not mistaken.

  2. Major_Freedom says:

    Perhaps if the UN begins to call it Civil Asset Forfeiture, it would be more politically palatable.

  3. Grane Peer says:

    I hope the sun explodes tomorrow.

  4. GabbyD says:

    Why delete my comments bob?

Leave a Reply