As the Biden administration’s disastrous Afghanistan retreat unfolds, there is now a growing realization that Biden’s colossal strategic fiasco will greatly undermine American credibility on the world stage.
There can be little doubt that America’s military and strategic failure will have devastating consequences for its international standing for years to come.
This loss of global credibility is almost certain to play out later this year when the Biden administration together with the UK government intend to push through a Net Zero agreement at the UN climate summit (COP26) in Glasgow.
The chances of a global Net Zero deal, which was unlikely even before the fall of Afghanistan, have now essentially evaporated.
And as a Net Zero agreement at COP26 looks out of the question, the blame game has begun, with UK officials blaming the Biden administration for refusing to increase its annual transfer of climate $billion$ to more than 100 developing nations.
The main problem the US president now faces is that after his humiliating defeat, none of his administration’s pledges at the Glasgow climate summit will be seen as trustworthy.
And while his approval ratings continue to drop, the next US president could simply overturn Biden’s empty promises and the Paris agreement at the stroke of a pen.
US must double cash pledge to save UN climate conference
America must increase its cash pledge to help developing countries fight climate change or one of the main targets of the Cop26 conference will be missed, British officials fear.
The Telegraph can reveal that Boris Johnson’s government is locked in an increasingly fraught tussle with Joe Biden’s administration over money to counter global warming.
Mr Johnson has made rich nations giving $100 billion a year of climate finance to poorer nations a top objective for Cop26, the UN climate change conference.
But with the Glasgow conference now a little over two months away, insiders close to the negotiations believe they are still between £10 billion and £15 billion a year short of hitting the goal.
Britain, Germany and Canada have all substantially increased their pledges, but America’s figure is roughly similar to what it was under former US president Barack Obama.
UK officials are understood to see America’s current proposed contribution as “pitiful” and are demanding that it “catch up” with other G7 countries.
They also acknowledge that Washington’s decision on whether to give more cash is effectively “make or break” for hitting the $100 billion ambition.
One UK source familiar with discussions said: “The big player that has to come to the $100bn pledge with a substantial offer is America. They’ve been saying for a long time ‘we’re on the case’. We’ve got two and a half months. We’re running out of time.”
Read more at The GWPF
By:
Edward A. Reid Jr.
Posted On:
Nov 24, 2020 at 3:00 AM
Category
Climate Change
Enlarge
The UN, the signatories to the UN FCCC, the parties to the Paris Accords, the administrators of the Green Climate Fund, the IPCC, the consensed climate science community, climate activists, developing nations, not-yet-developing nations, non-government organizations and globalists everywhere are anticipating major changes in the US approach to climate change as the result of the US presidential election. The anticipation is based partially on the symbolic value of US participation and partially on the financial obligations which would be imposed on the US as a result of its participation. Some developing nations are also anticipating accelerated development of their economies as the US de-develops while transitioning to renewable energy over the next 30 years.
The UN sees itself at the center of the climate change movement and anticipates that its power in that position would be enhanced by a more docile and cooperative United States. The UN also envisions itself eventually at the center of a global government, coordinating and controlling the actions of its member states. However, that vision of global governance would require the surrender of sovereignty by the member states, a surrender which would be far more likely with a US government supportive of globalism.
The UNFCCC and the parties to the Paris Accords profess to accept the concept that climate change represents an existential threat which must be met with heroic efforts on the parts of the signatories. These heroic efforts are far more likely to be made if major powers such as the US are supportive and actively participate in or even lead the efforts. They anticipate this would now be far more likely. However, it is not likely, at least in the near term, that the US would commit to the Paris Accords as a treaty, binding it to performance under the current terms of the Accords and the anticipated requirement for greater “ambition”.
The US is a primary source of funding for climate research. The IPCC and the consensed climate science community anticipate that funding is likely to continue and perhaps expand under a new US Administration. They also anticipate that research oversight would diminish to previous levels. Knowledgeable climate skeptics are far less of an issue outside the government than inside, in positions of authority.
The administrators of the UN Green Climate Fund and its intended beneficiaries anticipate that the US would fully fund its intended 25% share of annual funding for climate change mitigation at current levels and at the expanded levels proposed for the future. They also anticipate that the US would provide corresponding funding levels for climate adaptation and for compensating nations and populations alleged to have been damaged by climate change.
The developing and not-yet developing nations which would be the beneficiaries of funding from the Green Climate Fund anticipate that funding which has been inadequate and slow in coming would flow fuller and faster with committed US support.
Finally, potential future climate change “refugees” anticipate that it would be easier to achieve refugee status and support with committed US support.
In summary, the world anticipates the return of “Uncle Sap”.
The Globalists wanted Trump out they got their way and now their stuck with a total idiot Joe Biden until 2024 Now they can beat their heads against the wall and call themselves Fools
Biden can not increase funding to climate finance with an executive order. All finance in the US must be authorized by Congress. With the slim majority that the Democrats have, that is unlikely.
With people like Biden in charge, the US influence at Glasgow will be negative. If the disastrous Afghanistan retreat reduces US credibility, then that many be the only silver lining to the Afghan tragedy.