Of all the commentary surrounding the “climate deal” now being discussed in Paris, on Fox News Sunday Carly Fiorina offered the best description yet of the proceedings: “That’s delusional for President Obama, Hillary Clinton or anyone else to say that climate change is the biggest security threat.”
The POTUS has “made several speeches in which he has said climate change is “an urgent and growing threat,” including his 2015 State of the Union address in which he said: "No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change."
Fiorina, however, countered with: “Terrorists don’t care that we’re going to Paris, other than it provides a target. President Obama is delusional on this.”
Oren Cass @politico.eu via Drudge, took the subject further, summing up the Paris agenda in an article titled: “Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless”
Mr. Cass identifies what he calls the “sticking point” on which negotiations actually center as “climate finance.”
Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.
Climate finance is the issue that will dominate the Paris talks because the regulations covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially un-negotiable. However, the cash is a finite objective. “Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away.”
And then, Mr. Cass presents the situation for the U.S. by explaining that Congressional Republicans, signaling they will not appropriate the taxpayer funds that a climate-finance deal might require, stand accused of trying to “derail” the talks. Yet, he demonstrates that the Republican position wouldn’t be deemed controversial at all if explained truthfully to the pubic.
Because, a transfer of wealth to developing countries would seem a rather uncontroversial position. "One can imagine how the polling might look on: “Should the United States fight climate change by giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?” Certainly, President Obama has made no effort to even inform his constituents that such an arrangement is central to his climate agenda, let alone argue forcefully in favor of it.”
The article contains significant detail confirming the authors point that, other than political propaganda aimed at ardent constituents, the “climate deal” truly is absolutely meaningless. Here's a link: http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissions-china-obama/
Two additional thoughts came to mind when reading the article.
As typical politicians go, the POTUS is truly unusual. Because while many others would have allowed logic, data and science to change their minds when proven wrong, this one stays absolutely true to those who bought and paid for his support. Regardless of whatever the truth is.
And then, had he made his climate speech a few hours later, he might have interrupted the Sunday night football game played in a freezing, swirling, blustery early snowstorm covering the field, teams and crowd in Denver.
On another subject, Anne D’innocenzio, AP Retail Writer via Drudge, reported that: “Change in Thanksgiving weekend spending stumps retailers.”
The gist of the article shows how the Internet, along with barrages of standard advertising offering “deals” every day of the week, has altered shoppers schedules and budget allocations. Making “Black Friday” less significant sales-wise than ever before.
But, what’s most amazing is that retailers are in their businesses 24/7/365, and still aren’t aware of buying habits of those that keep them open.
Thus the reports that Internet shopping is growing dramatically at the expense of "brick and mortar" stores is remindful of the story told here before, of the man who sat down in a restaurant and saw a sign: “Watch your Coat.” And, as he sat there watching his coat, somebody whisked by and stole his lunch.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, this one from the Associated Press via FoxNews.com, as follows:
“The woman who would become a 2016 presidential candidate met or spoke by phone with nearly 100 corporate executives and long-time Clinton political and charity donors during her four years at the State Department between 2009 and 2013, records show.
“The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton's meetings in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes summoned corporate executives to aid in international affairs, documents show.”
There was a difference, though, as there usually is with the Clinton’s. “[S]he was a 2008 presidential contender who was widely expected to run again in 2016. Her availability to luminaries from politics, business and charity shows the extent to which her office became a sounding board for their interests. And her ties with so many familiar faces from those intersecting worlds were complicated by their lucrative financial largess and political support over the years -- even during her State Department tenure -- to her campaigns, her husband's and to her family's foundation.”
A couple of examples followed, such as: “American Federation of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten met Clinton three times, in 2009, 2010 and 2012. She saw Clinton for a half hour in October 2009, the same year the union spent nearly $1 million lobbying the government. The union also spent at least $1 million on lobbying in 2010 and 2012.
“Weingarten's union endorsed Clinton's 2016 presidential bid in July, and Weingarten is on the board of Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Clinton in 2016. The union has also given $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
“PepsiCo Inc. CEO Indra Nooyi also had at least three scheduled contacts with Clinton. In February 2010, Nooyi and General Electric Co. CEO Jeff Immelt met Clinton as part of the State Department's efforts to secure corporate money for an American pavilion in China's Shanghai Expo in May of that year. Nooyi talked twice with Clinton by phone in 2012, a year when PepsiCo spent $3.3 million on lobbying, including talks with State Department officials.
“PepsiCo's foundation pledged in 2008 to provide $7.6 million in grants to two water firms as a commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton charity also listed a PepsiCo Foundation donation of more than $100,000 in 2014, the same year the soda company's foundation announced a partnership under the charity to spur economic and social development in emerging nations.”
While the amount of money reportedly given to the Clinton’s foundation may often seem staggering, in their behalf it should always be remembered that they’re extremely generous. In 2013, their charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges, and spent $9 million on direct aid, equaling 6.42% that they gave away willingly.
Since most similar organizations give away approximately 75% of their revenues, that leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?
That's it for today folks.