Crazy Climate Scheme Would Have U.S. Pay $80 Trillion In Reparations By 2050

Since this is the UK Guardia, do they mean $80tn U.S. currency, or would it be UK currency? If the number is UK, that would be $99.49 trillion U.S.

Rich countries with high greenhouse gas emissions could pay $170tn in climate reparations

Rich industrialised countries responsible for excessive levels of greenhouse gas emissions could be liable to pay $170tn in climate reparations by 2050 to ensure targets to curtail climate breakdown are met, a new study calculates.

The proposed compensation, which amounts to almost $6tn annually, would be paid to historically low-polluting developing countries that must transition away from fossil fuels despite not having yet used their “fair share” of the global carbon budget, according to the analysis published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

It is the first scheme where wealthy countries historically responsible for excessive or unjust greenhouse emissions including the UK, US, Germany, Japan and Russia, are held liable to compensate countries which have contributed the least to global heating – but must decarbonise their economies by 2050 if we are to keep global heating below 1.5C and avert the most catastrophic climate breakdown.

In this ambitious scenario, the study found that 55 countries including most of sub-Saharan Africa and India would have to sacrifice more than 75% of their fair share of the carbon budget.

So, developing nations would have to forgo all things that made 1st World nations 1st World nations.

On the other hand, the UK has used 2.5 times its fair allocation, and would be liable to pay $7.7tn for its excessive emissions by 2050. The US has used more than four times its fair share to become the richest country in the world, and would be responsible for $80tn in reparations under this scheme.

Piss off. Always wanting to take Other People’s money and spread it around, never wanting to give up their own 1st World carbon footprints, especially as this tends to be pushed by Elites with massive footprints. And how much in reparations will these industrialized countries receive for the technology they created improving the quality of life world-wide? Should be a lot more than $170 trillion.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “Crazy Climate Scheme Would Have U.S. Pay $80 Trillion In Reparations By 2050”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    “Fair share” is that loaded term that pre-supposes that there is a fair share. Just like Climate scienticians who claim that there is an optimal temperature for the planet and 2 degrees hotter is a catastrophe. Why not make the Saudis pay reparations for all the oil they took from the Earth, make the Africans pay for all those Diamonds they stole from Gaia, and make the Brazilians pay for all those trees they cut down? Adding reparations is just another way of saying the price we paid for those things has now jumped astronomically and future people will have to pay for all those benefits that past people took. current people living in those countries have no right to “sell again” all the things they already took full payment for. That is just theft.

    BTW, this is why the Kyoto treaty fell apart. Without the USA volunteering to bankroll the reparations, this sort of scheme goes nowhere. Thankfully, we had a President after Clinton who rejected that treaty, and presidents after those who similarly never presented those treaties to the Senate.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    It’s the flip side of the “tragedy of the commons”. Envision that each nation (relative to its population) has a ‘right’ to a portion of the Earth’s atmosphere that they can “consume”. In the scenario proposed the U.S., Europe (mostly U.K./German), Russia and Japan have “consumed” much more of their “fair share” of the common atmosphere to this point.

    IF one understands that global warming exceeding 1.5-2.0C is a global tragedy, and IF, as a global people we advocate that even nations with little historical “consumption” of the common atmosphere must now curtail CO2 emissions it’s only fair that the U.S., Europe, Russia (good luck!) and Japan help pay for the transition to non-CO2 emitting sources.

    IF one insists this is all a communist scam/plot to force American ‘patriots’ to drive tiny, girly EVs just ignore/deny it.

    $80 trillion over the next 27 years is huuuge number! Although it’s difficult to project U.S. GDP, it’s expected to be $39 trillion by 2033. We can’t even guess regarding 2050! $80 trillion over 27 years averages $3 trillion/year. It’s obvious that the northern tier nations responsible for most of global warming will NOT pay China to reduce today’s and future emissions, so that will have to be worked out. Can the rich northern tier nations help India transition? Can we transition?

    The simplest path is to just ignore/deny that global warming is a problem, and just tell the world to piss off!! Live it up and leave for your kids to sort out!

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    If things were fair… Imagine that all U.S. emissions over the past century stayed within the U.S. border instead of spreading over the whole of the Earth’s atmosphere. As 2% of the Earth’s area and thus 2% of the lower atmosphere… Instead of 420ppm CO2 we’d be living in at least 20,000ppm CO2! Instead of 1C in the U.S. it would be 5C warmer or more.

    Fortunately for us our pollution gets diluted throughout the Earth’s atmosphere!

  4. James Lewis says:

    Dear Elwood:

    “IF one understands…”

    We understand that you and those like you are truly dumb and dangerous.

  5. Dana says:

    So, we owe $80 trillion in climate reparations, along with $13 trillion in reparations to blacks?

    The GDP of the entire United States was $23.6 trillion, so these idiots are looking for almost 3½ times the GDP of our entire nation.

    Total federal expenditures for FY 2023 are forecast to be $6.2 trillion, so these morons are demanding 12.90 times our total federal expenditure.

    When people make whacko demands, they expose themselves as whackos.

  6. H says:

    I think Teach you are expressing concern for something that will not happen.
    Perhaps you should be more worried about your good friends the Saudis connecting back production beginning July 1
    They already own the largest refinery in the USA (which Trump allowed the sale of) This will affect the cost of all electricity fueled by any fossil fuel.

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The $80 trillion was proposed over 27 years.

    from Mr Dana’s citation:

    Black Americans are owed trillions of dollars by the government of the United States for the wealth that was built off of the backs of their ancestors during slavery, as well as the subsequent laws that prevented them from creating or attaining wealth through the housing and labor market.

    This would give each descendant of the enslaved around $254,782.

    Either the government should pay the amount, or the funds should go into social programs and trust funds.

    Seems fair. Conservatives/libertarians argue that Blacks should have been happy to be enslaved in America and should have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps once they were freed.

    • L'Roy White says:

      The only Americans who should be paying reparations to blacks are democrats. No Republicans held slaves since the Republican party was created as the anti slavery party and Lincoln was its head. Democrats are 100% wholly responsible for all slavery in the US and they should be stripped of their assets to repay that travesty.

      Once the democrat party has paid for its crimes against humanity and the wholesale murder and enslavement of an entire race then can America heal for good.

      You do realize the democrats have not even apologized for their institution of slavery, the KKK, lynching, Jim Crow or sep but equal hateful policies. NOT EVEN ONCE!

      As an African American I am waiting for your contrition. As a realist I know you commies never, ever will.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Conservatives should pay.

        • Jl says:

          I’m all for reparations. If you were a slave, you should receive compensation. If you were a slave holder, then you should be doing the paying.

          • Professor Hale says:

            Zero percent chance of collecting from Moslems, Africans, and Central American Gang members who currently traffick humans and still keep slaves today. Nor are any of these race activists advocating using American military power to free those slaves. So, it’s just about the money. It’s always just about the money.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            White America has a long and documented history of persecuting Black residents. Sure, sure, today’s white conservatives shout, “We freed you in 1865, so please say thank you and STFU. If you haven’t “made it” in 150 years, that’s on you, you lazy, stupid and culturally defective “people”!”

            But you may recall from history (but not if you go to school in Florida, where Il Duouche, D-Santis has banned history that offends white snowflakes) that the United States of America promoted slavery until the U.S. squelched a pro-slavery rebellion inflicted on America by the so-called Confederacy, who wanted to continue slaveholding. Following the failed rebellion, Congress enacted 3 new Amendments:

            AMENDMENT XIII
            Ratified December 6, 1865.

            Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            AMENDMENT XIV
            Ratified July 9, 1868.

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            AMENDMENT XV
            Ratified February 3, 1870

            The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

            Done, done and done, right? Not so fast. The old confederate states and some of their supporters weren’t ready to surrender just yet!

            Even after all that, the United States of America permitted states to discriminate against and persecute Black citizens through the ineffectual Reconstruction, KKK wilding, Jim Crow, separate but equal, northern redlining, unequal public schooling, employment discrimination, public accommodation discrimination… it’s been and is an ongoing battle.

            In 1883, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, permitting continued discrimination against Black citizens by states. In 1896, the United States legalized discrimination against Black citizens via the Plessy vs Ferguson ruling. And it wasn’t until May 17, 1954 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial discrimination in schooling was unconstitutional! Brown v. Board of Education and congressional civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s largely ended systematic segregation under state laws. The 1960s!!

            Today, the median* wealth of Black Americans is 15% of whites median wealth. White cons argue it’s because Black Americans are culturally, intellectually and morally inferior to whites rather than the result of 2 centuries of state sanctioned discrimination.

            *Median: the midpoint of a population, that where 50% of individuals are above and 50% are below the midpoint (median). This removes some of the bias of means. LeBron, Robert Smith, Tiger, Beyonce, David Stewart, Oprah, MJ, Jay-Z inflates the mean but hardly the median.

  8. Jl says:

    Now if they could only come up with proof that “reparations” needed. It’s the old “let’s start with a false premise”-so much easier to debate that way..

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Scientists, scientific bodies, governments, corporations, religions, a majority of humanity have judged the evidence and agrees the Earth is warming and will continue to do so as we dump more CO2 into atmosphere*.

      Recall there are few proofs in science, only probabilities. Will a significant asteroid MISS the Earth in the next year? 99.99999999% yes! Can you prove it WON’T happen? No.

      George Gaylord Simpson: We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences. Alternatively, proof in a natural science, such as biology, must be defined as the attainment of a high degree of confidence (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 16, emp. added).

      What is the probability that the Earth will continue to warm at a similar rate to now? Without any interventions scientists say 95%.

      You say, “So what if it warms a total of 1.5C by 2050?” Scientists say heat waves, droughts, floods, migrations of animals including humans and viruses. Without any interventions it’s is unlikely that the warming will stop until humans do intervene (or a giant asteroid strike occurs).

      * Actually, even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, the Earth would continue to warm until it reaches a new equilibrium between incoming and outgoing “heat”.

  9. James Lewis says:

    Dear Elwood:

    “Without any interventions…”

    Yes, we will just sit around. No new drugs, no new plants, no new sea walls no new dams, no new irrigation….

    You folks are really dumb.

  10. James Lewis says:

    Dear Elwood:

    “George Gaylord Simpson” was a paleontologist. Paleontology is the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants.

    You need a better standard.

    One more time. Scientific Theories must be able to be tested, and they must pass every test every time. They also must be predictable.

    Otherwise they are just theories. Belief in them is like religion. No proof but lots of faith.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      Do you have an argument disguised in your verbiage?

      Theories can be ‘falsified’ with data.

      Can you refute the theory that atmospheric greenhouse gases cause the Earth to warm?

      For over a century it’s been predicted that CO2 from burning fossil-fuels (coal, oil, gas) would cause the Earth to warm.

      Theories are not proved. The Big Bang is just a theory but you’d be hard pressed to find one astrophysicist who doesn’t accept the theory.

      Evolution is just a theory but you’ll be lucky to find even a few actual scientists who don’t accept the theory.

      Relativity is just a theory, yet it explains that space and time are not absolutes and that gravity is not a force applied to an object or mass. Rather, the gravity associated with any mass curves the very space and time around it.

      Theories are not guesses or hunches.

      A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn’t, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.

      But theories are not proved.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Again, you just repeated what he wrote.

      • James Lewis says:

        Dear Elwood:

        “Do you have an argument disguised in your verbiage?”

        I never argue with a fool.

        “Can you refute the theory that atmospheric greenhouse gases cause the Earth to warm?”

        It is for the theory to be proven, not for others to disprove it. As I noted, a Scientific Theory meets standards. A small “t” theory does not.

        “Evolution is just a theory but you’ll be lucky to find even a few actual scientists who don’t accept the theory.”

        Do not confuse evolution with adaption. The former is an unproven theory. The latter is a demonstrated fact.

        “A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true.”

        And the global warming predictions have all proven wrong. And thank you for proving my point.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          Theories are not proven.

          I’m sorry but you do not know what you’re talking about. In fact you never make an argument.

          Theories are not proven.

          The theory of greenhouse gas global warming predicted that increased CO2 will lead to warming. Guess what, denier? Bingo.

          Theories are not proven.

          I’m through with your ignorance and duckspeak.

          Have a pleasant rest of your life.

  11. Jl says:

    “Can you refute the theory that atmospheric greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm?”
    That’s not how it works. It would first have to be verified that man’s additional CO2 is the cause of the warming. That hadn’t been done. You’d think with trillions spent, someone could show a lab experiment where back radiation from a cold gas adds to the temperature of a heat source. You’d think that, but you’d be wrong.

  12. Jl says:

    The falsification of the “climate crisis” is simply the absence of any crisis.
    As I’ve said before, that’s why the nutters usually stop at “it’s warming!”

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Carbonless boy,

      You’re inadvertently conflating the theory of greenhouse gas global warming with the potential response.

      An increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases will cause the Earth (surface, oceans, atmosphere) to warm.

      That’s why you nutters keep moving the goalposts. The Earth has warmed some 1C so far with predictions that it will warm more by 2050 and more by 2100.

      You say “So what?”

  13. Jl says:

    Nope, I’m not J-can you read? I said there’s no verifiable experiment demonstrating the agw hypothesis-back radiation from a cold gas adds to the temp of a heat source. Never been done, so it’s still just a hypothesis-in other words we don’t know if man’s CO2 is causing warming. There are other hypotheses that haven’t been falsified. The other statement was that there’s no evidence of any crisis, which there isn’t. Must nutters don’t get that the second one is the most important, because even if it’s warming, the only thing that would matter would be the effects of the warming. But go ahead and discuss where I said something that wasn’t factual..

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      You’re entitled to your baseless opinions, as are we all.

      Please describe in more detail: show a lab experiment where back radiation from a cold gas adds to the temperature of a heat source


Pirate's Cove