Doubts about Communist-style World Green Climate Fund

From the ABC's own PM programme 10/12/10:

"One of the big sticking points at the climate summit in Cancun is how best to distribute the $30 billion promised under the Copenhagen Accord. The money, known as Fast Start Finance, is designed to help poor countries reduce their own carbon emissions and protect themselves against climate impact for the next two years. Today Australia announced further allocations under the $599 million of Australia's committed Fast Start Financing." See also "You're so wrong, Greg Combet."

Now it appears that the Green Climate Fund has doubt surrounding it.

The NY Times:

Wealthy countries have vowed to deliver $100 billion annually by 2020 for poor and vulnerable nations to adapt to climate impacts and develop low-carbon economies. Countries have been in the process of establishing the architecture of a Green Climate Fund, agreed to at last year's climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, to distribute a portion of that money. But last week, the focus turned to the dollars themselves, and from where they would come.
Developing countries are largely insistent that the money come from public coffers in the United States, European countries, Australia, Japan and other wealthy nations. Many argue that the money essentially is compensation to poor countries for the environmental harm industrialized ones caused by emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for decades. That's not, however, the way the United States and others see it -- and they insist developing countries should have no say in where the money they get comes from.
"Our agreement in Cancun was that it was up to developed countries how best to raise this money," Pershing said.
Executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres is quoted as saying: "This is not the best time to be talking about finance, because all developed countries are in a financial crisis."

The other major issue on the agenda at Durban is the future of the Kyoto Protocol, whose current set of carbon curbs expires at the end of 2012.

The host country's ambassador for the talks rejected the possibility of a new system of legally binding cuts to replace Kyoto, saying a too-ambitious agenda could wreck the negotiations.

"Talk of any legally binding instrument would be irresponsible, very irresponsible," said NJ Mxakato-Diseko, South Africa's ambassador-at-large for the conference.

"To even begin to suggest that the outcome of Durban must be a legally binding instrument would be irresponsible, because it will collapse the system."
Canada, Japan and Russia have all said that they won't be signatories to a new "Kyoto" protocol. The world's biggest emitters of the harmless trace gas, Carbon dioxide are also not part of any agreement.

Little Australia is in there punching above it's weight. And going broke.