Solar Frickin Roads, Park Benches; YOU get to PAY, across the World !

[tszaboo]

Let me turn this around. Is there a precedent of anyone paying a tax to the UN?

I don't know all that much about what is actually being proposed so following my own advise I should probably keep this to myself  But is this about a carbon tax being levied by the UN?
- I'm not against a carbon tax. It is a good way to make the implicit cost explicit. It is a good way to make the impact of certain choices visible to the end consumer in the clearest way possible and in the way that is most likely to have an impact.
- We are already paying for the functioning and projects of the UN, and we are paying with taxes the various countries levy but no, the UN does not directly levy a tax.
- It's not a bad way to get to keep countries to actually deliver on a promise. Now way to often stuff is pledged but never delivered.

Not saying it's the way to go, but I'm not against it either.

We already have carbon tax. It's done on the EU level, by politicians that we elected.
We didn't elect anyone in the UN.
This would set a precedent to more globalization, by a goverment without any oversight, and without any way to get rid of them. There are no checks and balances in place.
And they want what, 1.3 Trillion per year? Take a hike, or try to enforce it.

[RJSV]

   Clearly, we need action,  don't doubt I notice,  when,  for example, HEAT WAVES,  drought or exacerbated drought, and historic fire storms are, ick, hard to ignore.

   With that component getting worse, I'm saying that it gets even more relevant, watching some 'fool project' start-up somewhere distant, but with funding from UN initiatives.
Where they get the money, I've assumed each country has a set amount, by agreement.  Also have heard and read fragments of that fund.

   Global Climate Fund (GCF) at current meeting (was Oct.21), splits $1 billion for 16 projects,  some are for 'Climate Innovation'.

   But as to existing work, accomplished:

   1.).  Transformational planning and programming by promoting integrated strategies,  planning and policymaking to maximize the co-benefits between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development.

---from October 21, 2024 meeting.

   Now, try and argue that they don't really DO anything...

I'm going to be switching to Comedy Ironicist,
(This stuff is so hideously stiff and boring)!

[Ice-Tea]

watching some 'fool project' start-up somewhere distant, but with funding from UN initiatives.

I'll repeat the question: "Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?"

Yeah, I know I'm a bit of a dick about this.

[RJSV]

   No,  that's fine to question which project relates to the OP's point.
   It might take a bit of time, so hold on, but a detailed answer and specific example (from local library info on UN news)
   I'll do that.

Brings up a question:
   I'm wondering if folks in the US under low income constraints, can, also, apply for a UN Climate grant ?
Or,  maybe each recipient country gets pre-approved as $$$ compromised.

[coppice]

I'll repeat the question: "Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?"

I think most of us are more concerned about a proven but dodgy technology - corruption. The spiriting away of money from the poor in richer countries to the richest in poor countries.

[Ice-Tea]

I'll repeat the question: "Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?"

I think most of us are more concerned about a proven but dodgy technology - corruption. The spiriting away of money from the poor in richer countries to the richest in poor countries.

Valid point. But not the topic title. Which is my point ;-)