The headline is how you know what they really care about

Rich nations subsidize fossil fuels at 5x rate they give to climate assistance fund for poor nations

This is the second major liberal site I’ve seen in two days to headline that developed nations spend more of subsidies than they give away to poor countries via this specific donor mechanism.

But the stories in both cases – especially this one – could have been headlined “Greenhouse emissions up,” “Worse instead of better,” or “They still don’t get it.”

That emissions are up and that the nations are not taking remotely adequate measures to stave off the threatened disaster or even delay it much is the world’s actual problem, according to liberals all over the planet.

But that notion is not reflected in the headlines which choose to reflect instead the cosmopolitan liberal, global left imperative of transferring wealth from the richer to the poorer parts of the world, as much as possible as fast as possible, by any available mechanism under any available excuse.

Global leveling comes high on their list of things to do.

Which reminds us that the Kyoto Treaty was DOA in the American senate specifically because it was transparently designed to disastrously accelerate the transfer of capital from the US to China, India, Indonesia, and elsewhere “to level the global playing field.”

China, as you may know, is the world's premier emitter of so-called greenhouse gases, way ahead of the US or any Western nation.

Hence the invention of the idea of “climate justice,” explained briefly though not sympathetically here.

Climate Justice - U.S. Must Emit Negative Amounts of Greenhouse Gases

“The poor countries are arguing that "climate justice" means that the 170 ppm (the difference between 280 and 450 ppm) must be divvied up based on population.”

Between countries, one assumes.

And it was exactly that idea that was trumpeted to explain and justify the extraordinarily anti-Western design of the Kyoto Treaty, rejected by the senate in a 95 to 0 vote.

Read the comments of U.S. chief climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing in the Climate Justice article.

The left understands this.

Hence the approval on the left of efforts to empower global institutions like the UN at the cost of US – and other wealthy nations’ – national sovereignty, deftly married with complete denial that anything of the sort is happening.

Global leveling is the priority value, here, for them.

Hence the loud resistance on the right.

Oh, as to the invention of a new kind of justice, see the posts on this blog with the label, "amoralism."