Climate cash?

Hey 20/20, do you seriously think I supported the soccer stadium? Really? Google “Evensen and soccer stadium” and see what you find. Here’s a suggestion: Know what you’re talking about before you post.

So, Hillary Clinton told the climate change summit in Copenhagen that the United States would be glad to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries fight global warming. (Read about it here.)

This offer is being credited with putting new life in the talks, which had stalled.

My take? Many of these nations, which have organized as The Group of 77, are poor because they deny their citizens basic freedoms and human dignities. So-called “emerging nations” can never really emerge unless they open their economies and their political systems. But now they won’t have to worry about that so much if they can get free cash from the United States and other countries that prosper because they do guarantee freedoms.

Hillary said the money would come from a combination of private and public funds. The effort would include more than just the United States. The Times story estimates the United States would provide about 20 percent.

If this funding becomes part of any agreement in Copenhagen, I hope our share is all private funds. I can’t imagine Congress approving such an appropriation in today’s political climate.

Nor can I imagine what it would take to make sure the money actually is used to save rain forests, etc., rather than to line the pockets of politicians.

What are your thoughts?