http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/more-global-warming_13.html

The Green Climate Fund is a different beast than Fast Start .

Fast Start was by donor nation.

Green Climate Fund is from whatever source available – global financial transactions, insurance, airline levies, antthing.

I’m trying to work out whether the UN has the mandate to establish the US$100bn per year by 2020 Green Climate Fund.

See this thread

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/12/we-can-we-can-at-cancun-can-we/

And this thread

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/cancun-in-a-nutshell-nothing-achieved-but-its-a-big-pr-success/

BTW, Ricard Black’s blog is interesting.
The comments are a bit off colour. I am surprised the BBC mods let them through

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/cancun_the_chihuahua_that_roar.html

“The global warming scare may have been fun for the children while it lasted. But the time has come for the joke to be declared well and truly over,” opined Christopher Booker in a column entitled “Cancun climate conference: the warmists’ last Mexican wave” appearing in the Telegraph.

“What we are seeing here is one of the greatest collective flights from reality in the history of the human race,” he noted. “As western Europe shivers to a halt and our energy bills soar through the roof, the time has come when we should all start to get seriously angry with our politicians for being carried away by all this claptrap.”

Well past time, and well and truly over.

The Guardian is still stoically accentuating the positive. Unfortunately (and it seems lost on them), the positive is the same spin as Copenhagen, just different time and place.

i.e. “noted” and “not legally binding”.

And then the negative, starting with “However”.

However, governments failed to reach agreement on how far overall global emissions should be cut, and there are many loopholes for countries to avoid making the deep reductions that scientists say are needed.

And

Cancún represented only incremental progress.

To give the Guardian credit, they’ve used the word “emissions” instead of “harmful heat trapping gases” that can be found in the Sydney Morning Herald and elsewhere.

“Deal is reached at Cancún summit”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/11/mexico-cancun-environment-climate-summit

I wonder what the headline will be when they realise nothing of substance really happened at Cancun contrary to Connie Hedegaard’s summation:-

“If you look at at what we have to do in the next year you can see that there is a very heavy work programme but it is definitely not as if we only agreed on process and then left the substance for Durban. There are lots of substantial issues that have been solved here,” she said.

Like,

Other measures agreed in outline included the setting up next year of a major climate fund panel to administer and deliver the billions needed for the developing world to adapt to climate change. In a concession to developing countries, this will be largely run by developing countries and not the World Bank.

And not the UN either.

Face it Connie, if the donor nations haven’t released $10bn in funds for “Fast Start” a year on, they’re hardly likely to be inclined to furnish a $100bn “major climate fund” are they?