Can you spare a trillion to fight global warming?

One cable news reporter, and I do not remember the network, spoke warmly about the enthusiasm shown by some of the poorest nations attending the Paris COP21 conference to curb green house gases. Indeed some of the poorest nations on the planet stepped up to the plate with the most ambitious plans to save the world. Who could have guessed that? Probably anyone with a rudimentary understanding as to how the ambitious plans would be funded.
The Australian web site Sky News reports that the 48 Least Developed Countries (LDC's) will need a small cash infusion of almost $1 trillion between 2020 and 2030 to deliver on their end of the bargain.

Estimates based on plans submitted by the least-developed countries (LDCs) toward a new UN deal to curb global warming show they will cost around $US93.7 billion ($A130.22 billion) a year from 2020, when an agreement expected to be ironed out in Paris over the next two weeks is due to take effect.

Ironed out? Maybe Barack and Michelle can take in ironing to help out. Of course the LDC's developed ambitious plans; they expect to be paid to implement them. So far the 11 donor nations, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States have pledged a whopping $248 million in additional aid.

This is not about saving the planet this is about shaking down the developed world. The World Bank provides some interesting data. Total GDP for these 48 nations was $867.9 billion in 2014 compared to Texas's $1.648 trillion. The combined population is 932 million which exists on an average of $915 per year. Only 31% percent of that population lives in urban centers so there is little industry so little in fact that per capita emission of CO 2 is 0.3 metric tons compared to China's per capita of 6.7  and the Untied States' 17 metric tons. If the 48 LCD's produced no CO 2 the effect on global temperature models would be zero.
The COP21 plan starts at the top of the marginal cost curve. Put another way the cheapest sources of any commodity are always exploited first whether one is speaking of gold, oil, coal, agriculture land and the resulting crops and even labor. Carbon is no different. If the UN seriously wanted to address the problem it would encourage the donor nations to keep their money at home and not pour it down this rat hole. In a COP21 world McDonalds would recruit its fry cooks from Ivy League schools and farmers would plow deserts. Yet the UN is hot for idea of rewarding countries for doing nothing, countries more renowned for their political corruption, dictatorships, tribal, ethnic and religious conflagrations than for any idealistic aims to save the planet.
So follow the money. Who would benefit from the carbon tax necessary to fund this mania? What sane businessman thinks carbon pricing is a good idea? A sane businessman who worked for a New York bank. From GreenBiz:

The six largest U.S. banking institutions on Monday called for a “strong global climate agreement” and policies that “recognize the cost of carbon.”
JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo, and Citibank — the four largest commercial banks with assets of $6.5 trillion according to Federal Reserve data — along with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the largest and second largest investment banks with $1.1 trillion in managed mergers and acquisitions — also committed to provide “significant resources” to finance climate solutions.
At a press conference in New York, officers from these banks issued their open letter, timed to coincide with the start of the United Nations General Assembly's new session for which climate change and sustainable development dominate the agenda. This  current UN meeting is seen as a chance to forward hopes for a climate deal at the COP21 UN Climate Convention in Paris later this year.

Are these the same banks Bernie, Elizabeth and Hillary hate? With enemies like them who needs friends?