We commend your balls

With the world's leaders gearing up for the international negotiations over climate change at Copenhagen in December, many ideas, plans, numbers, alternatives, and solutions are being offered up as ways to combat the problem. But it isn't only developed and developing nations trying to come up with solutions, the OPEC nations have one of their own: any attempt to combat global warming should also include large sacks of money to be given to them because of lost revenue.

Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers.

The oil-rich kingdom has pushed this position for years in earlier climate-treaty negotiations. While it has not succeeded, its efforts have sometimes delayed or disrupted discussions. The kingdom is once again gearing up to take a hard line on the issue at international negotiations scheduled for Copenhagen in December.
...
“It is like the tobacco industry asking for compensation for lost revenues as a part of a settlement to address the health risks of smoking,” said Jake Schmidt, the international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The worst of this racket is that they have held up progress on supporting adaptation funding for the most vulnerable for years because of this demand.”

C'mon world leaders, what's more important: combating global warming or keeping Saudi profit margins up? I mean after all if an emissions treaty is signed that means that OPEC nations will only make $23 trillion dollars from 2008-2030. That's a drop of 16%! How are you supposed to build the world's tallest skyscraper, build underwater hotels, create giant sand islands, or fund a decent mujaheddin with a measly $23 trillion? Hell, their women might even start learning to read if they don't have enough money to stop it.

I think with the revelation of this information and the fact that the Saudis view this as a "make or break" provision means we have to do the right thing. We have to scrap any meaningful emissions or climate change actions until such a time as we can adequately address the needs of rich shieks. In the rush to take necessary action for the common good it seems we forgot about the billionaires and oil conglomerates. I mean isn't that always the way? For shame.