It is definitely time for other countries to do more. I think the are satisfied because they can come to us again to give more.

In relative terms (relative to both population and GDP), I think you'll find Germany, France, Japan, Sweden and the UK are all pledging more... to take one example, the country I live in (Sweden), with a population of 9.5 million and a $552 billion GDP is pledging 540 million (compared to the US 316 million people and $17.535 trillion GDP). And a quick run through of the pledges suggests that European pledges total just over 4 billion right now.

Congress controls the purse strings, and there is no way a Republican House and Senate will appropriate $3 Billion for anything climate related without onerous conditions that Obama and the Democrats would never agree.

I'm sure if Obama nixed the EPA carbon rules and approved Keystone, however, the Republicans may negotiate . . .

budget that could be re-purposed. I doubt that every $ in that budget is specified for a specific purpose. Consider when there is a disaster or a country suddenly in need of help - ie Liberia re ebola, I don't think that Obama needs to get new money. The departments have budgets - and this amount likely came from money already allocated to one or more departments. That might explain why we did not go bigger than we did.

I would bet that both HRC and Kerry have given money to projects in impoverished countries that both satisfy needs -- and do so in a clean energy way. (Kerry is particular has been involved on that for decades. I remember things he said at the 2007 Bali conference that the developed countries could help the undeveloped countries avoid the mistakes we made -- jumping straight to new clean technology -- including things that Massachusetts research contributed to.) This is simply a much broader effort.

and even if not, that the administration has as much as $3 Billion in unallocated "petty cash."

Also not that if you are correct, any monies given to the fund would result in that much less being available to other worthwhile causes. I doubt very much that the Republicans would appropriate an additional $3 Billion to other causes just because the White House complains that it already spent its allocated budget for the UN Fund.

I do think there are other worthy causes, but I think this is a big deal and important. It dovetails nicely with the US/China pact --- which I would not be surprised if the US adds similar agreements with countries like India.

A huge gap in all the world climate agreements has been that the third world has had good reason to not join in. This could help make real the Bali agreement that everyone has to help - but the goals have to be differentiated by what the energy use currently is.

Because it's called a climate fund?

Magical thinking at best.

Why? Because the use of that money is to help a developing company have the resources to build a clean technology source of energy rather than the cheaper alternative of building coal plants. Does that have an impact --- in aggregate, it lowers the amount of CO2.

Now, if your magical thinking is that there is no man made climate change, this has no impact. Now, the question arises of "is this enough". The answer to that is - by itself, no. However, it is a step in the right direction -- and added to many other steps in the right direction, it could make a big difference.

Not to mention, between this and the China/US pact, the argument that nothing the US could do will prevent the coming catastrophe is no longer a compelling argument for not making sacrifices ourselves -- especially as the "sacrifices" result in cleaner air, cleaner water, and thus healthier people.

If your problem is that given where we are, it is too little - the question might be how could you (or better yet collective yous) make this bigger - enough to make a difference.

No I'm not a science denier.

But the UN? You sound like an official press release.

10 billion in junketeering and graft.

Your cynicism may not wear as well as faith in organizations that take on difficult tasks.

lost 2.3 trillion dollars?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/

surely we can throw in the extra 700 grand.