Surprise! Climate Activists Declare UN New York Climate Conference a Failure
Eric Worrall / September 25, 2019
UN Secretary General António Guterres. By DFID – UK Department for International Development – https://www.flickr.com/photos/dfid/30720847110/, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link
Poor greens – despite Greta's tears, the delegates barely pretended they cared.
After failure in New York, we must reshape the politics of climate change
Comment: Climate denial is no longer the problem, it is inaction of politicians who know what is at stake. They must feel pressure from all sides
By Nick Mabey
The UNSG Climate Action Summit in New York finally took the temperature on the global politics of climate action.
Spoiler alert – it wasn't hot enough.
The summit also triggered the diplomatic starting gun for the next set of critical climate decisions coming in 2020 at COP26 in Glasgow. With so much climate pollution in the atmosphere, without a big increase in action at Glasgow it will be practically impossible to keep climate change within safe limits.
People are fired up for action from those with power and authority. Unfortunately, the lukewarm outcomes from the UN Climate Action Summit give little faith that the mercury is rising in the halls of power.
Despite the UN secretary general going far beyond the usual diplomatic niceties – only allowing leaders announcing real commitments a platform – the response from major polluters was virtually non-existent. If solutions are cheaper, public opinion is mobilised and impacts much clearer, why is political action not following?
In most countries more people want climate action than not. Anti-climate action forces are societally weak but focused; pro-climate action forces are potentially powerful but poorly organised. The problem is not how to raise awareness, but how to align these forces to make an impact on the thousands of decisions needed to reshape our economies and societies.
Read more: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/24/failure-new-york-must-remake-politics-climate-change/
If people really are fired up for change, why isn't the green party running the country? Why aren't green politicians running every country?
The reason of course is because ordinary people have other priorities. Some of them might demand a bit of lip service on climate action, but they are completely uninterested in climate action which costs money, like paying carbon taxes.
But if you are a green you can't accept this simple, self evident fact. If you are a green;
You believe claims that renewable energy is cheaper than coal, but massive government intervention is required because a conspiracy of fossil fuel tycoons is stopping the world from embracing the cheaper option.
You believe the people demand climate action, but politicians those same people elect and repeatedly elect are failing to prioritise the climate action demanded by the people who voted for them.
You believe walking to work or taking the bus is an important symbolic act, despite owning or renting a house full of energy guzzling plastic appliances. And of course you still (mostly) own a car. And flying to holiday destinations or climate events is OK.
You believe the world is going to end in 12 years (11 years? or is it all a joke? hard to keep track), but you still work your every day job, live your normal life, and have an occasional crying fit about how awful it all is.
You believe that if your friends mess up enough people's lives by stopping traffic on busy work days, you will build an irresistible momentum for a green revolution.
Imagine some poor historian a hundred years from now, who will have never met a climate activist in person, trying to piece together a complete picture of our times from articles like the one I quoted.
September 25, 2019 in United Nations.
Please Send Cash: UN Demands $29 Billion for 2020 "Extreme Weather" Humanitarian Aid Programmes
Claim: Delaying Climate Action Could Threaten Democracy
Bank of England Mark Carney to Head a UN Climate Action Effort
← A Clean Kill of the Carbon Dioxide-Driven Climate Change Hypothesis?
Facebook Removed False Label After Scientists Said Climate 'Alarmist' Fact Checkers Are Targeting Them →
94 thoughts on "Surprise! Climate Activists Declare UN New York Climate Conference a Failure"
2hotel9 says:
Good! That means the Human Race succeeded!
Frenchie77 says:
Bad, because for an AGW acolyte the human race is the problem, always was!
Was talking to some one at church a few weeks ago about the whole "Global Warming Scam" and asked them what was the pinnacle of creation when God was making everything, after a bit I explained that till God made man everything was good but after man it was very good, but according to the socialist warmistas man was the lowest of the low and anything to remove this blight has to done.
I don't know were to post this, but here it is.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
Now that is interesting.
Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately…in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.
The whole CAGW edifice is a house of cards built on some very dodgy climate models. It's refreshing to hear an insider point out just how dodgy those models are.
The linked story is well worth a look.
Thanks for that link.
BobM says:
I wonder where Dr. Nakamura fits into the web/network of climate scientists. This sounds like he's ready to retire and can speak honestly for a change. Certainly his reputation among the climate glitteratti will be tanking.
Gook link. Thanks for posting.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
An extraordinary and cogent missive. Thanks for the link.
Anthony, that should be reposted here if you can organize it. It contains a great deal.
And now let the angry children screech at the sky.
I repeat myself.
Al Capp. "Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything". SWINE
Why do we pay any attention to them? They have nothing constructive to offer. They choose to be ignorant. On their behalf, our schools and teachers failed them.
Curious George says:
Greta, how dare you?
4EDouglas says:
Al Capp he would've loved the Clintons. Greta would've hailed from "Lower Slobovia"
Where it is always winter and never Chistmas..
Sunsettommy says:
She failed because what she said was the usual propaganda chicken little we have heard for many years now. It is boring, irrationally pessimistic and worthless.
The reality, there is NO climate disaster coming to the planet. They ignore all of the official data that calls them a liar, thus no credibility for their "we are doomed if we don't hand over everything to Greens" message.
The Media is the forefront of that lying ideology AGW believing warmists rely on to push a dead on arrival message of doom, based on computer generated propaganda.
It is intellectually BORING, irrationally pessimistic and stupid.
Go home Greta, go back to your school and learn to think objectively, rationally, it is how you become cured from the effects of fear mongering propaganda that swirls around us 24/7.
Latitude says:
exactly…they've overplayed their hand
When absolutely everything is caused by global warming…people don't see a solution to any of it….throw their hands up….and give up
Gard R. Rise says:
Greta has been lied to her entire life, by her parents, by her teachers and by politicians. I sympathize deeply with her, actually. She has met people who preach one thing and do another her whole life and now she finally has the opportunity to call them out as the hypocrites they are. The same hypocrites hide behind her back and push her to the front to take the flak at the UN. I can understand her anger, even though it is deeply rooted in irrational fears.
coaldust says:
In a few years, Greta is going to wake up and realize she's been lied to. Then she will tear those who lied to her to pieces.
Samuel C Cogar says:
Nah, in a few years, before CAGW cools down, …. someone will "ghost" write Greta's autobiography for her, ….which she will earn $7 or $8 million from its world-wide sales …… and then she will retire to the French Riviera and enjoy the daily "sea surface rising".
…it's an act….theater
Sunsettommy, Greta cannot go back to her school because she is home-schooled, which I suspect might be involved in her derangement.
I do not see any reference to her being home schooled.
On the other hand, there are numerous references to her teachers, her decision to skip out on school, etc.
One of her teachers is described here and joining her strike and expects it to cost him lots of money in missed pay:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/01/swedish-15-year-old-cutting-class-to-fight-the-climate-crisis
IOW…it does not appear she is home schooled.
Also not true that I keep seeing people say: Her father is named Svante Thunberg, so I do not know why it keeps getting repeated she is the only one in her family with that name. Her mom is a singer and it is not uncommon for people to use their stage name to avoid confusing fans. Few in show biz change their name when they get married.
It is not like it is hard to find info on her.
Komrade Kuma says:
The CAGWARMISTS are a bunch of headless chickens when it comes to practical solutions to their alleged problem which begs the qquestion as to why you would pay any attention at all to their ravings about the so called problem in the first pace. They grotesquely simplify the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere let alone its role as the key vector for life on the planet and then demonise it to boot. They ignore the 'negative feedbacks' of increased CO2 via evaporo transpiration and obsess about the 'greenhouse effect. That obsession shuts out all consideration of other mechanisms having a significant effect on actual global temperatures then to cap it all off they rely on unfit for purpose temperature records over 150 years or so and double down with mathematical 'wombat stew' treatments of tree ring analysis by the likes of Mann et al.
In short they are idiots, educated may be but idiots to their core.
K. Hunter says:
They also completely ignore the fact that the earth has been far warmer in the pst and that life managed to survive both hotter and far, far colder periods than any since the appearance of any sort of human. Their leaders seek political power and the followers are simply too ignorant to even appreciate their ignorance on the subject. The media, of course, loves the noise 'cause it sells advertising time and space.
Our information systems are largely in the hands of corrupt individuals who's sole interest is their own profit.
Wow, the next climate lies program is in Glasgow, were all the "climate" lovers will fly or drive to… They will stay in plush hotels, use taxis, or maybe even helicopters…. Nice to see the greens being so green 😐 They all use fossil fuel products every day, and I think world governments are understand that weather is weather, the sun will do what it has always done, and that killing whole society's will save nobody… Look at Bhutan, they are the least polluting country in the world, with the biggest forest cover… Yet they suffer from the same weather we do.. So killing the western world, will not bring 24/7 sunny days…
Mumbles McGuirck says:
Actually, Glasgow is a bit of a 'come down' from previous luxury spots they usually hold their conferences at; Paris, Bonn, Marrakech, etc. Pity the poor delegates, oatmeal for breakfast and haggis for dinner. And cold, rainy weather. Not enough Glenn Fiddich in all of Scotland to make up for that.
kwinterkorn says:
So true. Glasgow in late fall/early winter: cold and wet, followed by more cold and wet. Days short and gloomy.
I like haggis!
James A. Schrumpf says:
" All Scottish food was invented on a dare."
— Mike Meyers
Russ Wood says:
You are, of course, referring to that Gaelic treat – the deep-fried Mars bar?
(Before sending, I found that I typed 'threat' instead of 'treat'. Maybe my subconscious was telling me something?)
Tractor Gent says:
Don't forget the Neds. Delightful people…
Michael Ozanne says:
" They will stay in plush hotels"
Not in bloody Glasgow they won't…… Outside maybe
H.R. says:
What?!? Sleeping on the Glasgow streets is an upgrade?
I can believe that.
Full disclosure: My wife and her family are all Glaswegians. Gramps cut a lot of the glass – portholes and decorative glass – that was on the Titanic. It all went down, but it sure looked good doing it.
I'm looking forward to COP26. If the current trends continue the delegates might be well advised to bring parkas, thermal underwear and gloves. Glasgow can be a hostile environment in December.
It's not just the wind and the sleet; it's the bone-chilling damp cold for which the Scots invented the word 'dreich' for which there is no direct translation in any other language.
They should have the next climate conference on Ellesmere Island.
The delegates can visit the fossil beavers.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ellesmere-island-pliocene-fossils
mike the morlock says:
Sunny September 25, 2019 at 6:20 am
I wonder how many of them will quietly stay at the Trump Turnberry.
Priceless – the furious scowl on St Greta's face when Trump left before she could lecture him! This was worth more than all those adoring fans put together
He, clearly, has no time for foolish children and may put the brakes on the nonsense.
dennisambler says:
John Schellnhuber has re-entered the fray: https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/i-would-people-panic-top-scientist-unveils-equation-showing-world-climate-emergency.html
"'Based on sober [?] scientific analysis, we are deeply within a climate emergency state but people are not aware of it,' he told Horizon on the sidelines of the European Research and Innovation Days event in Brussels, Belgium. 'We don't want to see the truth. As Greta Thunberg would say, I would like people to panic and take action according to the state of emergency we are in.'
'If we go into a runaway climate effect, the damage may be between €100 trillion and the loss of civilisation,' he said. 'The probability, I would say, is about 10% that this is going to happen. And when it comes to the urgency of decarbonising society and keeping the forests alive, we need at least 20 years.
We have only 30 years left to do this.
He proposed three 'outrageous suggestions' for achieving these goals:
build wooden skyscrapers rather than using concrete and steel for construction;
create so-called 'transition super-labs' by decarbonising three or four entire regions; and
paying to lease forests elsewhere in the world so they are not burnt down for economic purposes."
How many trees would it take to build a typical skyscraper?
https://christian-watson.com/deforestation-in-britain/ "One of the main contributors of deforestation is construction."
Now we get to the nitty gritty:
The next funding programme for European research and innovation, Horizon Europe, is anticipated to be worth €100 billion between 2021 and 2027. As well as setting aside funding for basic research and promoting innovation, it will be designed around clusters of challenges where research and innovation could help find solutions.
€100 billion, is this what they mean by "Tipping Point"?
The author of the piece, Nick Mabey, is another long serving activist, working at one time for WWF:
TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ON MECHANISMS UNDER ARTICLES 6, 12 AND 17 OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
Bonn, 9 – 15 April 1999
Mr. Nick MABEY Economics and Development Officer, World Wide Fund for Nature-UK
He co-founded the quasi-governmental organisation E3G in the UK, a revolving door group with the government https://www.e3g.org/people/nick-mabey
He was a senior policy adviser to Tony Blair, and former Head of Sustainable Development in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Environment Policy department.
Dennisambler — why only 30 years, when the U.N. is saying we are seeing the worst effect right now.. Why is it always in the trillions of dollars? Also, this is one big contradiction, how many trees would one unstable skyscraper take to build?
the damage may be between €100 trillion and the loss of civilisation,' he said. 'The probability, I would say, is about 10% that this is going to happen. And when it comes to the urgency of decarbonising society and keeping the forests alive, we need at least 20 years.
Philo says:
Tall wooden buildings are limited by the compressive strength, The strongest woods come from tropical forests and are relatively rare- iron wood, tiger wood, etc. and expensive.
The tallest buldings to date are about 10 stories- 32meters. and even those need "engineered" wood. Engineered wood is layers of wood laminated into forms using urea-formaldehyde resins. These are cancer causing chemicals if not completely cured and even then have a strong, characteristic odor for years.
That implies way more than 5 times the ground area for the same population.
Lee L says:
Tallest wood buildings to date exceed 10 stories in height. Also, you don't have to be a purist. You can still use concrete and/or steel .. just not as much of it.
Engineered wood ain't just your grandpa's particle board any more.
Structurally, engineered wood also can have better fire resistance than steel. This seems very counter intuitive but is true nonetheless. Structural steel will begin to soften and sag in a fire long before an engineered wood beam will collapse. Better to be in a wood building in an earthquake too. I can attest to that one personally.
Here is an early 18 storey wooden building at UBC in Vancouver: (completed in 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHtdnY_gnmE
There are higher such 'wood' buildings completed and proposed since 2017.
And … they didn't have to mow down the tropical rainforest to get really dense exotic timber for this. The columns are glulam which is basically really, really fat plywood using planks and glue (probably waterproof phenol formaldehyde resin). It's a very old tried and true process.
Newer processes may also compress the wood fibre for density and strength and can use many different species to produce long and very thick beams and columns with much more consistent properties than native wood .
You won't don't need to cut down all the old growth fir or redwood forests to get big timbers. They can be manufactured from a large variety of species ranging from poplar to pine to fir … and even bamboo.
Here's a wiki if you are curious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glued_laminated_timber
(See Glulam, Parallam, Laminated Veneer Lumber)
I'm not saying building tall wood structures is worthwhile as a CO2 reduction measure, but that's not for the reasons you gave.
Compared to it's strength, wood is also heavy. Which means even more weight for the lower floors to carry.
ATheoK says:
Towns go through phases; evident across history, even from prehistoric times.
Early in their existence, houses and buildings are made of wood.
Trouble is, wood burns. Older dryer houses burn startling fast.
A fact that town leaders realized very quickly.
Builders moved towards nonflammable materials.
Stone was the best choice before reinforced concrete became common.
Stone requires significant labor to shape. Prehistoric rulers got past this hurdle by using slaves or indentured workers. Their hard labors and dangerous work is evident in their skeletons
A future activists will face, as it absolutely requires mining, smelting, refining and manufacturing to make tools to shape stone. Every one of those industrial steps requires fossil fuels.
Wooden skyscrapers are fire traps. Anyone living above the third floor should seek double or triple indemnity so their heirs may lice a shade better.
A world unable to use fossil fuels or products from fossil fuels is immediately condemned to a world somewhere between 1300 CE and 1600 CE in technology; without the animal populations that supported that level of civilization.
No stretch fibers.
No plastics,
No refined metals,
No fertilizers for farmers,
No mechanized equipment to aid farming or transportation for the servile class of serfs.
No 10% probability.
Eliminate fossil fuels; or require a level of emissions to rectify a century of modern living and you are demanding the end of modern civilization.
The good news is that greens won't have to worry about fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. Fortunately, insect ridden foods supply extra protein.
The truth of the matter has been freely announced by progressive elites in many organizations; including the UNFCCC and IPCC.
What they really want is wealthier countries to commit to socialism and spread the wealth to the poorer countries.
Utterly ignoring the historical 100% failures of socialist and communist governments.
At least 100 million people died under socialist governments in the 20th Century. Where the governments made willful decisions to spend food monies elsewhere like military hardware.
After climate activists have toppled world government democracies and republics, only the ultra 1% elites will live comfortably. The rest of the human chattel are solely responsible to make the elites happy. Freeze, starve, labor, will be their lot. The only right of a worker under socialism is to work. Without fossil fuels, that means manual labor.
His lack of education is obvious:
"build wooden skyscrapers rather than using concrete and steel for construction"
The worlds tallest wooden structure (which also uses concrete) is only 53 meters (173 ft) high.
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/03/19/mjostarne-worlds-tallest-timber-tower-voll-arkitekter-norway/
What sky would they be scraping?
I don't suspect that it will be as durable as stone structures. And… it would be a real nightmare to tent for termites.
Farmer Ch E retired says:
He obviously has not taken a class in Materials Science. Engineers choose materials based on function.
JEHILL says:
Is the loony left still championing cutting down the rain forests in Indonesia for Red Palm trees to make bio-fuels?
Gordon Dressler says:
To Nick Mabey, author of the excerpted text in the above article's box:
Mr. Mabey,
You stated ". . . without a big increase in action at Glasgow it will be practically impossible to keep climate change within safe limits." I ask that you please define specifically and quantitatively your meaning of the term "safe limits" as used in this context.
Are the safe limits average global lower atmospheric temperatures not exceeding +/- 1 C from the current average?
Are the safe limits atmospheric CO2 content not exceeding the range of 250-450 ppm?
Are the safe limits global cloud coverage not exceeding 30-50 percent?
Are the safe limits global sea level rise not exceeding 3.5 mm/year, as measured by satellites?
Are the safe limits no more than TBD hurricanes/typhoons per year, or TBD regional droughts per year, or TBD regional floods per year?
Are the safe limits no more that TBD scientific articles and books per year questioning the CAGW meme?
I think you owe us your specific definition BEFORE you ask us to take action.
Also, you should be mindful of the following quote:
"If you can't define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity."
— Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
To quote that famous, wise philosopher, George Carlin, "The planet doesn't need saving."
We are fleas on "The Planet." No matter how far back you want to stretch 'Civilization'; 10,000 or 30.000 or 50,000 years, we are nothing. A blip. An anomaly in terms of the history of planet Earth. Glacials and interglacials are just weather to our planet.
But we're here… now, so we just have to deal with the hand we are dealt. And as a reminder, maybe the only reason we are here is because Gaia needed plastics.
Krishna Gans says:
Schellnnhuber, who in his youth thought to be an "intellectual weapon" isn't more than a squib load 😀
John Bell says:
Why must it come from "the government"? Why can not the climate faithful simply start living like the Amish and give up fossil fuels? Why must it come from above? Why wait? Let it start at he grass roots level. what hypocrites the climate faithful are.
I was talking about this yesterday with a colleague. He seemed to be convinced we are "doomed", yet not only he keeps showing for work everyday (in an law practice dedicated to infraestructure projects, you can imagine how polluting they are), but he does things like ordering food everyday via Uber Eats for lunch and won't recycle the packages; eats beef; is planning a holiday abroad via plane; has a plot greenhouse in an apartment; etc. I kept pointing those things to him, saying "well then why are you here, why aren't you living in the hills, foraging for food and preparing for the apocalypse? Why wait?", to which he responded "that's not the point, nothing I can do will help, it's the system that's to blame"…OMG. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing! Isn't him part of the system? Aren't we all? Aren't already so many things changing because individuals or groups decided that some things had to be improved? He obviously doesn't believe what he says, it's just posturing, as with most people. I guess it's easier to think you have no responsibility and to live with the idea that there's no future; that way, you can keep partying and wasting your life without regrets, because, who cares? Nothing matters if you think like that.
Marv says:
If he was sincere about this twelve-years-and-then-we-are-all-dead thingy he should borrow as much money as he possibly could with deferred payments for as long as possible (twelve years would be ideal) and then party on for as long as he could.
According to this guy humans don't have ten years left due to climate change.
Oh, wait! He made this announcement two years ago so I guess this means we don't have eight years left!
Humans 'don't have 10 years' left thanks to climate change – scientist | Newshub
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2016/11/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change—scientist.html
Hahaha you're completely right. Worse thing is that he believes we only have 3 years (!!), not 12. Yeaaaah….right. I guess he believes the world is going to end, but just like cockroaches, banks will survive the apocalypse.
The very question I have asked since the 1980s. Show us the convictions of their beliefs. HA. Like that will ever happen.
"Climate denial is no longer the problem…" Yes, because you made it up to begin with, so it never was "the problem". The real problem for the Climate Liars is reality, truth, and actual science, and those pointing it out. Unfortunately for them, the truth is winning.
Greg Woods says:
Dang! Now its 'Climate Pollution'. It is getting hard to keep up…
Someone is missing the point, and not just the greens.
The "Green Finance Initiative" , the City of London GFI, of central bankers and banksters, convened by Bank of England chief Carney, has been planning this shutdown of advanced power sources and "Green New Deal" since2015, immediately after the Paris COP21 meeting, before the Greta, F4F, XR street circus.
Carney's compact of 130 banks can only provoke hilarity: "Principles of Responsible Banking". Among the
leading responsibles: Lloyds Banking Group (caught in securities fraud, stock "misselling", etc.); Danske Bank (currently in a massive money-laundering scandal); ABN Amro (looter of cities through deceptive interest-rate swaps deals before and after the 2008 crash); Deutsche Bank, the London destroyer of German
banking; Citigroup, Wall Street's biggest serial bankrupt; Barclays, a leader in rigging the LIBOR rate from 2007-15; BNP Paribas and Societe Generale, etc.
Carney's Compact fully intends a massive green boondoggle to weather the looming crash, complete with SHC, a synthetic hegemonic currency, Libra and Bitcoin step aside, with investment strictly for green projects.
These are the honorable gentlemen who will impose drastic austerity, greening, causing population collapse on a scale far beyond any historical precedent.
Adapting to this eco-fascism (WaPo's term) of unelected bankers is the first danger sign.
Rhys Jaggar says:
Who gave Carney the mandate for that nonsense?
He has no mandate, period.
Robert Austin says:
Carney is a Canadian. Let us hope that his Anglophilia keeps him permanently in dear old Blighty.
mikewaite says:
President Trump was publicly disinvited to this jamboree, strolled by anyway and , to judge from the twittering and media comment totally stole the show. I suppose class tells.
And remember folks, … greens are the new reds!… Communism/Socialism is the only tool that the elites have to impose an authoritarian world government. The plan is to make people as poor and ignorant as possible (Greta's main goal), so they can be easily manipulated.
What about COP25 in Santiago this December? Why are they talking about COP26 in Glasgow when we are a few months away from the one in Chile? I don't get it…they just gave up? Or maybe Greta told them Chile is too far away for any acceptable travel method? (I don't see her traversing the Magellan Strait in that tiny boat of hers) It would be kind of sad for the Chilean government, which has spent so much money already on the event, and which president is very keen to appear eco-conscious, maybe to reap political benefits from it, by contrasting his position with Bolsonaro's.
I wondered about that too. Apparently, COP26 is a bigger deal – and is being called a "major climate summit" instead of a "climate conference", with 30,000 delegates expected (no mention of how many they expect in Chile). I believe a big factor in whether or not COP26 will be considered "successful" will hinge on whether or not Trump is reelected.
While people may want action now, now is the worst time to act, since the advanced power generation technology that will revolutionize the sector is still several years away (small modular molten salt Thorium/uranium reactors). Officials know little about climate change and even less about practical methods of reducing carbon emissions.
Bloombergs and Carney intention to eradicate coal and gas power is plain genocide. Carney's banking Compact, above, fully intends a global greening and gov't are to be put under severe pressure to go along.
It is the worst time to go along to get along.
Paul Homewood says:
If solutions are cheaper, public opinion is mobilised and impacts much clearer, why is political action not following?
"If solutions are expensive, the public are not interested, and there are no impacts, then political action will not follow"
There, fixed!
Electoral suicide perhaps?
Kenji says:
6. You believe an inflatable cartoon balloon of Trump wearing a diaper is changing peoples minds about the most transformative conservative POTUS in history
observa says:
I find Greta absolutely delicious. The quintessential climate changer for all the world to see and her devotees and worshippers are all too blind stupid to recognise what they've created with their child icon in their own image. Never interfere with an opponent while they're kicking own goals and go Greta go!
They abuse a sick uneducated child – and a former president of Socialist International (currently a UN Secretary General) joins and cheers. He looks rather prosperous.
A fish stinks from the head.
"They abuse a sick uneducated child"
But that's the delicious part as they don't see her as that but rather the perfect changeling of their own creation. However in show biz the golden rule is you should never work with children or animals lest you lose control of the show and they make a fool of you which she's doing superbly by holding up a mirror to them all. Most decent adults would find it all cringeworthy but the climate changers are stuck with her now and can't cut her loose. She's running the show.
Thomas Englert says:
She appears to have problem with her left eye. It won't open all the way. Anybody else notice this?
Paul Penrose says:
"4. You believe the world is going to end in 12 years (11 years? or is it all a joke? hard to keep track), but you still work your every day job, live your normal life, and have an occasional crying fit about how awful it all is."
4a. And you are still having children.
James Clarke says:
I believe we are seeing the ground work being laid for the justification of monumental violence.
Wooden skyscrapers – great I can't wait to see that play out, although presumably they will have to be made, built and held together with all sorts of fossil fuel products and usages. Doubtless the eco-warriors will voluntarily be keen to occupy these structures. Fires should be interesting.
Do anyone suppose we currently use concrete and steel for a good reason?
Does that mean we will continue to destroy world forests to provide inefficient but hugely costly eco-fuel additives, wood chips for power stations and now green sky towers?
So again it's the end of civilisation, an existential crisis but we musn't build fission reactors…..
Just any comment
A G Reid says:
Perhaps the best response would be for the US to advise the UN to relocate their HQ to somewhere other than New York USA.
Here's one to add to that list of "if you're green, you believe…" thoughts
№ 6: Even though you have tirelessly worked against private car ownership, politicked your neighbors to at least buy Priuses and Volts, and bicycle to work, and eschew vacations … the money by which you live your praiseworthy life comes from industry, commerce, food logistics, health care, government and the whole host of necessary-but-parasitic also-ran businesses … all of which have heated (or air conditioned) offices, ample lighting, labor stretching machines, abundant computers, endless support services, telecom, hot'n'cold water, etc.
ALL OF WHICH consume more energy, dear green advocate, way more energy than whatever you think you are saving personally. 99% of you aren't growing sufficient food in your back yard or collective to actually sustainably feed your family the whole year.
The almond milk comes not from your yard. The tofu, not from your soybeans. The bread, from wheat you don't grow. The bandaids, nostrums, elixirs, essential oils, organic hemp totes … not from your hand. They're comported in big ugly trucks, after being cutely packaged to elicit pleasant thoughts of flowers, fall leaves, kittens and clean blue air.
The distribution network IS HOW you get your stuff, dear greenie. Your clothing, the same. Your soaps, the same. The water you drink, wash, covet … the same.
And that's the interesting point.
We have a bunch of "young and idealistic" post-kids (young adults, college age) around our neighborhood, and friends with ours. They come to dinner, inevitably burgers, pizza, macaroni salad, garlic bread, tankards of beer, mixed drinks, the like. They're proud to be using stainless steel tubes instead of throw-away straws, and metal cups instead of plastic.
Yet, inevitably, they also leave them behind for me to find the next day, put in the dishwasher, and pile in a box-of-recoverables that no one has yet retrieved one single item from. It seems to be a throw-away culture, still, but with MUCH more expensive throw-aways.
Who's paying for all this while they endlessly lecture me and The Dearest Wife about our sinful lifestyles and ways? Oh… as usual, their parents. And their phony-baloney jobs saving wildfowl and mangy dogs, or picketing the campus. Wait, those don't pay… so its still on Bleeding Heart Mom and Grumpy Dad. Wonder why he's grumpy.
Still … the lecturing is the same, repeatedly. So, although it has broken up many-an-otherwise-blissful-party, I always rebut the claptrap with the same line… "Since China and India are entirely responsible for 62% of all the CO₂ emissions, planet-wide … and since the US and Europe have actually reduced their CO₂ output by over 7% in the last 12 years, while C + I has increased theirs by over 180%, … what concrete thing is to be done about THEM?"
With an inevitability that defies providence, the same lame blame is aimed right back at US! We're at fault you see, for having been the № 1 and № 2 emitter (US & EU) for the last 100 years… and thus we and we alone need to remediate for all that, before the poor Developing World needs to embrace change. We shît in the bed, don't you know, but it is ours to clean up. End of story, now go away, Old Man. Greta Thunburg — if you're not cleaning up the world you besmirched, then WE will blame you and hold you accountable to the end of time.
Always the same.
Including the ending.
The dismissal.
The casting of Where We Are as the Fault Of The Older Generations, and thus convicted guilty-as-charged, dismissed unless penance is extracted.
HARD penance.
Like giving up all accumulated wealth to power a Socialism for the Next Generation that will with new vigor, attack the problem head on, changing everything, and if necessary, just salting away the elderly as guilty-so-Die-already. Penal colonies for the Elderly. Never did anything for US anyway, except produce pollution.
Sometimes, depending on the degree of drink I've consumed, feeling game, I'll engage further: I take absolutely every trope and hold it hostage to reality. Kind of along the lines of that fabulous Monte Python skit, "What have the Romans ever done for US???". Parody tho' it is, the Romans Skit is brilliantly accurate in framing the exact mendacity of the Young-and-Determined generation in simply not thinking at all about where all the trappings of civilization come from.
Thing is, when I follow this line, somehow, I'm also held in askance for merely questioning the obviousness of their lacy position. The air fairly blows right thru the gossamer fabric of their dialectic. But in the end, I'm not-subtly dismissed, the youngsters walk away, toking their blown glass bongs in the corner, furtively looking my way, sniggering, smugly sure that they and they alone are holding the keys to the New Way, old Fûques be dâhmned.
I keep thinking … who's going to keep the lights on, how are the millions of us going to get food, where will the food be grown and harvested. How will the MRI and CAT machines run without the technology that generation-upon-generation of Old Fûques created, crafted, and keep silently humming along? One wonders.
One wonders.
Roger Knights says:
"With an inevitability that defies providence, the same lame blame is aimed right back at US! We're at fault you see, for having been the № 1 and № 2 emitter (US & EU) for the last 100 years… and thus we and we alone need to remediate for all that, before the poor Developing World needs to embrace change."
Your riposte to that should be this: The electorates of developed nations won't stand for the wealth transfer being demanded once it begins to bite, and will elect politicians who promise relief, as happened in Australia, Ontario, Alberta, and elsewhere. And not only is there no justification for wealth transfer, there is none for domestic hair-shirtism either, since it will only futily delay Doomsday until 2105, while impoverishing us. Why bother? Why not spent our money on adaptation and research instead, as urged by Lomberg?
MikeTheDenier says:
There will be no history written. We'll all be dead.
Alasdair Fairbairn says:
The wolf is clothed in a simple dress worn by an abused 16 y o girl with a mental problem.
To me that says all I need to know about the wolf.
Cancun was a failure. Copenhagen was a failure. Katowice was a failure. Paris is a failure. What's to be worried about?
Gunga Din says:
And they admit this was a failure.
This one was in NYC. Broadway is in NYC. When a show on Broadway bombs, they don't keep reopening "The Show" in another city.
mr bliss says:
Of course they considered the New York conference a failure – they couldn't believe Glasgow was chosen as the next venue – "Not enough 5 star hotels – and we may have to SHARE our private limos!!" Apparently 97% of delegates wanted somewhere with the chance of some skiing
nicholas tesdorf says:
Politicians are already feeling the pressure from both sides. On one side is a noisy, violent minority who want to destroy all industry, on the other side is the large silent majority who do not want to pay even $1 for all that green nonsense and the hope of better weather. The Politicians know instinctively which side their bread is buttered on and pay only lip service to the noisy, violent minority.
I guess it's back to the paid marketing consultant sessions on new tactics for the UN gold hunt in your bank accounts and retirement plans.
This after the North-South divide and Third World country designations and associated wealth re-distributions did not work out.
Remember to keep tabs on all the untapped wealth out there just in case the trillion $ price estimate for the new slogan needs an update.
William Haas says:
If they were really concerned about the burning of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, they would hold all their future meetings on the Internet but they are not doing that. It would seem that hundreds of billions of dollars spent on wind and solar have not had a noticeable effect on today's climate. If they were really concerned about reducing CO2 emissions related to the burning of fossil fuels then they would be pushing nuclear power that does not require that we shaft the world's economy and end the idea of liberty and freedom for all.
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So as we have been observing, reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. But even if we could, some how stop the Earth's climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.
RockyRoad says:
The Climate Conference wasn't a failure– those attending were!
KilgoreHoover says:
The pols are not doing anything because they've pushed the envelope as far as possible and there's nowhere else to go. They've squeezed and squeezed the lemon and there just ain't no more juice. The deplorable herd is finally wising up. No more soup for you! An army of scolding Gretas won't make any difference.
We're on to you.
Winter weather is starting early in Montana. Good for the ski runs, and the buckle in the jet stream will push a little more warm autumn weather my way, toward the Lower Lakes. Fine by me. If it doesn't rain and reflood the rivers, I can get some good shots with my camera. I know the geese won't start migrating until cold weather drives them to it.
This mass hysteria that politicians have been trying to build is starting to have two effects: one effect is that some people are unable to stop proselytizing, even if they don't follow whatever rules they're supposed to follow themselves (e.g., the food, clothing, use of electricity, etc.) and won't shut up until or unless there is a glacier forming in their front yards, and maybe not even then; and the second effect is that the rest of us, who live in the real world take in that nonsense, watch the hypocrisy, and wonder how long it will be until reality smacks these dimwits in the head.
I don't want to see late spring snows cutting into the planting/growing/harvesting seasons at all, but if I have to stock grains to make bread, I can do so. If I have a choice between my electric slow cookers (two of them) and my gas-fired oven, I'll take both. If having enough food on hand means getting a second, and possibly freezer, I'll do that.
But I won't feed or shelter the beggarly idiots showing up who don't understand that climate cycles also mean a return to colder climate, shortages of everything, prolonged cold, early snows and late spring snow (I have photos) , and that with the Sun in a solar minimum we may have frozen eggs instead of usable stuff from the hens.
When the local power grid failed at the end of November last year (I keep track of these things) because sleet, globs of ice and snow, and strong winds weighed down the power lines and shut off the grid for over 388,000 people in my area, I was extremely happy that my little house is insulated against the cold enough to keep the temperature from dropping to a dangerously low level. I have never been more happy to see the power company's crew truck go past my house. But this is one time that I truly wished for a fireplace or a cast-iron woodburning stove.
My little house isn't suited for it, unfortunately. And I"m smart enough to realize that if it happened once, it can and will happen again. Doesn't mean I can't solve this problem. But I sure as hell won't offer space to any ecohippies that show up looking for shelter. (Rant over.)
'In most countries more people want climate action than not' but then when you ask them to pay for it their enthusiasm wanes rapidly. Funny that.
Just to align interests delegates who wish to virtue signal at conferences must be made to row to them .
And the next conference needs to be in Antarctica the continent that gets no love . – 40 F will do that .
I would like to see Al Gore do the opening address wearing a thimble .