Climate Change

Activists Denounce Madrid Climate Change Conference Outcomes as 'Totally Unacceptable' and 'Deeply Flawed'

COP25 whimpers to its inconclusive close.

|

It dragged on longer than any previous United Nations climate change conference, but for most climate activists the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was a near-total failure. Specifically, negotiators from more than 190 states meeting in Madrid, Spain, failed to work out how to track and account for carbon dioxide emissions trading between countries and declined to meet poor nations' demands for what amounts to climate reparations from rich nations. In addition, some big carbon emitters—China, the United States, India, Russia—refused to meet activist demands that they commit to deeper emissions cuts.

"Governments need to completely rethink how they do this, because the outcome of COP25 is totally unacceptable," declared Greenpeace executive Jennifer Morgan in a roundup of activist statements. "At a time when the science and the urgent need to address the human toll of climate impacts couldn't be clearer, the deeply flawed outcome here in Madrid is plainly unjust and immoral," added Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"The global climate talks are a farce if countries continue down this destructive path of inaction," concluded Jean Su of the Center for Biological Diversity. Chema Vera of Oxfam International agreed: "The world is screaming out for climate action but this summit has responded with a whisper."

Basically concurring with the activists' assessment, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres declared himself "disappointed with the results." He further vowed, "I will not give up. I am more determined than ever to work for 2020 to be the year in which all countries commit to do what science tells us is necessary to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and a no more than 1.5 degree temperature rise."

You can see why the activists were upset. For one thing, the meeting's rich countries refused to set up a scheme that would pay poor countries for the "loss and damage" stemming from climate change. Also, activists they wanted all the signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change to increase the amounts by which they were pledging to reduce their greenhouse emissions. That did not happen. The U.S. is scheduled to officially withdraw from the Paris Agreement next November, and both China and India refused change their climate commitments, which run until 2030.

Another major sticking point was how to establish rules for an international carbon market, an idea embedded in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. One point of contention involves when governments or foreign private companies pay for carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced in another country. For example, a power plant in Germany might pay either the government of Brazil or a local landowner to keep forests standing in order to absorb carbon dioxide. The problem is that Germany and Brazil both want to count the same emissions reductions derived from the forests toward their national targets. But only one should be allowed to claim it, unless you want to unleash a lot of double counting.

Another Article 6 problem is what to do with the emissions credits earned through the Clean Development Mechanism under the failed Kyoto Protocol. Under that agreement, companies in rich countries met their emissions reductions goals by financing low-carbon and no-carbon projects in poorer countries. Opponents argue against counting these old credits for billions of tons of emissions reductions, on the grounds that they would flood the new markets, greatly discouraging investment in further reductions. Holders of the credits respond that their good-faith investments in Kyoto Protocol emission reduction projects should not be rendered worthless.

So just I predicted last week, COP25 ended with diplomatic equivocation and obfuscation. These thorny issues were kicked down the road to be debated again next November, at the COP26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

 

 

 

NEXT: Trump's 'Capitulation' on Trade Deal Leaves Republicans in Awkward Position

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These thorny issues are never going to be resolved because to resolve them requires shutting down the capitalist system and allowing the developing world to loot the west. And those damned deplorable voters are never going to agree to that no matter how much their betters assure them it is for their own good.

    And there are few things in the world more gratifying than the site of a global warming activist being disappointed.

    1. The river of warm, salty AGW activist tears is melting the polar ice cap.

      1. While Greta sits in mommy’s lap wondering how the poor people will deal with imaginary global warming, mommy sits on chairs costing on average nine thousand Euros.

        1. She was supposedly sitting on the floor in putatively overcrowded train going home. Except the German train company says she just was not using her 1st class seat

    2. If they want to have an impact instead of protesting they should be planting trees around the globe. Then when this turns out to be nothing more than natural processed the next generation will at least have a good supply of lumber.

  2. Greta getting a lot of frequent sailor miles?

    1. Greta wants them, and I quote, “lined up against a wall”

      1. Personally, I will line up behind the wall, and generate carbon emissions like crazy until the ammo runs out.

        1. Had a bowl of chili at lunch and dinner, so I am doing my part to generate emissions, though not nearly as much as the BS that flows from the mouth as the AGW cult.

      2. Yep, meet the Ecological National Socialist Hitlerjugend!

    2. The Kyoto treaty is over 20 years old, and it still remains the starkest example of what a craven, crony con job the climate industry is.

      “Under that agreement, companies in rich countries met their emissions reductions goals by financing low-carbon and no-carbon projects in poorer countries.” – Ron Baily

      Essentially, if some country in Africa was intending to build a gas-burning power plant, they could instead be paid to plant forests. Think about that for a moment. Our solution to Global Warming was for Rich countries to pay indulgences to 3rd world countries. And even worse, these indulgences specifically cause 3rd world politicians to benefit while failing to build the infrastructure their populations need to grow.

      1. financing low-carbon and no-carbon projects

        There is no such thing. It is kind of like mandating the use of cellulosic ethanol.

  3. Deeply flawed, not unacceptable. I guess the UN is less competent at controlling the weather than they are at controlling war, poverty, disease, death, and all the other afflictions mankind is heir to – and it ain’t like were doing such a bang-up job of all that to start with.

    1. Yes these protestors believe the UN will be able to both control the climate and determine the perfect temperature for the earth if you just send them enough money.

  4. “Governments need to completely rethink how they do this, because the outcome of COP25 is totally unacceptable,” declared Greenpeace executive Jennifer Morgan in a roundup of activist statements”

    The alternative to persuasion, democracy, and willing market participants is populism. From the U.S. and Brexit to populist movements in France, Germany, and Italy, the populist reaction to the kind of elitism Greenpeace appears to be advocating is the same. Oh, and it doesn’t matter whether scientists or activists know that the alternative to persuasion, democracy, and willing market participants is populism–the reaction to their elitist authoritarianism is the same regardless of whether environmental activists understand them or recognize it.

    Meanwhile, if the environment suffers from global warming, it won’t be because governments failed to inflict environmentalist policies on their own people–over their objections and against their will. It will be because environmental activists refused to abandon their elitist authoritarianism. For goodness’ sake, if they don’t care enough about saving the planet to abandon their elitist authoritarianism, why should the rest of us sacrifice our standard of living?

    1. The alternative to persuasion, democracy, and willing market participants is populism authoritarian collectivism.

      …according to AOC, Greta, the Poope, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, and millions of sheeple.

      1. Populism by another name would stink as much.

      2. Well, they seem to want people to believe that ignoring what the people want is the essence of freedom.

    2. If they don’t care enough about saving the planet to stop their Luddite opposition to clean nuclear power, then why should anyone take them seriously?

  5. “The global climate talks are a farce if countries continue down this destructive path of inaction

    FIFY

  6. These statistics bear repeating here:

    In the 18 months from January 2018 to June 2019, China increased its coal fired power capacity by 42.9 gigawatts or about 4.5%.

    China presently has 121.3 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants under construction–about enough to power the entirety of France.

    The increase followed a 2014-2016 “permitting surge” by local governments aiming to boost growth while formerly suspended projects have also been restarted, Global Energy Monitor said. In the rest of the world, coal-fired power capacity fell 8.1 GW over the same period.

    The amount coal’s share of the country’s total energy production went from 68% in 2012 to 59% in 2018, and coal’s total share of China’s electricity production is expected to fall to 55.3% by 2020.

    Absolute coal consumption, however, has continued to increase in line with a rise in overall Chinese energy demand.

    Source: Reuters, November 19, 2019

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-china-coal/china-coal-fired-power-capacity-still-rising-bucking-global-trend-study-idUSKBN1XU07Y

    The reason they failed to come to a deal is because if China is rolling out enough coal to power the entirety of France, then why should the government of France force its people to sacrifice their standard of living–in the name of fighting greenhouse gas emissions?!

    This is why this session fell apart without a market or any other kind of agreement, and this is why the United States was right to “withdraw” from the Paris Accord Treaty.

    1. There are two major reasons why the Climate stuff happens. 1) to hamstring the US, 2) for poor countries to get more lucre from the developed world and 3) to pay for rich junkets.

      Without the US in number 1 or as the main contributor in #2, there really is nothing to be done other than to wine and dine and shake hands- which doesn’t require an actual treaty to be agreed upon.

      1. That’s exactly right.

        They need a progressive president in the White House, who genuinely believes that forcing the American people to sacrifice their standard of living so that people in China and India can burn more coal is a legitimate function of government.

  7. “Activists Denounce Madrid Climate Change Conference Outcomes as ‘Totally Unacceptable’ and ‘Deeply Flawed’.”

    TRANSLATION: We will not be happy and will continue to throw our infantile tantrums until all the world’s money is put into our scam so we can be rich, powerful and totalitarian.

    1. Well, some of them do genuinely belive what they are saying. Those are the people most despondent. The engineers on one side saying that their claims are over the top and their demands impossible on one side, and their supposed allies who give nonsensical non-solutions on the other.

  8. Everyone is a winner if the activists consider it a loss.

  9. ” declined to meet poor nations’ demands for what amounts to climate reparations from rich nations.”

    Global socialism solves everything. It can even change the chemical properties of CO2.

    1. Global socialism would lead to such an economic collapse and lack of innovation that carbon emissions would definitely go down.

  10. They’ll get reparations from me the minute they revert to their pre-industrial revolution state. But then they wouldn’t know what money was, and I ain’t about to violate their pre-industrial revolution purity by edumacating them, so I guess that’s a big Nope.

  11. This is also a great time to remember that Donald Trump’s “America first” policy was directed at precisely the kind of Obama era thinking that prompted the populist responses we’re suffering all over the the world right now.

    Obama thought that elitists in government inflicting solutions on the unwilling electorates of the world was the solution to global warming, but the problem wasn’t just that his policies were undesirable. The problem was also his failure to understand that because elitism breeds populism–his elitist solution can never work.

    I can think of two other examples.

    1) They implemented a carbon tax in Australia. A minority supported it–right up until it was implemented and the bills started showing up in the mail. Once people realized how much it cost, not only did they get so angry that they voted out the politicians who implemented the carbon tax. They also got rid of the carbon tax–setting the fight against global warming back a decade if not further.

    2) In California, they planning to build a bullet train–right up until the time came to pay for it. Once they saw how much it would cost and realized that the money for it would need to come either from the taxpayers or cut from out of other state spending, they scrapped the whole thing. Even the kooks who run Sacramento knew better than to go to the voters and the taxpayers with something like that.

    It’s the same thing with this deal falling apart. The Paris Accord was always doomed to failure–and it may not even be about representative democracies. Even the Chinese are fearful of what the Chinese people might do if the Chinese government actually slashed their carbon emissions. Their economy would suffer and the government might lose the “mandate of heaven”.

    There is no way around persuasion, certainly not when we’re talking about people sacrificing their standard of living for a cause. In some ways, what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do here is like the abolitionist movement in the U.S. Slavery was the source of an awful lot of people’s standard of living, and they weren’t willing to give it up without a fight. The best arguments for making those kinds of sacrifices came from religious people. The environmentalists are often accused of being a religion, and I think they should embrace that.

    Jesus’s ideas diffused throughout the Roman Empire without the benefit of the printing press, broadcast media, or the internet. It’s easy. You convince them you care about them and their concerns–by actually caring about them rather than denouncing them as deplorables–and then you tell them what you care about and why. It’s a tough strategy, and it doesn’t necessarily work as quickly as you like, but it has one thing going for it–all the other strategies are doomed to failure.

    1. The environmentalists are often accused of being a religion, and I think they should embrace that.I

      This worked with slavery because the ameliorative policy was obvious. But we don’t know what to do about global warming and the half-baked nonsense supported by these numbnuts shows they don’t know either.

      1. People willingly make sacrifices for the environment all the time. They shop at Whole Foods and pay more because they think some farm practices are easier on the environment. People pay through the nose for electric cars–in part because caring about the environment is considered hip. Consumers pay extra for all sorts of things if you tell them that the product is somehow better for the environment. These are the kinds of sacrifices people can make.

        Incidentally, when I was growing up, people gave 10% of their money to the church.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe#Denominational_positions

        Making sacrifices for a greater cause has been a big part of people’s religious thinking since long before Jesus was born. It’s probably part of every religion, and may be hard wired into the way our neocortex evolved. Regardless, those are the kinds of individual sacrifices that people can make–and make a difference.

        Muslims fast during Ramadan, Jews won’t do lots of things on Saturdays, Catholics traditionally don’t eat meat on Fridays, some Mormons don’t drink caffeine, and maybe Orthodox Environmentalists avoid carbon based energy. I’ve got nothing against people for practicing their own religions, so long as they don’t try to use the government to inflict their religious beliefs on me.

        1. so long as they don’t try to use the government to inflict their religious beliefs on me.

          Amen, brother!

        2. People willingly make sacrifices for the environment all the time.

          This doesn’t address the issue.

          These are the kinds of sacrifices people can make.

          This is exactly the problem. People make the sacrifices they can make. Unfortunately these sacrifices are orders of magnitude from solving the problem. None of the remedies advocated by activists have any chance of solving the problem.

          The solution to global warming hasn’t been discovered yet. Spending all of our money virtue signalling because we don’t know what else to do is counterproductive because people will resist sacrificing more when they’ve already done so ineffectively.

          1. “People make the sacrifices they can make. Unfortunately these sacrifices are orders of magnitude from solving the problem. None of the remedies advocated by activists have any chance of solving the problem.”

            With all respect, you’re falling victim to the perfect solution fallacy.

            “The Perfect Solution Fallacy (also known as the ‘Nirvana Fallacy‘) is a false dichotomy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution to a problem exists; and that a proposed solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. In other words, that a course of action should be rejected because it is not perfect, even though it is the best option available. “

            https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/

            Because no one solution is the complete solution to the problem doesn’t mean that the best solutions available shouldn’t be implemented. I appreciate that the government inflicting their “solutions” on the markets and the people operating within them should be avoided, but individuals making the choice to conserve and protect the environment of their own free will is the ultimate solution, and they need to tackle it from their own perspectives.

            If you live in Southern California, and your electricity comes from the Hoover Dam, driving an electric car is a reasonable solution–if you believe carbon emissions are a problem. If you live in an area that burns coal for electricity, maybe that’s not as good of a solution. Maybe your solution in the northeast is use more blankets when you sleep at night and heat your house during the day with a renewable carbon neutral resource like wood instead of oil. Yes, if all of America did that, it would wipe out the forests–but why does everyone need to do the same thing?

            Just like with every market, the solution is individuals who care making different choices–and those all need to come from their own perspectives in their own situations. Maybe solar panels aren’t the solution for you in your situation. Maybe a geothermal heat pump will work for you. Take care of ourselves, first, in a way that maybe isn’t completely obnoxious and illegal, and then maybe those ideas will catch on. I love rocky road ice cream. If somebody tried to force me to eat it against my will, I’d develop a hatred of it quickly.

        3. Ken, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the sacrifice being requested. This isn’t a tithe. It’s not even a heroic self-sacrifice for your children. It’s a complete cessation of everything.

          Your electric car is arguably WORSE for the environment. Whole foods is DEFINITELY worse than normal produce (organic farming uses a lot more land due to lower yields). Even in the best case scenarios, we are talking rounding errors in your own personal usage. All personal usage is just a rounding error in our industrial society.

          If you want to actually stop climate change, you are talking returning to an Amish way of life. Not the compromise-Amish with propane refrigerators and the best factory-made tools they can, but the strictest groups that actually live in a pre-industrial manner and reject all benefits of modernity.

          Few parents would condemn their children to such a life.

    2. You forget des gilets jaunes?

      When people are forced to absorb the full costs in a transparent fashion they rebel against the elites who say “Do as I say, not as I do.”

      The AGW movement is among the most evil forces at work in the world today. It subverts science with all the fake data and scare tactics and simultaneously subverts legitimate environmentalism by absorbing all the funding and interest that could be put to better use. It encompasses all the evils of state enforced religion without any of the benefits (“do unto others…”).

      1. “and simultaneously subverts legitimate environmentalism by absorbing all the funding and interest that could be put to better use.”

        Bingo!

        Environmentalist concerns are addressed by technological change, changing consumer tastes, and entrepreneurs–in spite of the efforts of phony environmentalists who are trying to hamstring markets and the economy with environmental regulation.

        The biggest positive environmental impact of the past came from fracking and introduction of an abundance of natural gas for energy, which burns 40% cleaner than coal. That came from greedy entrepreneurs looking to drill where they couldn’t drill before. The biggest positive environmental impacts in the present may come from Impossible Burgers and Teslas–not the government. My money on the solution to our problems isn’t on the government in the future–and for all the same reasons: consumer driven environmental breakthroughs came from entrepreneurs chasing profits.

        1. My environmental concerns are clean drinking water, reduced air pollution, more ‘friendly’ pesticides, habitat preservation, species preservation, etc. Not carbon emissions. I think CRISPR and other bio advances hold immense promise to improve lots of problems.

          The best government incentives are positive ones – prizes for breakthroughs and advances – not support of multitudes of disproven ideas at government labs or penalties for transgressions.

          1. It’s hard to talk about carbon emissions sensibly since you can’t talk about them without the threat of the government destroying our economy if we pretend it’s a legitimate concern. The environmentalist authoritarians have created an environment that makes talking about carbon emissions now like talking about communism was during the Red Scare. “Creative destruction” was a Marxist concept–and a good one. That was a great observation Marx made, not that you could have talked about it rationally with people in the 1950s. If the environmentalists want to create that kind of environment, where their ideas are as stifled by fear now as communism was in the 1950s, then they’re doing a great job. If they want to make support for environmental causes as broad and as deep as possible, they’re their own worst enemies.

    3. In some ways, what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do here is like the abolitionist prohibitionist movement in the U.S.

      FIFY

      1. They want people to give up the means to their elevated standard of living is what I was trying to say.

        1. I got that point, but you made it seem moral and rational.

          1. The only thing immoral about the environmentalist movement is their attempt to use the government to inflict their solutions on the rest of us over our objections and against their will. As far as irrational, I don’t know that Scientology, Mormonism, the Amish, or Zoroastrianism is especially rational either–but that’s the great thing about religious beliefs. They don’t need to be rational to be tolerable. Just don’t try to inflict them on the rest of us, and they’d probably be more popular than they are. How many people oppose environmentalism just because they’re authoritarian–and then go spend all their free time fishing, hunting, and enjoying the wilderness for recreation? Those people should be natural allies.

            Ripe recruits for the environmentalist church if they’d just stop trying to turn our government into the environmentalist Inquisition.

  12. >>Specifically, negotiators … failed

    vacay on someone else’s dime & only catch is sitting in on negotiations to nowhere hardly seems a failure

  13. What was the carbon footprint of this gathering of fascists?
    Include all travel, the footprint of feeding those freeloaders, and the trips home. Add in the carbon generated to feed all the online and social media whining, and the heat generated by their tiny little minds exploding.
    When everybody walks to these meetings, and forages for their own food, wearing grasses, I will consider a bit of what they say.
    (Then I will continue to laugh and laugh and laugh)

  14. “In addition, some big carbon emitters—China, the United States, India, Russia—refused to meet activist demands that they commit to deeper emissions cuts.”

    At least the U.S. has been reducing carbon emissions. China has doubled theirs over the past 10 years (and now produce twice the emissions of the U.S. and 25% of global emissions) and the Paris Accords don’t require them to stop increasing emissions until 2030. India is pretty much the same, and should pass the U.S. in annual emissions within a decade.

  15. ECO-SCAM Activists = The Boy living in the Sahara desert who can’t stop crying “wolf”. “The wolf is coming”… “The wolf is coming”…

    Never-mind that absolutely NO-ONE (Anywhere on the globe) has ever seen a wolf.

    Never-mind that the fastest warming ever recorded at the beginning of the great depression when industry was all but shut-down.
    Never-mind that the slowest warming ever recorded at was during WWII when non-catalytic engines were dumping CO2 all over the place.
    Never-mind the ECO-SCAM in 1970s claimed we’d go into an ice-age.
    Never-mind recent data shows average temperatures are actually decreasing.
    Never-mind the winter of 2017 set record low temperatures not seen since 1950s.

    “The Wolf is coming!!” “The Wolf is coming!!!”

  16. HOW I BECOME A FULL MEMBER OF ILUMINATI
    I am mark by name. as the going says, money is powerful in human beings life and money rules the world.I’m from a poor family in which I found it hard to feed my family
    During the end of 2006 and the early part of 2007, I was suffering from a terrible depression that led me to start thinking about suicide.All Around that time I was talking to some people on a few forums about my problems. One of those people helped me learn a little bit about iluminati I suffered before I became a millionaire via the help of iluminati.I knew here in US promised to help me give email which I emailed told them I want become a member and be protected.They accept my application and I was initiated after my initiation. I was given first money of $2,000.000.00 US Dollars and on monthly basis am now paid $20,000.00 USDollars for working for the hood. Please if you are tired of poverty and you want to change your status or you are already weathy and you need protection of life,wealth,properties and family member please come and join the help iluminati now and get what you need. Please note that joining is free of charge you don’t pay any dine to become member and to contact us here is
    our directly email iluminatihood123@gmail.com) mobile number +13092795479 join one join all

  17. How dare they!

  18. Look at the photo in Bailey’s article. Ask yourself how much you are willing to bet that any of those 16-year-olds can convert ordinary room temperature from ºCentigrade to ºFahrenheit.
    How many could integrate e to the x?
    How many know the dimensions of any unit of energy or (ghasp!) Work?

    1. Science is a tool of the oppressor (but not climate scientists)

    2. Given the language, none of them could do the unit conversion. However, why don’t you say “Centigrade to Kelvin”, something that is actually necessary for those outside our little imperial unit bubble.

  19. Its really amazing that anyone is taking these climate summits at all seriously since it is obvious that the climate kooks will not be satisfied until every penny from developed countries goes to poor ones, or more likely into the pocket of their corrupt and brutal governments. Meanwhile, even if we follow their advice and destroy our economy and living standard to achieve whatever reduction they deem necessary to keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees, we will have no idea if it will even work (their models show that it will have little if any effect). Its the perfect racket.

  20. I like this new trend of protesters taping to their own mouths. Greta should support it too.

  21. “The world is screaming out for climate action but this summit has responded with a whisper.”

    There’s the Marxist mask slipping. Oh, the world is just dying for action, yet the only “action” is a rich people convention where you jerk each other off about doomsday fantasies? This guy definitely deserves to be told “fuck off, slaver.” If the world is screaming out, the individuals of the world will take action in their own lives.

  22. Well, when you concatenate the fraud the United Nations has become with the fraud that global warming has always been, what do you expect?

    Oh, and

    The U.S. is scheduled to officially withdraw from the Paris Agreement next November…

    The U.S. was never a member of the Paris Agreement. The U.S. ambassador signed, but the treaty was never submitted to the Senate — because Obama knew it wouldn’t pass. “Next November” is irrelevant.

    1. “…The U.S. ambassador signed, but the treaty was never submitted to the Senate — because Obama knew it wouldn’t pass…”

      Obo had a pen and a phone (and an endless supply of bullshit) and figured that was sufficient.

  23. Bailey promotes collective action to address mythical global climate change problems – in the name of science. He needs a better hobby.

  24. At this point, these things are just feel good window dressings. The whole reason climate change is an issue is because there really is no solution, at least not a relative short-term one. Thus, like all problems without a solution, people use meetings to feel like they are doing something about it, even though they really can’t.

    At this point, the only solution is technological. And we don’t know what that is yet.

  25. If only they would keep the tape over their mouths. Would make life a lot quieter for the adults in the room.

  26. I think its cute that the lefty progtards actually think anything will get done at these summits.

    If they fixed the problem they wouldn’t have a summit next year. So no first class flights, limos, 5 star hotels, etc. What kinda bureaucrat is gonna miss that?

    1. +1000. I read The Lords of Poverty when I was a kid and that’s when I started down the Libertarian path. It’s bizarre to me that people don’t see what is really going on.

  27. “…Chema Vera of Oxfam International agreed: “The world is screaming out for climate action but this summit has responded with a whisper.”

    Xi Vera is full of shit.
    If the world was ‘screaming out for action’, something would happen. Those within Vera’s bubble can stuff it where the sun don’t shine.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.