Lukewarm Promises at the U.N. Climate Change Conference
China and Russia aren’t interested in bigger emissions cuts.

The 120 or so presidents, prime ministers, princes, and other potentates gathered for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, have now all had their three minutes of climate change fame. President Joe Biden was in attendance, while Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin were no-shows.
At COP26, signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change are supposed to submit their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs), increasing the ambition of their earlier pledges to reduce their emissions of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are warming the planet. The Biden administration formally committed the U.S. to reducing its annual net GHG emissions to 50–52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Under the 2015 Copenhagen Accord, the Obama administration's NDC committed the U.S. to cut its net GHG emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 26–28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The Rhodium Group, a consultancy firm, estimates that the U.S. actually exceeded its 2020 target and cut its GHG emissions by 21.5 percent. This was the result of the ongoing switch to cheap fracked natural gas, which produces half the carbon dioxide emissions as coal does in generating electricity. The economic fallout of the pandemic and stifled travel further reduced emissions. President Joe Biden's new pledge gives the nation five years (2025–2030) to achieve essentially the same scale of GHG reductions that the Obama administration planned to attain after 10 (2015–2025).
Many countries were not so ambitious. China made very minor adjustments to its previous NDC pledge to peak its GHG emissions by 2030 and cut them to net-zero by 2060. China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide at 10.2 gigatons released in 2020. If current trends continue, its emissions would peak at around 16 gigatons in 2030. Adding in China's emissions of other GHGs like methane, nitrous oxide, and various fluorinated gases, the country emitted 27 percent of the global total in 2019.
In comparison, the U.S. emitted 6.6 gigatons of GHGs in 2019, of which 5.3 gigatons were carbon dioxide, adding up to around 11 percent of global emissions. If Biden's NDC benchmarks are implemented, U.S. GHG emissions would fall to 3.3 gigatons by the end of this decade.
Meanwhile, Putin essentially reiterated Russia's NDC that promises to reduce its GHG emissions to 30 percent below its levels in 1990. In 1990, just before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation emitted about 3.1 gigatons of GHGs. It now emits a bit over 2.5 gigatons, which already amounts to a 19 percent reduction below the 1990 level.
Putin's plan to reduce Russia's GHG emissions even that much depends largely on his country's vast forests absorbing carbon dioxide. One problem: Massive forest fires in Siberia this year likely released nearly one gigaton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Putin did, however, add that Russia would aim for carbon neutrality by 2060.
The Paris Agreement's aspirational goal is to keep the global average temperature from rising by more than 1.5°C by 2100. According to the U.N. Environment Programme, the nations of the world would need to cut global emissions by 55 percent before 2030 in order to stay on track toward that goal. Climate activists at COP26 have embraced "keep 1.5°C alive!" as a slogan. But given the lukewarm ambitions of some of the world's biggest emitters, that is very unlikely to happen.
I will be reporting from COP26 next week, and I will delve more deeply into the potential effects on future temperature trends stemming from nations' pledges to stop deforestation, reduce methane emissions, and shut down coal-fired electric power plants.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Grats to Presidents Xi and Putin for skipping this dog and pony show thus avoiding the carbon pollution resulting from the travel.
Xi is a cuddly bear, neither dog nor pony.
Putin refuses to ride pony as being too small.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.CTh Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.......... Pays 24
Sarah getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.YGd Everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……
So I started.............. E-CASH
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…BCf And i get surly a check of $12600 what's awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won't regret it! ……...........VISIT HERE
I am taking in substantial income two Hundred$ dollar online from my PC. A month ago I GOT check of almost $31k, this online work is basic and GYj direct, don’t need to go OFFICE, Its home online activity.
For More Information Visit…………Pays24
Talk about missing the point. Standard disclaimer I'm not part of the Climate Change religion, but if you're gonna make fun of them you should get it right.
Forest fires don't count as "carbon emissions," or at least they shouldn't, because those trees can grow back and trap the evil evil evil carbon they released. Fossil fuels on the other hand release evil evil evil carbon into the atmosphere, and it's gonna be a while before plants grow back and turn into swamp muck that turns into oil or coal.
That's as retarded as the retarded conservatards that go around acting like exhaling is adding to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Well unless you're eating coal, it isn't.
Dipshits.
Forest fires don't count as "carbon emissions," or at least they shouldn't, because those trees can grow back and trap the evil evil evil carbon they released. Fossil fuels on the other hand release evil evil evil carbon into the atmosphere, and it's gonna be a while before plants grow back and turn into swamp muck that turns into oil or coal.
What makes the CO2 from the fossil fuels different from the CO2 from the burning trees that the latter can make more trees but the former can't?
How do you make coal? I believe you grow trees, and then bury them for a million years. Compare that to trees that you just grow. The difference is time. Lots and lots of time.
Long term. The trees grow back. However, coal can no longer be formed en masse due to the evolution of bacteria that digest plant life. You do have some long term creation of fossil fuels by volcanic activity and induction, but it's a long time. We are talking thousands or millions of years to get back to where we were.
Wood fires, on the other hand, are regrown in ~20 years. They are severe problems for normal pollution, but not CO2.
Now, given the fact that life did just fine a few million years ago, and warmer and wetter is better for a tropical species like us, I don't see the problem, but we should at least accurately identify what the issue is so that people listen to us when we correct them.
Responding to both of you at once:
What is it that prevents the CO2 from the coal from being captured by more trees? Why does it need to turn back into coal before we count it as having been removed from the atmosphere?
Because CO2 from burning plants is turned into new plants which are burned.... it's a cycle.
Unless the CO2 from coal is sequestered and never burned, it is adding to the total. It's not part of the cycle.
With all due respect, that makes no sense. The coal came from atmospheric CO2 in the first place. There aren't any fossil fuels that didn't originate from biomass, and the coal, as you point out, started out as swamp muck that was part of this "carbon cycle." If the natural cycle is "CO2-->plant matter-->burn-->CO2," then what is the big difference if the cycle goes "CO2-->plant matter-->coal-->burn-->CO2?"
Is there a limit on the number of trees that can be in the world at once? If there is, are we anyways near it? Are we any ways near CO2 saturation in the atmosphere, or are we closer to a dangerous lack of CO2?
I barely read your reply. I think it's along the lines of "what's the correct amount of CO2" thing. Fuck if I know. All I'm saying is that burning trees vs burning coal isn't the same thing. One cycle is measured in years. The other in eons. To talk about the two as the same thing is dumb or dishonest.
I barely read your reply.
* * *
To talk about the two as the same thing is dumb or dishonest.
And you wonder why people get annoyed with you. I used to actually like you, but now I think you're a twit.
I'm a twit? Because I see a difference between cycles that take years vs ones that take eons? Generally the twit is the one who doesn't get it. Not the one who does.
You're a twit because you repeated your own comment instead of answering his question in response to your comment.
i>I'm a twit? Because I see a difference between cycles that take years vs ones that take eons?
No, that's not why you're a twit. Ben of Houston, whom I respect and whose comments I always follow, said the same thing you did, and I responded to both of you, respectfully.
What makes you a twit is your response declaring that you didn't actually read my response, but that nevertheless ended with a conclusion that I am being either dumb or dishonest.
But it's not even fully that - it's that you combine that kind of thing with spending all day every day here pissing and moaning about how mean everyone is to you, when you almost always are the one who started whatever pissing match you find yourself in at the moment.
I see a difference between cycles that take years vs ones that take eons
Which brings us back to the original question, which is how the CO2 in the atmosphere remembers whether it's part of the coal cycle or the burning vegetation cycle?
Is there maybe a single CO2 cycle that involves processes that operate at different rates? Is it worth considering that the current nadir in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is related to so much carbon being sequestered in fossilized biomass?
All I was saying is that there is a difference between burning wood and burning coal. Whatever dude. I don't know what game we're playing but if it makes you feel better you win.
He's in victim mode now.
All I was saying is that there is a difference between burning wood and burning coal. Whatever dude. I don't know what game we're playing but if it makes you feel better you win.
I'm not convinced that's true. What weighs more, a ton of carbon from coal or a ton of carbon from wood?
The uptake is going to be the uptake, no matter the system.
Are you Jeff from Albany?
No.
Good. Because if you were I'd have to express some deep disappointment as to how much of a dick he's become. But since you're not him I don't know if you've always been a dick or maybe you used to be an even bigger dick and this is an improvement.
And this is his passive aggressive way of attacking you.
I don't know if you've always been a dick or maybe you used to be an even bigger dick and this is an improvement
Oddly enough the only people on this site who have ever accused me of being a dick are the exact same people you dislike so much. But I've had several real conversations with guys like JesseAz, soldiermedic76, and Nardz that actually made me realize that I was being needlessly disrespectful towards people I disagree with, and we've all had nothing but civilized, and even friendly, relations since.
I've been around a long time (since the Bush years) and in fact you were one of the first people who was friendly to me and engaged me many, many years ago, which encouraged me to hang out more (you and Pro Lib).
This may even be the first time I've ever actually expressed disagreement with you, and you turn into a dick immediately.
Have you ever stopped to consider that your problem isn't everyone else?
I've disagreed with you somewhat S=C, but often we are in 80% agreement.
I just deviate from the purity idealism arguments as I don't think they are useful in a real world context. And I don't hide as if I do work in idealistic settings.
I came to realize a few years ago that idealism in any ethos requires authoritarianism as it requires people to act the same. realizing that people have their own personal motives means I believe in maximizing liberty in the current context of things instead of stomping feet and saying no to everything.
1 step towards liberty is better than 0 steps even if I have to accept not getting everything I believe.
But I don't remember ever attacking you with names or calling you dishonest.
But I don't remember ever attacking you with names or calling you dishonest.
Honestly I think you and sarc get under each other's skin so badly because neither of you realizes that you're pretty quick to get nasty with people who disagree with you. I recognize it because like I say, I have similar tendencies that I work to curb, and I have no doubt I've said very rude to things to you in the past, as well.
Examples:
I just deviate from the purity idealism arguments as I don't think they are useful in a real world context. And I don't hide as if I do work in idealistic settings.
* * *
realizing that people have their own personal motives means I believe in maximizing liberty in the current context of things instead of stomping feet and saying no to everything
This is you being deliberately polite, but do you see how your framings of what you see as being 'my positions' are insulting?
I didn't claim they were your positions although I tend to think a large majority of posters fall into that category
I was explaining why I get into arguments.
Watch out for his list.
You didn't answer his question: if trees grow from the burnt coal, how is that different from trees growing from burnt trees?
He can't even answer a simple question like why is the earth becoming more green?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/
Sarc isn't the most informed of posters here. Somewhere in-between stroodle and white mike.
if trees grow from the burnt coal, how is that different from trees growing from burnt trees?
A pithier phrasing - thanks.
if trees grow from the burnt coal, how is that different from trees growing from burnt trees?
Time. That's how it's different. Burnt trees take minutes to make. Can't say the same about coal.
Why do we need the coal back? I'm fine with more trees.
Enough with the global greening effect or the fact that plants need less water when there is more carbon in the air! No bringing positive aspects of carbon into the conversation!
And electric cars don't count as polluting because the driver doesn't see the rare earth mining or the emissions at the power plant or the loss in the transmission lines or the 1000-pound batteries that become toxic waste when they expire.
https://www.wired.com/story/cars-going-electric-what-happens-used-batteries/
I've never been a proponent for electric cars.
Batteries are recycled
Batteries
aretheoretically could be recycled but generally aren't.Fixed it for you.
Also notable that you chose not to even address CE's other criticisms.
EV batteries don’t recycle well. They’re very toxic
Forest fires don't count as "carbon emissions," or at least they shouldn't, because those trees can grow back and trap the evil evil evil carbon they released. Fossil fuels on the other hand release evil evil evil carbon into the atmosphere, and it's gonna be a while before plants grow back and turn into swamp muck that turns into oil or coal.
You've got it backwards. Trees take decades to centuries to grow back (especially naturally), swamp muck (algae) fixes carbon at a rate orders of magnitude faster.
You've got it backwards.
Maybe intentionally. Hard to distinguish evil evil evil motives from plain old evil motives.
Everyone things the other guy has evil motives.
Once you understand that the other guy is not evil, but misguided, then you might cease to be an insufferable prick.
Too bad that doesn't apply to you. You never understand anyone else and will always be an insufferable prick.
He literally posted all racists were conservatives just a week ago. Then he accuses others of the same behavior despite their arguments being yes, the left is far more authoritarian than the right based on their public policies. It is insane.
Everyone things the other guy has evil motives.
I was, almost as explicitly as possible, ambiguous about your motives. Moreover, Occam's Razor, state functions, compartmentalization, etc.; one doesn't need to be guided to good or evil in order to arrive there and once there, whether they arrived through guidance or of their own devices, intentional or not, is moot.
one doesn't need to be guided to good or evil in order to arrive there
Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
swamp muck (algae) fixes carbon at a rate orders of magnitude faster
This. The same mistake Sting and the Rain Forest Police made when they tried to say we are killing the lungs of the planet. 90% of oxygen is produced by algae, which would make algae by far the biggest CO2 scrubber. It is also fish food, so it moves through the whole chain and gets deposited on the bottom of the ocean as fish poop.
Algae grows so fast you can watch it.
Then we could have the whole discussion of oxidation as the Great Destroyer.
Clean water is probably a bigger risk to humanity than minor increases in temperature (majority of deaths still occur from cold rather than heat). And increased carbon also reduces water needs for plants:
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2018/october/co2-emissions-water.html
That link buries the lede. Here:
https://www.vegetableclimate.com/mitigation/co2-effects-on-crop-water-requirements/
In most plants, increased CO2 reduces water use or transpiration. This is because the pores in the leaves – stomata – partially close, reducing water loss. The effect can be significant. For example, a free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) study on wheat showed that water-use efficiency was 19% higher under elevated CO2.
<i.or at least they shouldn't, because those trees can grow back and trap the evil evil evil carbon they released.
The problem with THIS theory is that ALL carbon released through ANY means can be taken up by varying systems. So you can argue that a forest fire emitted x tons of carbon, a person exhaled x pounds of carbon and my car emitted x pounds of carbon. Once in the atmosphere, carbon is carbon is carbon, so it's going to be taken up by the forests regrowing, the oceans, crops growing and many other systems. The question is, is the carbon taken up at a rate that reduces the net carbon going into the atmosphere? And the answer is clearly "no".
^
"China and Russia aren’t interested in bigger emissions cuts."
Why should they be? They know that Good Guy USA will make up the difference and offer to cut another 20% off our economy so they can keep on polluting. USA is so dumb.
Note also in that in regard to the much touted agreement for so, so many countries to 'go off coal' that both India and China, the two biggest emitters of CO2 and the two biggest users of coal, said "mmm - no thanks."
Note also that the much-touted keystone feature of "the vehicle technology of the future" is at best completely meaningless and at worst self-destructive as a technological advancement in virtually all of the emerging vehicle markets and the majority of the largest existing vehicle markets.
Also also note that this is true despite the fact that it's not for many/most of these economies lack of conceptual access to 'cleaner' technologies. More globally, it's not the wealthy Westerners of the US forcing the poor indigenous peoples of Polynesia heads' under water (assuming heads are being forced under water), it's the poor indigenous peoples of Siberia, Mongolia, and Bangladesh.
I don't disagree that electric vehicles are the technology of the future. Just not our future.
Note also that the much-touted keystone feature of "the vehicle technology of the future" is at best completely meaningless and at worst self-destructive as a technological advancement in virtually all of the emerging vehicle markets and the majority of the largest existing vehicle markets.
^
Even if you buy into the "CO2 is destroying the world" argument, electric cars do far more harm than good.
There are a battery of reasons not to buy one.
You battery betcha!
Outright Fraud at the UN Climate Change Conference.
The Rhodium Group, a consultancy firm, estimates that the U.S. actually exceeded its 2020 target and cut its GHG emissions by 21.5 percent.
Wait, this can't be right - I have it on good authority that we've done absolutely nothing and only made the problem worse.
It's even worse (or better, depending on your point of view) if you look at per capita CO2 emissions in the US. Down, down, down! The peak was way back in the early 1970's; US per capita is down almost 50% since then.
Just imagine what we could have done had we built additional nuclear electric generating capacity. Why, we might even be able to fully compensate for China's coal binge!
if you look at per capita CO2 emissions in the US. Down, down, down!
Indeed, and with pretty much no participation from the government at all (or even active hindrance, like with CA now running its power grid in violation its own, and Federal, air quality standards because Gavin doesn't want to look bad when the power goes out).
And symptomatic of the shamelessness in certain quarters, here's the "Independent" declaring that the idea that you should take personal responsibility for your own emissions is oil company propaganda.
Oh - you haven't ever seen any of this oil company propaganda we're constantly told we're being inundated with? It's actually all that stuff you heard about your carbon footprint and how to mitigate it. That wasn't coming from government agencies and their attendant NGOs, no siree, that was those evil oil companies.
See, the actual solution is to advocate for higher taxes and more government power over the energy sector. The idea that you have a role to play here - well that's just an evil viscous lie - you're fine, and can just go about your business. As long as you vote for higher taxes and giving us more power.
This is from people who claim to believe that this really is a planet-level existential crisis.
Do you have a specific problem with that Harvard research? Are you not aware that the petroleum industry has engaged in propaganda? We're inside one of their propaganda outlets as we speak! Or do you really think Ron Bailey's sunny optimism was the scientific consensus?
Yeah, personal responsibility has the charm of requiring no responsibility on the part of the petroleum industry. And every time someone says "If you're not personally carbon neutral, your opinion doesn't count," that should be a red flag, if the obvious illogic of it doesn't register.
Do you have a specific problem with that Harvard research?
What research?
Are you not aware that the petroleum industry has engaged in propaganda?
Can you show me some?
Or do you really think Ron Bailey's sunny optimism was the scientific consensus?
Can you show me an article where Bailey disagrees with "the scientific consensus?"
I see shitstain was prompt in sanswering your questions, since he is SO informed on these matters (so long as CNN tells him what to post).
The idea that you have a role to play here - well that's just an evil viscous lie - you're fine, and can just go about your business.
ISWYDT, or a John-o?
I must humbly admit to the John-o.
And no taxpayer refund on the 3.5 trillion if it fails to change the weather.
"China and Russia aren’t interested in bigger emissions cuts."
Which is precisely why Trump dropped out of the nonsensical Paris accord, which greatly benefitted China (as well as Russia, India, Africa and poorer nations who will continue increasing emissions) and at enormous expense to America's economy and the vast majority of Americans.
If Biden (or John Kerry) had any brains, they'd have demanded that China and Russia not only pledge to cut their emissions (but actually do so) before America would consider rejoining the Paris accord.
They'd also be proposing dozens/hundreds of new nuclear power plants be built America, and deregulation of the nuclear power industry (which were imposed by environmental extremists and left wing Democrats for the past 45 years to destroy the industry).
Most Americans don't even know that China has doubled their carbon emissions in the past 15 years as America's emissions have declined more rapidly than any other nation in history (due to the shift from coal to natural gas).
If Biden (or John Kerry) had any brains, they'd have demanded that China and Russia not only pledge to cut their emissions (but actually do so) before America would consider rejoining the Paris accord.
They'd also be proposing dozens/hundreds of new nuclear power plants be built America, and deregulation of the nuclear power industry (which were imposed by environmental extremists and left wing Democrats for the past 45 years to destroy the industry).
It's almost like they don't really believe this is a crisis.
They'd also be proposing dozens/hundreds of new nuclear power plants be built America, and deregulation of the nuclear power industry (which were imposed by environmental extremists and left wing Democrats for the past 45 years to destroy the industry).
As I tacitly touch upon above, they'd also be limiting the expenditure of rare EV materials in markets where they only serve to increase the demand on non-renewable/carbon-producing resources.
People who rightly recognize taxing unrealized capital gains is absurd will unintelligibly nod-along with tax breaks for capital- and resource-destructive behavior. It's like recognizing that federal flood insurance is a bad idea and then offering tax breaks to people on the coast line for every inch the water rises along the edge of their property.
Not to mention that Bush dropped us out of the disastrous Kyoto Protocols, which were a naked technology grab by China. They had such bad pollution in the late 90s that their population all wore respirators 100% of the time when outside. They desperately wanted industrial air scrubbing technology and didn't want to pay the Americans for it.
Giving away patents on pollution control technology is a big part of all of these agreements.
China still has 13 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world. You have to go down the list 250 spots to find a US city.
As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out for the past decade, low cost changes (e.g. painting black roads white and requiring white or other light colored roofs on houses and other buildings) could lower the summer temperatures of cities by several degrees.
But left wing environmental extremists and their Democrat allies aren't actually interested in reducing or limiting a temperature increase because their true goal is to destroy America's economy, which would enormously benefit China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes.
The worse problem with reducing the heat island effect is that they could no longer pretend it doesn't exist and that AGW is a myth.
57 cities had measurable urban heat island effects over the past 10 years. Single-day urban temperatures in some metro areas were as much as 27°F higher than the surrounding rural areas, and on average across all 60 cities, the maximum single-day temperature difference was 17.5°F.
They rarely account for this in the averaging to the degree of the effect as you state.
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/urban-heat-islands-threaten-us-health-17919
Paved paradise, put up a jobs roadblock.
This is not a crisis for the Biden Admin. Otherwise why allow the pipe line from Russia to open to Germany to pollute?
Yes, their true goal is destroying America's economy. Life is a Bond movie.
The only reason you're citing Lomborg is because he is a contrarian no real scientist takes seriously. You don't get to cherry pick like this and be considered rational. And boy do I hate explaining middle-school logic over and over and over.
Yes, their true goal is destroying America's economy.
No, it isn't, and I imagine BG is simply being hyperbolic.
Their true goal is consolidating money and power in their own hands, and this is a narrative that has proven highly useful. If you were aware of anything going on with actual climate scientists, you would be aware that they are very concerned about the political uses to which their work is being put and the, at this point, virtually-certain backlash that's coming against their work because of the scientifically-ignorant politicking by people like you.
The only reason you're citing Lomborg is because he is a contrarian
What is it, exactly, that makes Lomborg a "contrarian?" Is it something to do with the science?
Yes, their true goal is destroying America's economy.
No, it isn't
I will give you that, but the inevitable result of their true goal, a centrally planned socialist world order, will still result in the destruction of America's economy.
Yes, which is why BG's original hyperbole serves its purpose for people who know what he means. The intention may not be to destroy the economy, but it's a distinction without a difference.
a centrally planned socialist world order
And I wouldn't even characterize the sincere activists that I happen to know with this conscious of a goal - it's more of a sense that the world could be made a better place if really smart people could all get together and work out how global systems ought to work to maximize benefits for all people.
The assumption, I think, is that once the smart people come up with the smart plan, it will be so clearly smart that everyone in the world will just go along with it.
Nevertheless, regardless of the intentions, at the end of that road lies Serfdom.
If China and Russia are not all that interested in hobbling their economies in the interest a impacting climate change, why not have the Swedish potato* explain it to them.
https://www.indiatoday.in/fact-check/story/fact-check-picture-of-greta-thunberg-having-food-in-front-of-poor-kids-is-morphed-1770262-2021-02-17
Do those bananas, which were not photoshopped in, grow in Denmark where she was eating? If not, how many food miles on them and what was the carbon footprint to ship them?
If it's trolls all the way down: B-
If it's a mix of true beliebers, trolls, and journolists: Trolls: A+, Journolists: F, True beliebers: C-.
The fastest and most just reduction of CO2 is for all who believe in man-made global climate warming change to voluntarily refrain from exhaling for a trial period of 3 months.
At the end of the 3 months, if the complaints about global climate warming change have stopped, they were right, and we can get on with our lives.
All those world leaders all engaging in pure theater about a problem that isn't real. My God, this conspiracy is convincing.
I wonder if any of you will ever regret denying this problem exists. Probably not. People are not given to acknowledging their faults, no matter how many people die as a result.
All those world leaders all engaging in pure theater about a problem that isn't real.
When has such a thing ever happened, amirite?
Fair enough. Lines on a map are arguably unreal.
I don't think we've ever seen all the world leaders gather to deal with a natural disaster that didn't happen. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.
I don't think we've ever seen all the world leaders gather to deal with a natural disaster that didn't happen.
When did the current disaster happen?
Remove the word natural and try again, dipshit. The UN gathers all the time to solve nothing. Then there was the League of Nations and dozens of failed world peace accords...
You would have to have a working knowledge of history to support most of the claims you make and you clearly don't which is why you rely on emoting.
"Leaders"? Is that what you think they are?
That's literally what they are.
To whom are you referring, exactly, and what are they leaders of?
Well, best you watch where they're leading you because you're nothing to them.
I look forward to having these treaties sent to the Senate for ratification...
Not many manchin this needs to happen.
Whatever happened to "Global Warming"???????????????
Climate Change is just a political STUNT of POWER-GRABBING.
Open the F-EN door. Look outside. Do you SEE a weather disaster unfolding like never before??? Talk about people be led around like sheep.