Funny how this all sounds like a Leftist political movement rather than a science, eh?
(ECO Watch) A few weeks ago the first ever human rights legal action seeking the accountability of the 50 big polluters was launched. Filed by Filipino typhoon survivors and several environmental organizations, it demands that the Philippines Human Rights Commission (CHR) investigate and acknowledge the complicity of 50 investor-owned fossil fuel companies in causing extreme weather events.
This comes from a consensus that the typhoons and catastrophic storms that annually batter the Philippines and many other small island nations, are exacerbated by climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels by distant and faceless energy companies. People in the Philippines know that they are at the end of a terrible chain reaction that destroys homes, ruins health and takes lives and livelihoods. It violates their basic human rights, so they, like many others, are starting to seek climate justice.
Consensus, huh? How about science? Eh, that’s immaterial. They want Climate Justice.
They are part of a growing number of people that will no longer stand for companies—despite knowledge of the harms associated with their products—continuing to engorge themselves on profit at the expense of the climate and human lives. These companies are morally bound to help communities at the frontline of climate change while financing a just transition to a 100 percent renewable energy future.
Morally bound! It would be hilarious if all these companies said “oh, you want a 100% renewable energy future? How about starting today, because we are pulling out. Have fun fueling your automobiles and having energy for your homes.” This isn’t to say that they do not have a responsibility to do all they can to protect real environmental concerns, but, ‘climate change’ is mostly not real, and mostly has nothing to do with the environment.
The top 50 investor-owned polluters under public scrutiny are taken from a list of 90 entities who, according to a report by Rick Heede, are responsible for 63 percent of the carbon dioxide and methane emitted between 1751 and 2010.
Pull out. Watch the meltdown by Warmists. Skipping to the end
We encourage the Commission for Human Rights to commit to investigating the big polluters for their human rights violations as a matter of urgency.
Bad Weather, which has always happened, you can’t stop, and will always happen, is now a human rights violation
This IS a lot like when people began (successfully) suing tobacco companies gor knowingly making profits while causing damage yo people’s lives
Including from deboned hand smoke
Teach by “extreme weather” fo you mean things like the eastern USA having s bitterly cold winter while overall the winter in the USA was the 7th warmest EVAH!!
Or when we gave the strongest Stirms ever recorded ?
You mean things like that ???
“Including from deboned hand smoke”
Spending time in Colorado are you?
This might be a good time to mention that no one is actually measuring CO2 emissions ANYWHERE. They are guesses, samples, estimates. But mostly just hot air.
“Or when we gave (had?) the strongest storms ever recorded.” John, what’s the criteria for a storm to be called “the strongest”? You’re so sure of yourself it should be easy to point out the definition. In other words, if someone proclaims something is “strong or extreme”, they should be able to tell us what strong or extreme is. I’ll be looking forward to your answer. And one more-what does “ever recorded” mean”? How far back in time does that go? If by “ever recorded” you mean as far back as humans have been recording storms, please tell us the criteria they used to record those said storms. Was the criteria different in the past then what is used now? If so, how could one then say one was worse than another? And again , if you just mean storms recorded during human history, please tell us what the significance of that would be seeing as no doubt there were stronger storms sometime back during the other 4billion years you have no storm data for. The climate hoax deniers throw these terms around all the time so,it should be easy to answer these simple questions. Thank you in advance.
Well highest recorded winds would be one
We just had record high winds in that pacific hurricane
Maybe you aren’t aware of the multiple super cat 5 storms
We had 3 at one time thst also never happened before
In of course this is only in the time frame of the last 100+ years
Certainly there would have been larger ones billions of years ago
Of course that would mean the Bible is out of wack
And of course the Esrth DID have temps exceeding 3500 C and if you want to put that into a strawman argument. Well go ahead
“Certainly there would have been larger ones billions of years ago.” But you also admitted “Of course this is only in the time frame of the last 100+ years. Bingo. Sort of contradictory, no? So what’s the significance of the ones now, in that you’re only looking at a 100 year window? “Well, the highest recorded winds would be one.” But all kinds of storms are labeled severe that don’t have “the highest recorded wind speeds.” So in other words the IPCC, or NOAA, or some other government entity has no specific definition of “severe storms or “severe weather” that I’m aware of- which is why I asked. If that’s so, are you ok with them casually throwing those terms out to the press when allegedly no one knows what they really mean? I’m under the impression that “severe weather”, (whatever that is)is used by alarmists as part of their proof of AGW. That being so, wouldn’t then the lack of the number of severe storms, (as in the number of severe hurricanes that were predicted)then be evidence of a lack of AGW, by logic? “Of course the earth did have temps exceeding 3500C (?) if you want to put that into a strawman argument.” John- I’m not the one going around proclaiming this is “the hottest ever” or “the worst storm ever”- that’s your team. So me trying to put those assertions into the proper context isn’t a strawman argument at all.
So, if the left can’t get politicians to legislate us back to the 13th Century, they’ll use the courts to try to sue us back to subsistence living?
The math is not that complicated. Burning a known mass of coal, oil or gas yields a known mass of CO2 which amounts to gigatons each year.
Additionally, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured by direct physicochemical and also satellite methods.
The amount of CO2 emitted is consistent with the amount of CO2 measured in the atmosphere and oceans.
The 13th Century when humans used solar and wind generated electricity to propel their vehicles and heat and cool their homes??
Transitioning from fossil-fuels to renewables is a very 21st Century thing.
It’s interesting that the people doing the polluting are the ones who are using the products they so detest. Don’t like fossil fuels putting CO2 into the air? Then stop using them. Stop driving a car or even taking the bus. Stop heating your home. Stop eating food that has to be brought to your grocery store. Stop wearing clothes that are made using fossil fuels. Stop using electricity that comes from fossil fueled generators. Etc. Etc. You’re the one doing the polluting.
Then, maybe while you’re freezing in the dark you will realize just how stupid you really are.
Now that’s just not fair. The rich elites who campaign against global warming aren’t saying that THEY should give up their lives of luxury. It’s OTHER PEOPLE who should have to give up conveniences. Like I saw an interview once with Arianna Huffington where the interviewer asked if she was not being hypocritical flying in a private jet while working to ban SUVs. She replied, “But I’m just one person!” and went on to explain how her private jet contributed very little to global warming. Similar things could be said about the revelation that Al Gore’s house uses many times as much energy as the average American. The point being, if just a small number of people do it, it makes little difference. And of course the rich and powerful are just a small number of people. So as long as the peasants are forced to live in squalor, the elite can continue to live in luxury with minimal damage to the environment. And if the elite work hard to force the peasants to live in squalor, they’ll prevent more pollution than their own lives of luxury cause. So see, it’s perfectly fair and reasonable! Especially if you’re a member of the elite.