If every Warmist would just carbon neutral, giving up their own use of fossil fuels, making their own clothes, growing their own food, living in a tiny home, etc and so on, we could stop this, right?
Actions to limit climate change and avert disaster are falling far short, U.N. report says
When government representatives of nearly every nation in the world meet in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on Nov. 6 to attend the next United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP27, they will be gathering under a cloud.
It’s always interesting that every story around this time of year that mentions a COP fails to say “why are so many Warmists taking fossil fueled trips?” Perhaps we should start with ending these things, just doing them virtually
A new report from the U.N. finds that the pledges made to limit greenhouse gas emissions and avert the worst consequences of climate change are falling far short of their goal.
Only 24 of the 193 countries that signed on to a 2021 agreement reached at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, to “revisit and strengthen” their commitments this year have done so, the report concluded. A year ago, the world was on track for emissions to increase 13.7% from 2010 levels by 2030, according to an estimate in the 2021 NDC (nationally determined contributions) synthesis report from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. According to the NDC synthesis report released Wednesday, emissions will rise by 10.6% by 2030.
So, that’s good, right? 10.6 is less than 13.7
With less than two weeks to go before the next round of negotiations, the world’s nations remain far off the trajectory that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said is necessary to avert catastrophic climate change: a 50% cut in emissions by 2030.
What’s the carbon footprint of all the people traveling to COP27? How about all the ‘climate change’ believing politicians and celebs and such? What if they all cut their travel using fossil fuels to zero?
The IPCC has found that limiting warming to 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit is necessary to prevent devastating effects of climate change that will usher in a series of dangerous feedback loops, such as massive rainforest dieback and glacial melting, resulting in even warmer temperatures. But the pledges made in Glasgow would only limit warming — which has already reached 1.1°C (2°F) — to 2.2°C if all the latest pledges are fulfilled and 2.7°C based on the current policies actually in place, according to the U.N. The latest synthesis report shows little improvement, as it finds the current national plans put the world on track for 2.1°C to 2.9°C warming by 2100.
What if this doesn’t happen? Who’s held responsible for this fearmongering?
For a small island nation like Barbados, the warming estimates in the new U.N. assessment present an existential threat.
“Two degrees is a death sentence,” the country’s prime minister, Mia Mottley, said in Glasgow.
Nope, not a doomsday cult at all.
Wait… you mean despite the promises made by bureaucrats and aristocrats to lower carbons, they are actually going up? Unthinkable.
It’s almost as if the plans of climate activists are totally not connected to reality.
Besides, it’s not as if each country is actually measuring their carbon production. These are all estimates, created by activists, to support activism.
If the world were serious about this as a problem, then the world would tackle it by going after the largest polluters: China and India.
#LetsGoBrandon
#WhereIsHunter
Bwaha! Lolgf
But remember, Chicago is going to reduce their emissions so we’re all saved!
Teach doesn’t want to remind us that since the Carbon pollution in the USA peaked in 2005 we have steadily reduced our own carbon footprint by 1% per year
And are now down 25 %from 2005 carbon reduction has been done by the most developed countries with new leading technologies in our country renewable energy is now cheaper than any other new energy construction with kWh being sold to utilities at around 6cents per kWh for both solar and wind. One bank in Australia, the Australian Bank has announced no new car loans for fossil fueled cars after 2025. Saudis sadz
John-no bongs, remember, but it’s funny listening to you because you always seem to inadvertently make a point for the other side. Thanks for that. You harp on emissions reductions not knowing, or not caring, that it’s due to fossil fuel use, as in fracking and hardly anything to do with unreliables. Plus, It’s not cheaper, especially when the always needed fossil fuel back ups are factored in with the unreliables. And Carbon Offset Boy still can’t tell us why we should switching to an inferior energy source.
“Are now down 25%… And how much up are China’s emissions?
“One Australian bank said no new loans for ff cars”. Great-so they’re such a great product that they don’t think people will buy them on their own, but need to be forced to by denying loans? Good job!