Climate Hypocrisy
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Uproar at U.N. Climate Summit as Envoys Say Proposed $250 Billion a Year from West Not Enough
The latest outrage, however, is the sum that parties drafting the COP29 outcome text agreed to for wealthy countries to offer poorer countries to use to fight alleged climate change. As the U.N. news resource reported, COP29 drafters are hoping to come up with an amount of money for state parties to donate to poorer countries to meet a larger “global climate finance target” to prevent the alleged ongoing heating of the earth.
“This target, or new collective quantified goal (NCQG), is seen as one of the summit’s main deliverables. It will replace the existing $100 billion goal that is due to expire in 2025,” U.N. News noted. As of Thursday, the parties had agreed to “at least $1.3 trillion” in funding by 2035, but no specifics on where that money would come from.
On Friday, Reuters reported that the latest draft of the agreement required industrialized nations to donate $250 billion a year to poor countries in the name of climate financing. The report did not clarify how the wealthiest nations would be identified, but listed the expected victims of the climate funding to be “the European Union, Australia, the United States, Britain, Japan, Norway, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland.” Notably absent from the list is the world’s worst polluter and second-largest economy, China, which defines itself as a “developing” country despite its massive wealthy.
Reuters described not obligating “developing” countries to finance the plan and a guarantee that voluntarily donating towards the funding goal would not strip them of “developing” country status as a “red line” for China, as well as allied nations such as Brazil.
M Riaz Hamidullah, a Bangladesh foreign office official, told Reuters the current negotiations over the deal were “a bit like haggling in the fish market,” suggesting messy and aggressive deliberations.
Environmentalists and representatives at COP29 of underdeveloped nations erupted in outrage in response to the news that the contributions expected would be $250 billion a year.
“The proposed target to mobilise $250 billion per year by 2035 is totally unacceptable and inadequate to delivering the Paris Agreement,” Amb Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s Special Envoy for chair of the African Group of Negotiators, told the leftist British newspaper the Guardian. “$250 billion will lead to unacceptable loss of life in Africa and around the world, and imperils the future of our world.”
The Paris Agreement is a global document that imposes climate demands on countries party to the document. President-elect Donald Trump exited the Paris Agreement during his first tenure in office and outgoing President Joe Biden restored Washington’s commitments as part of the deal. Trump is expected to exit the agreement again when he returns to the White House in January, leading many at COP29 to approach the talks with concern that Biden’s enthusiasm for climate spending, and American funding, will soon evaporate.
The outlet EnviroNews Nigeria collected incensed statements from a variety of prominent environmental groups who dismissed the $250 billion a year as “paltry” and “insulting.”
“We refuse to accept a hollow finance deal that betrays climate justice and mocks the polluter pays principle,” Fred Njehu, Pan-African Political Strategist, Greenpeace Africa, said in response to the draft. “To my African colleagues – this is our moment to stand united. No deal is better than a deal that condemns our continent to further climate devastation. Developed nations must pay their fair share now.”
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Ha, last time I was in Los Angeles it seemed like half the city lived in an RV. Maybe they are just taking steps to clean up their streets.
What Happens in Glendale Won’t Stay in Glendale
There are about to be fireworks at the Glendale, CA, City Council meeting this Tuesday night. For almost a year, Glendale residents have been battling the Progressive wing of their city council over a plan to use a projected one-half billion dollars to crisscross city streets with ninety miles of bicycle lanes. This will include nearly 50 miles of traffic lanes, parking spaces, repurposed as colorful, barricaded bike lanes known as class IV protected lanes. These lanes purposely slow traffic and restrict vehicle mobility. The plan is to repurpose streets and parking spaces as bicycle lanes, shrinking roads down to a single lane of traffic. The test case for the city’s plan is the North Brand Boulevard Complete Streets Demonstration Project, a particularly dizzying flamboyant half-mile that was quickly constructed down the middle of one of Glendale’s busiest commercial streets.
[clip]
The reason Glendale, a city known for its love of cars, is being used as an unlikely pilot city is that Laura Friedman ( a former Glendale mayor) brought in $60 million of this gas tax money to Glendale to reimagine its roads. According to the League of Bicyclists, only 1.1 percent of Los Angelenos commute by bike, but, as Friedman has openly stated, this is part of Sacramento’s plan to force people to stop driving cars. T
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
I did not know/realize that. That's a lot of oil for a green machine.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
huh, I built a turbine in the early 00s that's still going strong. It was a tad bit less than 5Mw (I think we measured around 700w with it mounted to a truck going 35-40mph). Changed the bearing once before I moved, not sure it was necessary.
I dunno, some of the followup responses said that was
1. too much
2. last yrs not months
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
I was thinking the same, thought maybe they're including all oil required from start of fabrication to maintenance, but even that sounds like a lot.
‘Crazy Endeavour’ — Leftist UK Gov’t Slammed for Net Zero Plan for Military to Use Electric Vehicles on Battlefield
The former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp, said: “What this amounts to is virtue signalling by MoD, trying to get into the climate change agenda. I suspect it will be wasting quite a lot of people’s time and resources in trying to show they are playing their part. At the moment, the technology is just not there.”
Colonel Kemp explained that keeping traditionally powered vehicles supplied with fuel is already a difficult task and said that he “can’t see how it would possibly work with EVs.”
“Fighting battles is an extremely difficult activity – to make it unnecessarily even more difficult seems to be a crazy endeavour. I would be pretty confident that it is just not at all a starter in terms of maintaining the level of battleground capability that we have now.”
The former leader of the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq, Colonel Tim Collings added that he “doubts” that enemy forces will be considering converting their vehicle fleets to electric anytime soon, as they will “be looking for immediate effect, not approval ratings or whatever.”
“I doubt a battery can currently provide the horsepower necessary for warfare. What’s driving this? Is it battlefield necessity or fashion? If it’s fashion then it’s a bad idea. Renewables alone aren’t sufficient to deliver the power we need for potential conflicts,” he said.