Here
and
Now

opinions

Why hold U.N. climate talks 28 times? Do they even matter?

9 Comments
By PETER PRENGAMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


9 Comments
Login to comment

Talking is always good but with Russia's war, things are not looking good for the environment.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yeah, why 28 times? It could have been dealt with 50 years ago. But oil and gas company profits of a trillion dollars a year would have been jeopardised. So they bought up the politicians and "think"-tanks and international bodies, just like this summit, and astroturfed and lied and dissembled and kept forcing their costs onto everyone else and convinced the gullible and those who want to believe it that everything was fine or just some lefty plot to implement global communism. Even they probably cannot believe how successful they have been. And now we are here? "But there has always been global climate change", say the convinced after denying it was ever happening.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Multiple climate-change talks are absolutely necessary.

A lot of private-jet pilots would be out of work without all the business that's brought in.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

They a complete waste of time, but it does give the countries politicians a chance to fly around on their luxury planes, stay in luxurious hotels, eat the best food and swan about on sunny beaches. If they held them in Iceland no one would turn up.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

To say that climate talks do not work is to give into to hopelessness. Making an imperfect effort is better than not making any effort at all.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

They are a bunch of twisters having a good time at tax payers expense. Bunch of greedy fibbers too, lol

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I hope I'm wrong, but perhaps the attention the photo ops in front of the jet is worth the emission in the grand scheme of thing. Would people be more on their case if they secretly met remotely? Now a days it's so much more about perception than reality.

As to the solution, it's certain there is a tax involved and people will fight tooth and nail against it. We all know what happens to free goods / resources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites