world

Lot of work to be done before climate summit, host Britain admits

17 Comments
By Amélie BOTTOLLIER-DEPOIS and Patrick GALEY

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

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

“There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that we are fighting for the survival of humanity and that the climate crisis and the threat of ecocide are the biggest threats humanity faces," he said.

There shouldn’t be any doubt but there is plenty manufactured as will be proven shortly.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Get ready for your "carbon passport."

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Get ready for your "carbon passport."

"passport" another term for the radical right to use to get their fellow rightists to fear existence even more. Fortunately most far rightists are so afraid of 'others' of any sort, they do not need a passport of any sort because they do not travel beyond the limits of their own safe rooms where they keep their private arsenals.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Green energy has failed so badly that Germany is actually teaching residents how to heat their homes with candles this winter.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

I am assuming the down votes on "carbon passports" are people who disagree with the concept.

It is definitely a thing that some on the far left are starting to push for.

https://www.treehugger.com/time-to-consider-personal-carbon-allowances-5201193

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00756-w

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

An interesting array of issues....

The decisions the court makes will determine if we remain a free, secular, mature democracy or continue the slide towards an autocratic, tyrannical, theocracy similar to the Taliban and the Mullahs we now see in Red States and advocated by the former Republican, now Fascist insurrectionist Party...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

if only someone would invent a worldwide interconnection network so that all these people wouldn't have to fly about the planet periodically, use chauffeur-driven cars, consume resources generally to save us from, ummm... oh!

not to mention the hot air that wuld no longer be generated, that'd have to help.....

I note that even Queen E is jumping on the virtue-signalling bandwagon.... we must do something, we must do something.... people have been spouting versions of this since at least since the UN resolution of 1992, then the Kyoto Protocol 1997, then the Paris Accord 2015.... political theatre, nothing more..... except a great party for the VIPs, dignitaries, the usual suspects..... dear oh dear!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

the sign in the photo sums it up: System Change not Climate Change.... which is exactly why those usual suspects won't change anything.... who among them will vote for no more gravytrain?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The proliferation of the human species which destroys wild flora and fauna while depleting resources will inevitably cause its loss. Human beings will never change their way of life. Too bad.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Proxy, right on the money. They manufacture crisis to get your money and control you.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Proxy, right on the money. They manufacture crisis to get your money and control you.

Is there anything at all on the rightwing hymn sheet you don’t follow to the letter?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

This past summer in the northern latitudes has been the hottest one ever, but in the future it will be looked upon as a cool summer.

Even if we are able to go carbon-neutral by 2050, the atmosphere will continue to get warmer for more than a hundred years. Things are going to continue to get worse, before they start to get better, if they ever do.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It is definitely a thing that some on the far left are starting to push for.

I find the right-left thing quite difficult to understand in the area of global warming. I place myself somewhere on the left in the sense of hoping to reduce the wealth/opportunity gap between rich and poor. But I don't see what this has to do with global warming. There are opportunists on all sides in the global warming debate. I see various companies seeking to push their "low carbon" technology, and they seem as capitalist as any other company - make a buck wherever.

It would be good to limit the debate to the climate. How serious is the problem? What effect would reducing CO2 in the atmosphere have? Can it be done? How?

And then my leftish views will kick in - can it be done without destroying the hopes of so many poor people around the world?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Political promises beyond a term of office are worthless. This is COP26. COP1-COP25 haven't really achieved much. It's basically theatre.

There is stuff going on, but it is being done in election friendly ways: rising energy bills rather than cuts, quarantine and vaccine blocks on tourism rather than travel bans, migrant labour bans suppressing the consumer economy, introducing scarcity and limiting manufacturing, and nationalist restrictions on supply chains/trade.

I think the developed world is disengaging with the developing world, closing the gates. The developing world relied on migrant labour wages being sent home, and this is being curtailed. Combine that with Covid and a cessation of tourism and the developing world will see huge spikes in poverty, political instability, and tribal/sectarian violence. Protecting delicate ecosystems will not be high on their agenda.

The Tories are currently holding their conference and Patel's announcement of a crackdown on climate activists went down very well.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

countries need to redouble their efforts to slash carbon pollution.

Only extremists believe that carbon, the basic building block for life on Earth, is a pollutant.

He said rich emitters must also compensate vulnerable countries for "past shortfalls" in climate finance.

This is just the beginning of fulfilling the Soviet dream for global socialism. ‘To each according to their ability and to each according to their need.’

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WolfpackToday  03:25 am JST

> Only extremists believe that carbon, the basic building block for life on Earth, is a pollutant.

You sure spend a lot of time denying science as if it is going to convince any of us rational adults to adopt your extremist views.

This is just the beginning of fulfilling the Soviet dream for global socialism. ‘To each according to their ability and to each according to their need.

And, to round of a typhoon cal Wolfpack post, we have the fear driven screed about socialism.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

P. Smith: You sure spend a lot of time denying science as if it is going to convince any of us rational adults to adopt your extremist views.

I am not in denial that carbon is considered by scientists to be a basic building block of life. If this is an extreme point of view then the consensus view among scientists is extreme.

And, to round of a typhoon cal Wolfpack post, we have the fear driven screed about socialism.

Well, it is the consensus view among political scientists that socialism caused the death of over 100 million people in the 20th century mostly by the hands of Lenin and Mao. Not to mention the environmental damage their five year industrial and agricultural plans caused the environment.

Strangerland: This logic is as stupid as it would be to say "only extremists believe that water, required for life, and the major component of the human body, and all life on the planet, can kill you".

But that’s not an apt analogy now is it? By this logic I could likewise claim that in your view because water can kill you it can be considered a pollutant. That makes about as much sense as your analogy.

So now that your silly logic has been shown as being silly, what reason should we disregard what the scientists are telling us, in favor of your rhetoric?

So now that your logic has been shown to have nothing to do with what I actually stated, what is your point?

I am not a flat earth, deplorable that doesn’t believe scientists when they say the Earth’s climate is changing. The climate always changes and human beings may have a more than insignificant impact on it. My problem is with these same scientists who have morphed into politicians and are now advocating solutions when they have yet to be able to make a reliable prediction (ie. model). The fact that they can’t indicates to me that they have a poor understanding of the inputs that cause climate variations. How can scientists propose a responsible solution when they have such poor comprehension of the problem? The only reason they would is due to some motivation other than science. Science, and the scientific method, is exacting. It isn’t guess work. But that’s all that current climate models are - informed guesses. You want to risk it p ending the world economy and prevent millions from rising out of poverty on an informed guess? That’s insanity.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites