U.N. says humans have two years to save the world

[blackbird]

That's what the U.N. climate chief said.

If you read the article you will find the whole thing is all about the U.N.'s trying to force the world to redistribute the wealth to poorer nations.  That is what the climate alarmism is all about in the U.N. It is all about the money. 

"

Stiell's speech comes just ahead of meetings of The World Bank and other big multinational development institutions, where poorer nations, led by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Kenyan President William Ruto, are pushing for major reforms in the systems that loan money to poor nations, especially those hit by climate-related disasters.

In conjunction with that push, Stiell called for “a quantum leap this year in climate finance.” He called for debt relief for the countries that need it the most, saying they are spending $400 billion on debt financing instead of preparing for and preventing future climate change."

"

He called for more financial aid, not just loans, and more money from different groups like banks, the International Maritime Organization, and the G20, the world's 20 most powerful economies. Those countries are responsible for 80% of the world's heat-trapping emissions, he said.

“G20 leadership must be at the core of the solution, as it was during the great financial crisis,” Stiell said.

"Every day, finance ministers, CEOs, investors, and development bankers direct trillions of dollars. It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy and infrastructure of the past, towards that of a cleaner, more resilient future," Stiell said. “And to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries benefit.”

Officials said the climate finance problem needs to be fixed by the end of the year with November's climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, a crucial point.

Stiell is “absolutely right” that timing and finance are the heart of the matter, said longtime climate analyst Alden Meyer of European think tank E3G. The carbon action plans submitted by next year will “determine whether we can get on the trajectory of sharp emissions reductions needed to avoid much worse climate impacts than those we are already suffering today,” he said."

UN climate chief presses for faster action, says humans have 2 years left 'to save the world' (msn.com)

 

[herbie]

So your solution is to force poorer nations to go further into poverty because they are the bulk of the problem while we, a nation that can do nothing because you don't want to pay and we're less a part of the cause.
Once again by invoking "wealth redistribution" as some sort of Satanic Bogeyman,

[Zeitgeist]

49 minutes ago, herbie said:

So your solution is to force poorer nations to go further into poverty because they are the bulk of the problem while we, a nation that can do nothing because you don't want to pay and we're less a part of the cause.
Once again by invoking "wealth redistribution" as some sort of Satanic Bogeyman,

At least be honest: You’re on the receiving end of free stuff in this redistribution scheme.  Of course you want more of it.  What will you do when the smart money leaves and the handouts stop?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

So your solution is to force poorer nations to go further into poverty because they are the bulk of the problem while we, a nation that can do nothing because you don't want to pay and we're less a part of the cause.
Once again by invoking "wealth redistribution" as some sort of Satanic Bogeyman,

They aren't the bulk of the problem. The bulk of the problem is china and india, period.

Without addressing those two nothing makes any difference.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That's what the U.N. climate chief said.

If you read the article you will find the whole thing is all about the U.N.'s trying to force the world to redistribute the wealth to poorer nations.  That is what the climate alarmism is all about in the U.N. It is all about the money. 

"

Stiell's speech comes just ahead of meetings of The World Bank and other big multinational development institutions, where poorer nations, led by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Kenyan President William Ruto, are pushing for major reforms in the systems that loan money to poor nations, especially those hit by climate-related disasters.

In conjunction with that push, Stiell called for “a quantum leap this year in climate finance.” He called for debt relief for the countries that need it the most, saying they are spending $400 billion on debt financing instead of preparing for and preventing future climate change."

"

He called for more financial aid, not just loans, and more money from different groups like banks, the International Maritime Organization, and the G20, the world's 20 most powerful economies. Those countries are responsible for 80% of the world's heat-trapping emissions, he said.

“G20 leadership must be at the core of the solution, as it was during the great financial crisis,” Stiell said.

"Every day, finance ministers, CEOs, investors, and development bankers direct trillions of dollars. It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy and infrastructure of the past, towards that of a cleaner, more resilient future," Stiell said. “And to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries benefit.”

Officials said the climate finance problem needs to be fixed by the end of the year with November's climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, a crucial point.

Stiell is “absolutely right” that timing and finance are the heart of the matter, said longtime climate analyst Alden Meyer of European think tank E3G. The carbon action plans submitted by next year will “determine whether we can get on the trajectory of sharp emissions reductions needed to avoid much worse climate impacts than those we are already suffering today,” he said."

UN climate chief presses for faster action, says humans have 2 years left 'to save the world' (msn.com)

 

Does that mean that after 2 years they're finally going to shut up about it?

[Legato]

The end is nigh, wear a helmet.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

At least be honest: You’re on the receiving end of free stuff

Yes I'm one of those "entitled" that actually believes I deserve a pension. Wring your hands, I don't have to work and you have to pay. Such injustice! [/s]

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yes I'm one of those "entitled" that actually believes I deserve a pension. Wring your hands, I don't have to work and you have to pay. Such injustice! [/s]

Nothing wrong with a pension.  We need them.  

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yes I'm one of those "entitled" that actually believes I deserve a pension. Wring your hands, I don't have to work and you have to pay. Such injustice! [/s]

It's the leftie way - pay for no work is your utopian dream

41 minutes ago, Legato said:

The end is nigh, wear a helmet.

Shouldn't we just grab a poop shovel? Oh.. wait... that's if he end is neigh.  Sorry - misread that.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Nothing wrong with a pension.  We need them.  

Won't need one if they are right.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

So your solution is to force poorer nations to go further into poverty because they are the bulk of the problem while we, a nation that can do nothing because you don't want to pay and we're less a part of the cause.
Once again by invoking "wealth redistribution" as some sort of Satanic Bogeyman,

your free to do what ever you want with your pay check...send it to anyone you want....My paycheck is staying right here...I'll bet my next check , that you will not see any western or well off nations come up with the funding to make a difference they say will be required in 2 years...Poop here in Canada we have yet make one goal we have set to meet our international obligations, and your good with that...Save your money Humans are not interested in surviving climate change if it means going broke, Take your money buy a good whiskey and wait for the day we burn up...

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They aren't the bulk of the problem. The bulk of the problem is china and india, period.

Without addressing those two nothing makes any difference.

Been there done that. Got cancelled as a capitalist - hating commie for suggesting we tie trade to human rights. You think suggesting we tie trade to climate change action will garner me any new friends?

Not.

The bulk of the problem is right-wing conservatism - which will damn you if you don't then damn you when you do.

 

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Been there done that. Got cancelled as a capitalist - hating commie for suggesting we tie trade to human rights.

 

Canada tying trade to human rights directly is stupid.  But - you can put pressure on  countries and look at trade sanctions for a specific issue if you have enough allies in that fight.  Strangely, the canadian gov't nor another others has been interested. It's almost as if the people that have all the facts don't think this is THAT serious,

Quote

You think suggesting we tie trade to climate change action will garner me any new friends?

I don't think trying to fix climate change with a tax is winning anyone friends right now either

 

Quote

The bulk of the problem is right-wing conservatism - which will damn you if you don't then damn you when you do.

The bulk of the problem is little leftie liars who get a chance for  10 years to try their solutions, eff it up and somehow it's the conservatives' fault  

There's actual solutions but as long as you guys keep lying and trying your social experiment bullcrap it'll fail. And now i think people are moving on from it.

[herbie]

So gather a mob of like minded people and storm your town's School Board meeting to demand they make china and India do better.

^China is actually doing way more than the USA is...

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, herbie said:

So gather a mob of like minded people and storm your town's School Board meeting to demand they make china and India do better.

^China is actually doing way more than the USA is...

China is adding to its output an amount equal to all of canada's every 1.5 years or so.  So just to be clear - if Canada stopped every single drop of output...  1.5 years later china will have replaced it all.  China by itself is about 31 percent of the world's output. The us is like 13.5.  Until china gets serious - nothing gets better.

So lets stop with the bullcrap. 

And storming schoolboards to demand action in foreign countries is more a left wing thing.  Maybe ask your hamas protester buddies if they could do it for you

[Perspektiv]

14 hours ago, herbie said:

So your solution

If the world is toast in two years, there are no solutions. 

The quickest plans to remotely dramatically reduce emissions would be decades away.

If its that imminent, we all croak. Might as well chill, and enjoy life while that time comes.

Running around like a mad man will have you die of a heart attack before that finish line.

9 hours ago, herbie said:

China is actually doing way more than the USA is

Doing more, and being less of a polluter are two different things.

It's like a woman sleeping with 500 men, and another looking down on her having done 600, but because she always used protection.

You're both wh*res. Ones just dirtier.

All I see is virtue signaling points. Identity politics.

Reality is, it will take decades to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a scare tactic, which I'm not in favour of.  On the other hand, using facts failed for decades and is still failing.

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, herbie said:

So your solution is to force poorer nations to go further into poverty because they are the bulk of the problem while we, a nation that can do nothing because you don't want to pay and we're less a part of the cause.
Once again by invoking "wealth redistribution" as some sort of Satanic Bogeyman,

Saaayyy, wait a second there, junior. According to you and the other climate alarmists renewable energy is now CHEAPER than fossil fuel energy! Why should the third world need our money to switch over? Why are they building coal plants instead of solar farms?

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

Won't need one if they are right.

The UN future forecasts I've seen have the results of warming measured in economic terms. And even in a century the economic difference to Canada will be plus or minus about 1% of GDP. Same for most of the more northerly countries. The difference to the US could be 2-3% at most. I think they'll survive. As will Europe.

As for the developing world, well, they should maybe stop building coal plants.

11 hours ago, herbie said:

So gather a mob of like minded people and storm your town's School Board meeting to demand they make china and India do better.

^China is actually doing way more than the USA is...

How many coal plants did the US build last year compared to China?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is a scare tactic, which I'm not in favour of.  On the other hand, using facts failed for decades and is still failing.

Using facts for decades? Even Al Gore admitted he made stuff up to scare people in order to get action. How long ago was that, again?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. Using facts for decades? Even Al Gore admitted he made stuff up to scare people in order to get action. How long ago was that, again?

1. I doubt that your framing of what happened with his movie matches what he "admitted" to.  In any case, as in intellgent person it's incumbent on you to NOT behave like a politician and behave like a member of the public.  My comment speaks to the fact that we still have intelligent people (on this very board no less) who claim that warming isn't happening, or if it is then it's natural.

You have to be strong enough to break with your tribe and call a spade a spade.  

[I am Groot]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I doubt that your framing of what happened with his movie matches what he "admitted" to.  In any case, as in intellgent person it's incumbent on you to NOT behave like a politician and behave like a member of the public.  My comment speaks to the fact that we still have intelligent people (on this very board no less) who claim that warming isn't happening, or if it is then it's natural.

You have to be strong enough to break with your tribe and call a spade a spade.  

My tribe, insofar as I have one, used to claim there was no such thing. I accepted it long ago. There is no doubt that global warming is happening. How much is due to manmade activity, and how much of that is CO2 is debatable, but I'm not going to go against the scientific consensus. Reducing Co2 emissions would be nice.

But that's not workable with current technology. It's not going to happen. So let's just stop wasting time and money on it and put both of those into finding a better solution. That means a better, sustainable source of energy that is cheap, plentiful and does not pollute. 

All we're doing now is impoverishing ourselves and enriching third-world government leaders and ministers who will steal the lion's share of any money we give them. Until there is a better, cheaper form of energy CO2 emissions will continue to climb. 

So maybe you should try to break with your own tribe, which continues to insist that bankrupting ourselves with all these carbon taxes and spending is going to make any difference.

 

Edited April 11 by I am Groot

[Nationalist]

People...

The IMF and World Bank will swoop in, forgive debts, dump more money on them, and walk away with all of their infrastructure. 

Nothing will be done about climate nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. My tribe, insofar as I have one, used to claim there was no such thing. I accepted it long ago. There is no doubt that global warming is happening. How much is due to manmade activity, and how much of that is CO2 is debatable, but I'm not going to go against the scientific consensus. Reducing Co2 emissions would be nice.

2. But that's not workable with current technology. It's not going to happen.

3. So let's just stop wasting time and money on it and put both of those into finding a better solution. That means a better, sustainable source of energy that is cheap, plentiful and does not pollute. 

4. All we're doing now is impoverishing ourselves and enriching third-world government leaders and ministers who will steal the lion's share of any money we give them. Until there is a better, cheaper form of energy CO2 emissions will continue to climb. 

5. So maybe you should try to break with your own tribe, which continues to insist that bankrupting ourselves with all these carbon taxes and spending is going to make any difference.

 

1. Ok.
2. At some point that will change, but you can help by bringing clarity to what the costs/benefits/challenges are with the current options.
3. 4. ?  I don't get it... wind, solar, nuclear all do this and research goes on.
5. I haven't said much if anything about the economic approach to climate change.  I'm looking for more clarity on options, which you purport to also want.  So I'll look at your posts on that.  So, yes, please keep going to clear and honest discussion on this, it's needed.

[Venandi]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

...it's incumbent on you to NOT behave like a politician and behave like a member of the public.

My sentiment exactly, likely for different reasons but since they take us to "Show Me Town" it doesn't really matter.

Personally, I think the "it is" vs "it isn't" debate is fruitless, it's where statistical debate goes to die and we won't know who's right until nothing happens or no one can breathe anymore. It just means one side or the other gets to say I told you so.

My concern is the cost of going from 1.8% of global emissions to 1% (essentially a drop of 0.08%) when we already know that our land scrubs all of it.

Last year the government committed to spending $200 billion in support of the climate action intended to get us 40% below 2005 levels in less than 6 years.

OK, if people want it and they're willing to pay for it who am I to complain... especially when the 70% of Canadians who wanted a carbon tax in the first place are already complaining loud enough anyway. I don't believe for one second that Canadian voters in general (and liberal voters in particular) are willing to suck it up and actually pay for what they say they want

The government doesn't even measure the percentage of emission mitigation as a result of carbon taxation, even so they still assure us that the tax will account for 30% of our commitment. Cool eh?

Personally, I don't believe that but let's pretend I do. POOF... the other 70 percent comes from somewhere else and we don't even know where somewhere else is at the moment. So it seems to me that If the effects are intended to be linear then the math doesn't work and if we accept the idea that they are nonlinear then I recommend caution, stand clear of all windows between 2028 and 2030 lest you be sucked into the vortex.

I think the cost will be way higher than people think, that's why I always ask what are you willing to give up? It seems like a reasonable question since that will represent 70% of the expected effort.

Electric lawnmowers and magic light bulbs just won't get us there IMO. 

 

 

.

 

Edited April 11 by Venandi

[Aristides]

I wonder what our emissions would be if we had to manufacture ourselves, all the stuff we buy from China.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I doubt that your framing of what happened with his movie matches what he "admitted" to.  In any case, as in intellgent person it's incumbent on you to NOT behave like a politician and behave like a member of the public.  My comment speaks to the fact that we still have intelligent people (on this very board no less) who claim that warming isn't happening, or if it is then it's natural.

You have to be strong enough to break with your tribe and call a spade a spade.  

Well a judge ruled that he did so that's good enough i'd say

But sure - deny the truth while you talk about facts. Always entertaining  .