Skip to content

Developing Countries Say No To Net Zero

October 21, 2021

By Paul Homewood


h/t Robin Guenier


 Twenty countries, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe, make up the LMDC group, which has just published this statement:



They make it absolutely clear that they have no intention at all of rushing to Net Zero, just to please the West:



  1. Barrie Emmett permalink
    October 21, 2021 9:47 am

    No worries here, Boris will plough on regardless.

    • October 21, 2021 10:53 am

      Well he has made it clear that he is into pointless virtue signalling so why should he change direction. He will bankrupt the UK, make everyone’s life a misery for what?

      Even IF what they want to do is accepted by all and implemented 100% it will not make any recordable difference to what is happening in the world because it is and never was anything to do with CO2. Geological History tells us this in spades.

      What Geological History also tells us and this show the depth of the political corruption of science here is that for 160 million years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been declining in a linear fashion. This is occurring because of the evolution of marine organisms 160 million years ago which sequestrate CO2 from the water which then takes from the atmosphere. This CO2 is combined with Calcium to make hard shells ( Ca CO3) When those organisms die and their soft tissues rot in a large proportion of the cases the shells remain at the bottom of the sea where they build up and compress. Upon lithification they are called organic carbonaceous limestones or shelly limestones. That 160 million year decline has been so profound that during the depths of the first part of the current Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 levels fell to 180ppm or 20ppm about the level at which photosynthesis is compromised. Long before that ppm food productivity will plummet, plants become stunted and sickly requiring more and more water which means marginal places where plants grow today will become deserts.
      Because of the industrial revolution man inadvertently appears to have halted this decline. However the calculations of annual liberation of CO2 vs increase in the atmosphere indicates that a large part of the liberated CO2 is being taken up by starving plants. This tells a story but not the garbage story about CO2 saturation which the corrupt “scientists” and their activist minders push. That difference is a clear indication of the fact that there was not enough CO2 in the atmosphere for life as it stood when the concentration was 280ppm. If those handwringing about extinctions actually did science they would see that that low level was stressing a lot of ecosystems.

      Anyway inadvertently we have halted the decline but given the rate at which we are consuming hydrocarbons, this will be but a brief uptick before that 160 million year decline reimposes itself. If that decline line of 160 million years ( that is a real geological time trend to follow not like the pathetic trends that the alarmists push) then it will be seen that that trend line intersects 160ppm in a little over 1 million years from now. When or if that occurs there will be a global extinction event because when plants die, everything dies because not only are plants essential to the food chain but also they produce oxygen. Probably all that will remain will be denitrifying bacteria.

      This is the issue that conferences need to be discussing. Not how to force marxism on the world and create a world government of marxists and their favoured pet trillionaire, namely how to continue liberating locked up CO2 back into the atmosphere.

      Anything else is collective suicide

      • bobn permalink
        October 21, 2021 12:10 pm

        Well said.

      • Paul H permalink
        October 22, 2021 5:49 pm

        Many thanks for your time and trouble to enlighten us further, a splendid post. You know the unfortunate bit – no one in relevant authority will take a blind bit of notice. Our planned demise is, it follows, political, and intended.

  2. matelot65 permalink
    October 21, 2021 9:50 am

    Atmospheric space Now there is a novel concept!

    • Sean permalink
      October 21, 2021 2:43 pm

      Don’t forget “carbon space”, where they have arbitrarily determined a volume of “permissible” carbon (actually CO2, but just ‘carbon’ appears to be subliterately more convenient) emissions, and then held up countries’ production against an ‘equitable’ division of this volume. A cascade of artificial determinations propped up on a bad premise.

  3. ThinkingScientist permalink
    October 21, 2021 9:51 am

    “Carbon injustice and inequity”


    Gives a whole new meaning to sackcloth and ashes!

    • October 21, 2021 10:01 pm

      The language inflation of this made up religion is no surprise because that is exactly what occurs with religions in history. Every week some humanities graduate comes up with a new w@nk word (am I allowed to say that)? Just take carbon positive, carbon negative, carbon neutral…… they just make it up as they go along. They are too stupid even to not know carbon and carbon dioxide are not the same thing. There is a theatre cooperative in Leeds I think lecturing people on climate change as part of its not very inspiring program. It as if we have a demented colony of baboons called Vroomfondel and Majikthisel chattering away.

      • roger permalink
        October 21, 2021 10:42 pm

        In proof of the aphorism “nothing new under the sun” we have today’s climate scientists evolving fanciful molecular research in the same manner as latter day theologians evolved angels dancing on pinheads.
        It’s always about greed, control and hatred of the common man.

  4. Mack permalink
    October 21, 2021 9:55 am

    Look’s like Boris just received the green equivalent of a ‘Glasgow Kiss’ from the developing world. With China, Russia and many others having already put the boot in to his madcap Year Zero posturing, it looks like the forthcoming climate jamboree will be a disaster, no matter how HMG and the media try to spin it. Can’t wait.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      October 21, 2021 10:03 am

      What is the difference (in emission reductions) from the previous 25 Climate Conferences?

      • Mack permalink
        October 21, 2021 10:13 am

        Net Zero!!!

    • Bill Berry permalink
      October 21, 2021 10:23 am

      “madcap … posturing” – he has form: Garden Bridge, Boris Island, Bikes, Routemasters, Irish Tunnel?

  5. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 21, 2021 9:55 am

    Don’t you breathe in my space! I’m gonna need it for myself one day.

  6. GeoffB permalink
    October 21, 2021 9:58 am

    Did anyone ever prove, it is getting warmer because of man made carbon dioxide emissions?

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      October 21, 2021 10:09 am

      Geoff, will you stop asking awkward questions. Now go and stand in the corner facing the wall.

    • David Wojick permalink
      October 21, 2021 11:26 am

      93 computer models are programmed to say so so it must be so, or so they say.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        October 21, 2021 2:27 pm

        Considering that no two of them agree and none of them (with the exception of one Russian one) approaches reality, the only question that needs to be answered is why are we still in thrall to the computer modellers and why do we believe what they are saying?
        (There is one supplementary question: why are we paying any attention at all to the climate hypocrites who think nothing of swanning round the world while demanding the rest of us regress to the age when, if I might be forgiven for paraphrasing a blog post I made all of 10 years ago, people were more concerned with making sure they had enough wood for the fire in the coming winter or enough nuts and berries for tomorrow’s breakfast rather than heeding the inane ramblings of men trying to convince them that that way of life was in some way preferable to having a full set of teeth and the reasonable chance of living for 80 years instead of the more probable 35.)

  7. Graeme No.3 permalink
    October 21, 2021 10:01 am

    “This means that the historical prodominant majority of cumulative anthroprogenic emissions since the Industrial Revolution among developed countries”??? So the UK is to be penalised for burning coal from the 1690’s rather than wood (releasing more CO2)?
    Orthodox Climate Scientology has the CO2 level rising very slowly until around 1950, and that any temperature rise was minor, so the effect of CO2 growth can’t be blamed on the UK. Rinse and repeat for Sweden, France, Germany, and the USA etc.
    The rapid growth in CO2 and the rapid growth in temperature (according to Orthodox Climate Scientology) since 1979 must be due to those undeveloped countries who set out to emulate the boost in living standards in developed nations.
    So all those “undeveloped” countries (approx. 67% of CO2 emissions) should immediately shut down all attempts to boost their economies. And rely on colonial money?
    Somehow, like a Victorian curate I have doubts…..

    • October 21, 2021 10:07 pm

      There have been FOUR welcome warm periods and three periods of misery in between them in recent human history. Would you not think armed with that knowledge some “scientist” would surmise that warm is good and cold very very bad? Also they would know what happens is that both civilization and ecosystems thrive. They cannot even get their story straight. The weasels mean 1.5 degrees ( where is the error margin?) since the end of the Little Ice Age which was anomalously cold but then this was never about science but project fear so they never say that so the useful idiots and the believers “think” temperature is changing now very rapidly. That misunderstanding is encouraged just like all the rest, for example the small issue of how much of that warming is natural. They never say. of course they do not because they do not know!

  8. Tim Pateman permalink
    October 21, 2021 10:13 am

    This added to the latest demand from the African nations and Glasgow could be competing for laughs with the Edinburgh Festival, can’t wait.

    All we need now is a giant snow storm to complete the festivities!

  9. JimW permalink
    October 21, 2021 10:20 am

    This whole ridiculous chirade is about redistribution of wealth. On a global scale from industrial countries to ‘developing’ ones ( the UN target); within industrial countries from the 95% to the 5% the only ones with enough wealth to take advantage of incentives to ‘go green’. Tax payers in industrial countries suffer the most regressive taxation imaginable and all the time the likes of BlackRock etc make $trillions on the back of new disruptive investments. Loads of willing fools to cheer it all on ( greens, BBC etc etc) and politicians with snouts in the trough. It also appeals to totalitarians who , allied to covid-inspired edicts, can create a bio-tech, fascist world.
    Unfortunately as we are seeing with covid the masses are so easily ‘nudged’ into line, they are lining up to be impoverished in every sense of the word.

  10. October 21, 2021 10:35 am

    This is clever, using “justice”, one of the woke obsessions of our times, against the so-called developed countries. Maybe the UK should apply to join this group, it has a lot of global GDP within it.

  11. October 21, 2021 11:14 am

    I love it. Never mind our carbon footprint, where’s all our money you promised us?
    My kind of thinking, attack is the best form of defence.

  12. Robin Guenier permalink
    October 21, 2021 11:41 am

    This remarkable statement makes COP26 and the UK’s net-zero plans utterly pointless.

  13. Colin R Brooks AKA Dung permalink
    October 21, 2021 11:56 am

    Boris is no longer a Conservative.
    Boris is turning this country into a dictatorship rather than a free country.
    Boris is allowing his wife to dictate policy.
    Why has his party not expelled him??

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 21, 2021 12:34 pm

      What you said.

    • October 21, 2021 10:23 pm

      Don’t forget all the other UK parties berate him for not being even more of a fake climate obsessive.

  14. It doesn't add up... permalink
    October 21, 2021 12:52 pm

    I note they shoehorned their argument into Climatespeak. A more simple FO would have been more honest. Plus of course the refrain “Where’s the money?” which is all they are in it for.

  15. Athelstan. permalink
    October 21, 2021 1:39 pm


    I know that you’re busy and probably you’ll have already seen it but if not, on the inside page of the business section Daily torygraph 21 Oct an article by AEP oh heaven…..Plus, with unsubtle references to the ‘deniers’ he’s off on one. Claiming rather preposterously that, oxford statisticians have “proved” that the race to carbon zero will be costless and the treasury agrees, ah apparently. It is a piece dedicated to and underscored by, the art of wishful thinking, he’s gone full missionary position and green fanatic old Ambrosia tinted banzai and the wef will be well pleased with their little squeeze.

  16. October 21, 2021 1:54 pm

    What really needs to be addressed is the psychological effects on people and in particular immature minds of children and young adults. The magnitude of this problem is the elephant in the room.

    The dialogue between Schellenburger and Jordan Peterson exposes the problem and the damage.

  17. Jordan permalink
    October 21, 2021 7:32 pm

    The arguments put forward by the LMDC rest on historical CO2 emissions being only harmful. It conveniently ignores the benefits of “global greening” and warming having an offsetting impact on the transition into the next period of glaciation.
    The benefits to CO2 emissions should be recognised by the DCLM (Developed Countries with Like Minds). Equity and justice suggests we should be receiving payments for the global benefits of past and future CO2 emissions.
    The DCLM should be incentivising a bunch of career academics to address the beneficial impacts of CO2 emissions.

  18. mervhob permalink
    October 21, 2021 8:01 pm

    Having read the report by Paul and listened to the reports on the media of alleged ‘lobbying’ by cerain countries with regard to the IPCC reports, I am disgusted by the response, in particular that the ‘science’ is beyond dispute. The results of computer programming are not ‘science’ and computer programming is not a ‘science’. Physics is a science, based on experimental evidence. Computer programming is the serial programming on a machine, of algorithms that are assumed might have some basis in science. In the 19th C, there were skilled artisans that pinned the drums on musical boxes, another serial programmed machine. This needed the necessary skills and some knowledge of music. However, there is not a single example of world class music produced by a musical box drum pinner.

    Likewise, there is not a single example of world class science produced by a computer programmer. The reduction of physical models into computer code is a process that can never exactly represent physical processes involving time series, due to successive approximations inherent in the code. Thus, it can represent a future but never, the future, in particular when analysing a highly non-linear system, such as weather and climate. ‘Averaging’ can only be justified where the relationship between variables is a linear one. In non-linear statistics, the choice of the length of the time series and its starting point has a severe influence on the final outcome. The language of the climate modellers of ‘forcings’ and ‘feedbacks’ only apply to ‘closed’ systems around an assumed steady state. But, when is that ‘steady state’ believed to have been present? At what epoch? And for how long. Choosing the wrong start point can make a large difference to the real outcome.

  19. mervhob permalink
    October 21, 2021 9:18 pm

    The statement that the industrialised countries have, ‘overused their climate space’ during indistrialisation has to be challenged. In 1913, British coal use peaked at 292 million tons per annum while still producing a large proportion of the world’s manufactured goods. China used 4300 million tons last year to achieve a similar outcome. World population in 1913 was 1.8 billion, 2021, 7.8 billion. so, 4.3 times the population, 14.7 times the coal use by the main consumer goods manufacturer. So coal per person has increased 3.41 times since 1913 and as the 3rd world has massively increased its population, while Western nations have lost population growth it does not look like the Western world is ‘overpopulating its climate space’. Britain’s population in 1913 was 18.87 million, today it is 68.4 million, 3.62 times. So population growth has been 19% more in the rest of the world over the same period.

    • Penda100 permalink
      October 21, 2021 10:27 pm

      Mervhob I think your figure for UK population in 1913 is wrong. ONS have it at 42.5 million.

      • mervhob permalink
        October 23, 2021 12:32 am

        Whoops, you are right – I googled UK population 1913 and that was the figure it returned – but that is females only! However, the two figures from Hansard 1927, male and female added together, only give 36.57 million. So British population has less than doubled over the intervening years, 1.87 times. This makes the argument regarding our abuse of population space even more dubious. In 1913, Britain had a fully developed rail transportation system, capable of shifting vast quantities of manufactures to its ports, as well as the largest merchant marine fleet in the world. Britain pioneered the bulk carriage of crude oil in tankers to local refineries, rather than transporting lamp oil in dollar tins as Standard Oil did in America. We had a fully developed network of world telegraph cables which allowed commercial trade to be properly supervised and controlled. We were the first nation to exploit wireless communication for shipping – in fact there is little that we see in the modern world that we did not pioneer. Britain did not just found the industrial revolution, it distributed its benefits to the whole globe. And now we are accused of being mindless exploiters. I would remind these third world critics that Britain did not impose the slave trade on Africa, African leaders willingly rounded up their population for the slave traders and used the cheap Birmingham muskets they received in return to enslave more of the African population, while clothing their concubines in imported Indian fustians and muslins. The trade was always two way, profitable for both parties. And did the Africa leaders make good use of their share of the profits to build technical capability and a more equitable society for their people? Not a chance – Africa remained an autocratic and corrupt society. It was the realisation that the political leaders would never make good use of the material wealth that abounded on the continent that led to the ‘scramble for Africa’ and the rape of that society. Africans, your biggest mistake, was not developing the Maxim gun!

  20. John R. Brown permalink
    October 21, 2021 10:28 pm

    Fat chance that developing countries will go for that.


    Sent from Mail for Windows

  21. October 22, 2021 9:03 am

    The wealthy nations ‘climate debt’ just went up to $190bn (£138bn) a year – until 2100.

  22. avro607 permalink
    October 22, 2021 12:05 pm

    Thanks to mervhob above for your excellent comments.A lucid and understandable put down of the “Greatest Lie Ever Told”.

  23. John Winward permalink
    October 22, 2021 12:37 pm

    No-one outside the Organisation of Virtue Signalling Countries is intending to do a thing about the ‘climate crisis’, and the OVSC only has about 15 active members.

  24. October 28, 2021 1:47 pm

    Good sense from out East.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: