COP26: No countries have delivered on promise to improve climate plans
By Paul Homewood
I am amazed anybody seriously thought they would!
As I commented after COP26, why would any country suddenly come up with a new emissions cutting plan, if it refused to before Glasgow?
And as usual, the author of this piece clearly has not read the COP26 agreement, because it contains no such “promise”. Below is the relevant section:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/11/14/cop26-ends-in-humiliating-failure/
Yes, that’s it!
“Urges” and “requests”. There is no obligation whatsoever, even non-binding. It is just the sort of “non-agreement”, that allowed everybody to “agree”. In other words, a piece of paper was waved around, enabling everybody to claim, Neville Chamberlain style, that they had saved the planet.
The New Scientist seems to believe that the rest of the world gives two hoots about global warming.
Meanwhile the Climate Action Tracker continues to show that, at best, emissions in 2030 will still be around current levels. They would need to be cut in half by then to be in line with the Paris targets:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Keep ’em coming Paul.
Is an emissions gap like a mineshaft gap?
I guess Alok Sharma must hate travelling by tube with constant reminders to mind the gap.
No, its the empty gap between the ears of climate evangelists!
No, an emissions gap is the subtle one pace step you make away from other people when you’ve left an SBD in the air.
(Silent but deadly)
Governments: when they can, they don’t; when they do, they shouldn’t; when they should do, they can’t.
Even my passport requests and requires that I be allowed to pass without let or hindrance…
Even Alok Sharma couldn’t bring himself to talk down the UKs change of tack on licensing in the North Sea on yesterdays C4 news. I loved the way they did a recap of Sharma being bought to tears at the COP26 conference over what they had achieved then cut to asking him the question.
Mind you the reality is 6mths is insufficient to change policy in the majority of countries let alone act upon it real test will be what’s different by 2025
That is because climate change depends primarily on the sun, not CO2. 90% of greenhouse gases consist of water vapour or clouds. Only 0.04% consist of CO2 which is saturated anyway and cannot absorb more heat. We need to abandon Net Zero policy and use our remaining fossil fuels with cleaned up emissions while we develop a range of good alternatives, not including expensive and unreliable wind. Otherwise the resulting unnecessary mass poverty will be catastrophic.
The stupidity of this Net Zero campaign beggars belief. Every sensible person wants improved air quality, improved efficiency and so on, but that doesn’t mean we should impoverish ourselves along the way, especially while our global competitors are doing their own thing with scant regard to ‘cutting carbon’.
Honestly, what a bunch of fools we have in government and academia.
First . . . climate Change with +1 degree and – 1 degree from the 15 degree Global annual norm has been THE NORM of Nature for the last 10,000 years.
Second . . . CO2 over millions of years of ice core analysis, CO2 has NEVER lead warming !
Third . . . the bi-products of burning fossil fuels and the real pollution should become our
Global objective . . . scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators and nitrous oxide burners.
Fourth . . . Net Zero is a fraud . . . shuffling the deck chairs on the titanic. A magician’s trick.
None of these bits of knowledge ever get into the media. The power unleashed by governments endlessly financing environmental lobbyists and their false CO2 message is what has brought us to where we are. Yes, academia has to answer for some of this also. But in the absence of clear, unwavering, concise, scientific fact . . . Environmentalists rule.
The Media, frankly, are to blame . . . they do not follow their 5 principals of journalism. As we/you have so clearly exposed Paul . . . The Media throughout western countries would rather cut off their own hand than expose their Environmentalist brethren.
Yet we strive . . . the truth always prevails . . . Galileo was eventually recognized . . .
Good one. Heartily agree.
So much evidence is available . . . one thing is missing . . . curiosity from the open minded . . .
“Yes, that’s it!
“Urges” and “requests”. There is no obligation whatsoever, even non-binding. It is just the sort of “non-agreement”, that allowed everybody to “agree”. In other words, a piece of paper was waved around, enabling everybody to claim, Neville Chamberlain style, that they had saved the planet.”
Absolutely. If I may, here’s my take on COP 26:
No worries, they can surely suck all the ‘offending’ CO2 out of the air the day before COP30 starts. Next!
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
Reblogged this on boudica.us and commented:
H/T gds44
The problem is the alarmists infesting governments in most countries , particularly Europe, still keep dreaming up ways to make life more expensive and reduction of choices for their own populations. Why oh why do the hate their own people?