If tourism causes climate change, why then do we have COP23?

This week, another COP meeting gets underway; COP23. For those of you new to the subject, COP stands for “Conference of Parties” and is a UN sponsored climate shindig for policy wonks, self described planet savers, and serial doomsters. Two of note were COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, which became DOA thanks in part to “Climategate” and COP21 in Paris, which produced the toothless and pointless “Paris Accord” of which the USA is no longer a part of, thanks to president Donald Trump.

Every year, thousands of people come from all over the world to participate in trough feeding wealth redistribution climate reparations high level negotiations to figure out how the heavy hitters must compensate poorer countries for supposedly causing “climate change” through such things as generating electricity, driving cars, growing food, and yes, even going on travel/holiday.

Yet, these same people seem oblivious of their own carbon footprint related to travel. Here is a list of locations for all the COP conference so far:

1995: COP 1, Berlin, Germany

1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland

1997: COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

1998: COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina

1999: COP 5, Bonn, Germany

2000: COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands

2001: COP 6, Bonn, Germany

2001: COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco

2002: COP 8, New Delhi, India

2003: COP 9, Milan, Italy

2004: COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina

2005: COP 11/CMP 1, Montreal, Canada

2006: COP 12/CMP 2, Nairobi, Kenya

2007: COP 13/CMP 3, Bali, Indonesia

2008: COP 14/CMP 4, Poznań, Poland

2009: COP 15/CMP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark

2010: COP 16/CMP 6, Cancún, Mexico

2011: COP 17/CMP 7, Durban, South Africa

2012: COP 18/CMP 8, Doha, Qatar

2013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland

2014: COP 20/CMP 10, Lima, Peru

2015: COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France

2016: COP 22/CMP 12/CMA 1, Marrakech, Morocco

2017: COP 23/CMP 13/CMA 2, Bonn, Germany

For example, COP21 in Paris, had an estimated 50,000 people, including media and world leaders, flying in for that big save the planet shindig, including president Obama flying in his entourage on Air Force One. From an article in the New York Daily News:

Most of the people traveling to the meeting arrived by airplane, the world’s top transit offender when it comes to belching CO2 into the atmosphere.

The average attendee, and there are about 50,000, will travel around 9,000 miles. Traveling on a Boeing 747 like Air Force One – which guzzles around one gallon of jet fuel every 16.5 miles – means the summit will consume an estimated 27 million gallons of fuel.

Each gallon of burned jet fuel produces about 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, which is estimated to emit in the neighborhood of 575 million pounds or nearly 290,000 tons, according to calculations by Wired.

Yet despite that enormous footprint of all the COP meetings, full of sound and fury, signifying essentially nothing to the planet’s climate, we have our betters telling us that we shouldn’t travel to Australia, because we’ll damage the climate. Sounds to me like they are jonesing for a climate impact fee attached to airline tickets. Of course we all know that the only way to save the planet is with more taxes and fees, just ask anyone in Canberra.

Australian tourism policies fail to address climate change

Australia’s Federal and State governments are failing to produce effective long-term tourism policy to address climate change, according to the findings of new QUT-led research.


Australia’s Federal and State governments are failing to produce effective long-term tourism policy to address climate change, according to the findings of new QUT-led research.

  • Tourism contributes to climate change
  • Tourism policy on climate change in Australia is inconsistent and ineffective
  • Federal and state governments are not collaborating on best practice approaches to tourism policy on climate change
  • The tourism industry can contribute to the sustainable management of climate change

Dr Char-lee Moyle, from QUT’s Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, and her co-authors from Griffith University and James Cook University analysed 477 relevant documents for their paper – Have Australia’s tourism strategies incorporated climate change?

Just published in the international Journal of Sustainable Tourism, it reveals only 21% of Australia’s tourism strategies mention climate change, with most simply acknowledging it as an issue.

“Despite the fact tourism is worth billions of dollars to our economy and has been found by scientists to accelerate climate change, only five Australian tourism strategies analysed by us (one per cent of the entire sample) even recognised the sector’s impact,” Dr Moyle said.

“Looking at policy documents from 2000-2014, we have seen Australia’s tourism strategies increasingly focus on adaptation strategies, with mitigation appearing to have fallen off the policy agenda in recent years.

“Even certification and accreditation schemes are essentially viewed by industry as adaptation measures and a way to reduce climate change induced costs such as rising electricity bills.”

Dr Moyle emphasised the link between tourism climate change rhetoric and federal government election cycles.

“We found significantly more tourism climate change strategies were produced during the years the Australian Labor Party was in power at the federal level, with a peak in 2007,” she said.

“State Governments appear to be far less proactive in considering climate change in relation to tourism and, conspicuously, New South Wales did not even mention climate change in any state-level tourism strategies.”

Dr Moyle said there was significant room for the tourism sector to improve and step up action, particularly in developing tangible adaptation and mitigation policies.

“There are opportunities for the tourism industry to contribute to the sustainable management of climate change, including through the development of more ‘green’ products and implementing more environmentally-friendly practices,” Dr Moyle said.

She added that many initiatives proposed and subsequently implemented no longer exist, indicating an extremely dynamic climate change policy environment, as well as a lack of long-term consistent support and planning for tourism climate change response.

“On a positive note, there has been an increased focus on identifying opportunities, strategic needs, barriers, challenges and potential actions in relation to climate change since 2008,” Dr Moyle said.



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Zuiderwijk
November 3, 2017 7:37 am

‘Have .. they .. incorporated climate change?’ Is on a par with ‘have they thought of incorporating the lepricorns?’ Or ‘do they realise how many angels on pinheads are involved?’

Ursus Augustus
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 3, 2017 8:03 am

surely you mean how many pinheads who think they are angels have incorporated climate change mechanisms into their routines? I mean jumping on a jet and flying halfway round the world to go to a conference with 50,000 others doing the same thing?

Reply to  Ursus Augustus
November 3, 2017 8:33 am

I wonder what the ’emission’ contribution is of all those green-bean participants over the last 22 years
– traveling to and from said exotic destinations by car, van, limo, boat, airliner – I’m sure it’s in the mega-tonnes – not that it matters to me or the planet but I’m sure faux green-bean Al Gore would be exasperated at the number

Reply to  Ursus Augustus
November 3, 2017 10:46 am

Why bother with another climate conference,when they already have the Paris Accords in place?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Ursus Augustus
November 3, 2017 1:11 pm

I suspect they will be attempting to put some teeth into the accord, in addition to checking up on who’s doing what. It’s like when you take out a loan from your local friendly loan shark.
“Say, Jim, don’t forget, this Wednesday is when the first installment on your loan is due. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to that pretty face now, would we?”

Larry D
Reply to  Ursus Augustus
November 3, 2017 5:31 pm

Would it be too cynical to suggest that these annual “conferences” are a major perk, a chance to travel to cosmopolitan cities and party? Which is why the suggestions to replace them with tel-conferencing have never even been considered.

November 3, 2017 7:38 am

After Trump pulled out of Paris, causing a flustercluck of concern, I wonder how many delegates will attend this next boondoggle. I will watch for the numbers with interest.

Reply to  jsuther2013
November 3, 2017 7:46 am

I don’t think it will matter much. It is about the trip and publicity and not anything they actually think they’re going to accomplish for most of them.

This trucker is so happy that the company he drives for hasn’t gotten into the “Green” hype like so many of them. They’ve done what they can because after all fuel is the single largest operating expense in trucking. But they don’t have Green this or Green that plastered on their trucks like several other companies out there have.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  RAH
November 3, 2017 7:50 am

I actually miss the smell of diesel mixed in with scent of wet alfalfa while driving across Nebraska early on an August morning, ah, good times, good times

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  RAH
November 3, 2017 8:32 am

Trucks are very green. They emit lots of CO2 which helps the plants grow. Nothing to be ashamed of. More green all around!

Tom O
Reply to  jsuther2013
November 3, 2017 11:33 am

Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Accord is/was a two edged sword. These conferences, and their lack of accomplishment, are only “to show the world that individual countries cannot or will not address the dangers of CO2.” In a nutshell, they are only to prove the NEED for a “United Nations or Union of Nations” based roughly on the EU template where no elected official from anywhere ever has a say in what happens, and only the “specially selected” RULE. Only with a world government can you tell everyone on the planet to go suck an egg and freeze your butt, and, by the way, walk to work, don’t drive, and live within .5 mile of where you work and shop ONLY within a one mile radius. Or whatever drivel regulations they choose to mandate. Why do you think all these “high level administrators” jump on board? They see themselves as “world ruler to be.”

Reply to  Tom O
November 3, 2017 11:46 pm

And then us deplorables be living in Soviet-Bloc style concrete high-rise buildings, with thermostats governed to go no higher than 60 degrees in winter.

Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 7:43 am

Just a note on the comments from Wired: The 1 gallon every 16.5 miles for AF1 is ludicrous. That’s the gas mileage of a 3/4 ton pickup. According to Boeing the thing burns 5 gallons per mile, but these are modified engines, which have about 13-15% more maximum thrust, so let’s say it’s closer to 6 gallons per mile.

But my real point is that you get people writing commentary, both good or bad, who aren’t grounded in the physical reality of the subject matter, so they can’t edit their own work. Wired used to be a 1/2 decent tech magazine, and Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, and on, and on were decent at investigating and reporting. But the media have just gone to crap, and that’s all I have to say about that.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 7:52 am

I saw that too. A closer estimate would be one gallon for every second. But when you fly around in the name of saving the planet, by default, CO2 emission can be tallied as carbon credits.

Jeff L
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 8:02 am

” 6 gallons per mile”
…. or 0.167 miles per gallon …. roughly 100 times less than the article stated 16.5 miles per gallon. Hey what’s 2 orders of magnitude between friends ? Maybe they just misplaced the decimal point … by 2 spots ?

Walt Volland
Reply to  Jeff L
November 3, 2017 8:52 am

I flinched when I saw 16.5 miles per gallon for a 747. The decimal place error is consistent with most incorrect stuff that floats by regarding climate. Too many people with zero math or science understanding have big megaphones to spout their message.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 8:15 am

In 1995 the USAF put the C-17 Globemaster into service to replace the venerable C-141 Starlifter. Right at the top of the list of the reasons for the needed replacement was fuel efficiency. That is why despite the fact that the C-141 was a very successful design and there were plenty of airframes that still had hours of service left in them, all the US C-141s had gone to the bone yard or became static museum displays by 2006. None are being used by US reserve components (USAF Reserve or ANG) as usually happens with decent aircraft that have been replaced by newer designs in front line service. Nor will you find them in civilian service.

Reply to  RAH
November 3, 2017 4:17 pm

Nor will you find them in civilian service.

There’s probably a reason for that. Having flown as a passenger on a C-141 twice, I wouldn’t wish it on my worse enemy. The main deck is a cargo hold. For passengers, they forklift sections of passenger seats into the hold. They also issue you a small, 4 inch by 6 inch pillow–presumably for your head to rest on. It’s not long before you realize that the seat padding is so thin, that you need the pillow to protect your butt from the hard metal. There’s no insulation in the deck or bulkheads, so after an hour of flying, the plane is freezing cold. (At least I was wearing my flight jacket.) You then decide that the pillow helps to insulate your feet from the freezing cold deck. You really need three pillows: one for your feet, one for your butt, and one for your head—well, maybe two for your butt.

I feel sorry for the cargo that had to fly in a C-141.


Reply to  RAH
November 4, 2017 1:22 am

I flew in C-141s back & forth over the Atlantic several time. Only once with those pseudo airline seats and comfort pallet installed. The rest of the time with nothing but jump seats. Also had about a dozen jumps from them including jumps that came after transoceanic or transcontinental flights. Agree they are not suitable for civilian passenger service, but I was talking about freight or specialty applications, as the many civilian models of the C-130 are being used for.

Am friends with a retired AFR pilot and retired AF flight engineer that had 1,000s of hours in the aircraft. Both swear by the aircrafts capabilities and reliability. But of course they spend their time up on the flight deck and not back where it’s so noisy and cold. Found the way to beat the worst was to string my hammock between the rear stanchions for the jump cables. Bundle up and wrap up in a poncho liner and sleep. Never use ear plugs. Always take head phones. Ear plugs get irritating after hours of wear. To help pass the time there is usually room for a good game of hacky sack.

Disliked jump mastering the aircraft because that huge air deflector made it a pain to spot out of.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 8:17 am

Air travel, per passenger mile, is one of the most fuel and energy efficient modes of transport and arguably the safest. Having had to travel >130,000 miles so far this year I am ‘doing my bit’ by always choosing to go by air when feasible.

Per passenger-mile, air travel is now slightly more energy efficient that travelling by car. Travelling by electric car is far less efficient because of all the losses in producing and distributing the electricity, and in creating the vehicle which is heavy, complex and not particularly energy efficient (especially in winter).


Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 3, 2017 8:31 am

I would like to see the figures for doing the whole thing as a teleconference, that I suspect would be the most economic way to do it by far.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 3, 2017 2:38 pm

Agreed. The 747-400 ER carries 416 passengers a distance of 8,730 statute miles on 63,705 gallons of fuel. That works out to 57 passenger-miles per gallon. But that’s not the whole story. Airlines use the figure of 185 pounds per adult passenger, so a full load of adults would on average weigh 76,760 pounds. The aircraft is capable of carrying about 480,000 pounds, so in addition to the passengers, it can haul a little over 200 tons of cargo (only about 7% of which is passenger baggage).

Trains are enormously energy efficient, but nowhere near as safe as planes.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 4, 2017 6:18 am

Planes are more efficient than single-occupancy cars. But cars might be more efficient once they have some passengers on board.

The issue is not so much the mode of travel than the quantity of travel. If it wasn’t for planes, you couldn’t/wouldn’t travel 130,000 miles per year. Air travel is so painless that few travellers realise just how much fuel is being burned to get them halfway round the world in 15 hours.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 8:18 am

I, too, wondered about that. Perhaps they meant per passenger?

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 8:21 am

The sooner people look carefully at the carbon credit criteria and realize you can drive a truck thru this one

The project must deliver abatement that is additional to what would occur in the absence of the project

Most of the funny carbon credits are got thru that clause and all those attending would claim credits in there various schemes under that clause.

I really hope more people and countries exploit these loopholes so the whole lot collapses. Unlike many on here I am a lukewarmer and my reasons for wanting this trash to all collapse is so we get Nuclear Power and Direct CO2 engineering approaches back on the table. The whole emission control rubbish is a Green Socialist dream, if you want to solve a problem go directly at the problem. The bottom line is those Green Socialist parties don’t want to solve the problem, it gives them a mechanism to try and change politics. The scary part is they have shown they will use any means possible.

Reply to  LdB
November 3, 2017 3:07 pm

+ 10
LdB you have hit the nail on the head .
The greens who push this globull warming are anti nuclear and want to impose an energy crisis on democratic countries
If this is pointed out to them they scream about runaway warming but still demand all the good things that our modern civilization has delivered with plentiful energy .
They are against hydro electricity which is virtually carbon neutral once the dams are built .
New Zealand has many hydro electric power stations and any schemes proposed now never get approval as they have to go before an environmental court .
If we had the same opposition in the 1950s till the 1990s when most of these stations were built none would see the light of day .
One that I know of was the piping of water with only an intake on the upper Waipa river and piping it to the top of a gorge to a small power station in the gorge.To place the large pipes down the steep face excavation was undertaken and a road was constructed .The builders of the project had Resource Management Approval for the project but the greenies objected and took the builders back to court and the green judge stopped the project because the planners had only applied to clear a six meter strip .
If it had been allowed to be completed I guarantee that the scars down the bank would have all healed over with our climate and native plantings and you would never tell .
The strangest part of the sorry saga is that one of the power companies was behind the scheme but that was never made public .They were financing the project through a private company which was a front .
I would also point out that a massive natural landslide blocked the Waipa river below the site of the power station and took many years to erode with the normal river flow .

Reply to  LdB
November 4, 2017 7:44 pm

gwan – Jim Hansen is a
proponent of nuclear energy.

so are many scientists, as long
as the nuclear waste problem can
be solved on a long-term (very long-term)

can we dump them in your
backyard? you’re not a nimbyist, are

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 8:38 am

Thanks for clarifying. When I read it I was shocked that a 747 was so fuel efficient.

Reply to  dragineez
November 3, 2017 11:20 pm

The landslide was the Tunawea slip and happened in 1991 ..900000 cubic meters of rock pumice and shingle blocked the river and lifted the Waipa river level 70 meters It has gradually been eroded and has know dropped to the old level .A lot of money has been spent on stabilizing the scar .

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
November 3, 2017 3:32 pm

“We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

“We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like [the anti-nuke group] Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked. We drove them crazy.”

“Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

– Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications

November 3, 2017 8:17 am

They may have been calculating the fuel usage per passenger, and got mixed up in how it was described.
Estimating 100 passengers on Air Force One is probably about accurate.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  j.pickens
November 3, 2017 8:18 am


Isn’t it true that about 40 press people travel with the President? Maybe more to a junket in Paris.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  j.pickens
November 3, 2017 8:19 am

Ya beat me by a minute, j.p. : > )

Mumbles McGuirck
November 3, 2017 8:24 am

For COP 22, some enterprising Canadian skeptical organization actually sent a reporter to cover the conference. The organizers had built an entire village in the desert to accommodate the thousands then supplied it with water and air conditioning. Large buses to shuttle those not important enough to warrant their own limos were left idling their engines for hours waiting for their passengers. This so they could run the a/c to keep the vehicles cool. It was farcically delicious.
This should be done for each of these conferences along with interviews with participants on how they are saving energy to save the planet.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
November 3, 2017 8:31 am

The 2015 Freighliner Cascadia that I’m driving now has a separate battery bank that supplies the power for environmental system. When I park I set the computer to the “idle management” mode. The engine shuts down and only starts on it’s own when the battery level or oil temperature in the engine drops below a certain level. Once the battery bank is recharged or the oil temperature gets up the proscribed level the engine shuts down again. The rough figure for fuel usage for a typical diesel truck engine is 1 gallon per hour. With the system we use it’s at 1 gallon per 10 hours or less depending on the temperature.

November 3, 2017 8:24 am

The “climate” juggernaut rolls on and is now in the hands of bureaucrats, quangos, NGO’s and other unelected deep- gov types. Like Trump and his wall, it is too little too late as the Leftcoast states have already been stolen. And so it goes with climate. It is taught K-12 and beyond, just like there can be no “justice” without “diversity”. If anybody out there can tell me how to wrangle The Weather Channel to the mat and force them to change or even more remotely start a coast to coast, 24 hour a day channel to compete with them, I’m all ears. Until then, we will all be paying for dual- gen hybrid type grid systems that will be less well maintained and less robust but more expensive.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Wharfplank
November 3, 2017 8:33 am

Actually AccuWeather offers an alternative to TWC. Ask your TV service provider. You are correct that offering alternative services will pressure TWC to be more responsive to viewer concerns about such subjects as bias.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
November 3, 2017 9:05 am

Problem is that AccuWeather is just as biased based on what I have read at their website. Quite frankly, as I write this, I am looking into cutting my cord altogether and streaming. Things have gotten to the point where I don’t want to fund all the propaganda that I am on cable or satellite services. The best way for the average individual to fight the culture war is to deny their dollars to the enemies. Just as this veteran has done with the NFL already.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
November 3, 2017 9:35 am

RAH, try “weatherstreet dot com”. I’ve been using them for a while now for forecasts, and have found that they don’t jigger in the five degrees or so of “global warming adjustment” at three days out that Accuweather does.

November 3, 2017 8:27 am

The interesting question in that is who is to blame President Trump or the Journalists 🙂

The journalist can’t even take the easy out the plane is going anyhow because they have weight it will burn more fuel with them on board.

Reply to  LdB
November 3, 2017 8:33 am

It wouldn’t bother me a bit if AF 1 arrived at some destination minus all the “journalists” it took off with.

Mumbles McGuirck
November 3, 2017 8:30 am

Here is a link to Sheila Gunn’s reports –

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
November 4, 2017 4:00 am

The UN refused to give Sheila Gunn press accreditation last year but gave in after various protests. Following unsubstantiated complaints from Canadian reps about “harassment” in Morocco they have refused accreditation again this year. I think that haressment was defined as asking if they would give an interview.


November 3, 2017 8:36 am

Reminder of Paris

Dave in the UP
November 3, 2017 8:38 am

The article’s author needs to go back to high school…and… “Each gallon of burned jet fuel produces about 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, “. How does 6.75 pounds of jet fuel produce 21 pounds of CO2?

Reply to  Dave in the UP
November 3, 2017 9:02 am

Dave, we’ve been through this one a couple of times at least now on WUWT. When you burn something it means you are adding oxygen. Each carbon atom then has two atoms of oxygen from the atmosphere covalently bonded to it as a result of the combustion process.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Dave in the UP
November 3, 2017 9:11 am

It is the addition of O2 in the process of burning (oxidizing) which produces the greater weight.

Reply to  Dave in the UP
November 3, 2017 9:12 am

Lets work in kg. Lbs are only 2.205 different (but the ratios are exactly the same. Jet fuel is colloquially “CH₂”. 2 parts hydrogen, 1 part carbon. The reaction is

CH₂ + ³/₂ O₂ → CO₂ + H₂O which in chemistry-of-molecular-masses is:
(12 + 2×1) + (3 × 16) → (12 + 2×16) + (2×1 + 16)
(14) + (48) = (44) + (18)

See! it worked. It always does if your equations are right. And now the CO₂ to C multiplier? Here you go:

C / CH₂ • CO₂ / C = factor
( 12 / (12 + 2×1) ) • (44 / 12 ) =
¹²/₁₄ × ⁴⁴/₁₂ =
⁴⁴/₁₄ = 3.14

There you go. Each kg (or lb) of jet fuel produces 3.14× the kgs or lbs of CO₂ in turn. Voilá. GoatGuy

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  GoatGuy
November 3, 2017 11:25 am

Jet fuel is functionally identical to kerosene (paraffin) of the ‘power’ kind (no metals added as in illuminating paraffin). The composition is typically a range from C9H20 to C20H42, all ‘paraffins’, and all in the form of CxH(2x+2), looking like a millipede. [Paraffin wax is just a very much longer chain.]

The carbon mass of jet fuel is a pretty high % of the total mass. If you take C16H34 to be the central value, it is 85%. The mass of CO2 produced from 1 kg (not one litre) of jet fuel is 0.85/12*44 = 3.12 kg, near enough, the difference being added atmospheric oxygen. So you can use the ratio 3.12 as a multiplier for any initial value.

6.75 pounds * 3.12 = 21.06 lbs. On the button.

Bryan A
Reply to  GoatGuy
November 3, 2017 2:14 pm

Sounds like a PI in the sky figure to me 😉

Reply to  GoatGuy
November 4, 2017 4:08 am

Dave in the UP
November 3, 2017 at 8:38 am

The article’s author needs to go back to high school…and… “Each gallon of burned jet fuel produces about 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, “. How does 6.75 pounds of jet fuel produce 21 pounds of CO2?

Much of the H2O will end up as water vapour as well, so with all that feedback it will be much worse than we thought 🙂


Reply to  Dave in the UP
November 3, 2017 9:34 am

Using a straight chain hydrocarbon as a generic kerosene, 10 carbons, C(10)H(22), I get the following:

1 C(10)H(22) + 16.5 O2 —-> 10 C02 + 11 H2O

CO2: 20.9 lbs
H2O: 9.4 lbs

It is just not that hard.

Reply to  TonyL
November 3, 2017 3:40 pm

I was told there’d be no math. Do I get a trophy for participating? If you say no, that will be violence towards me and I’ll need a safe space and you will have to go to jail. Now don’t talk back or I’ll have you charged with a hate crime.

Reply to  TonyL
November 3, 2017 5:55 pm

Poor little snowflake meets chemistry for the first time, contemplates combustion, and does a meltdown!

November 3, 2017 8:50 am

They will wake up only when it gets cooler. Won’t be long before that happens… 2018 could still be OK. 2019 is one gb cycle counted from 1932.

November 3, 2017 8:50 am

Well … others “got it” before this post. but emblematic is the factor-of–100 decimal slip is just part-and-parcel of the whole Climate Wu fiasco. When public statements can’t even closely be made correctly, it makes one wonder … how the rest of their assumptions are.

BTW, working in miles per gallon (or kilometers per kilogram) is good. Simply multiplying this by passengers gives passenger-miles-per-gallon or passenger-kilometers-per-kilogram of fuel. As a for-instance, about 400 people stow aboard a 747–400ER. (416 by Wikipedia).

416 × 0.167 = 69 passenger-miles per gallon

So, per person, 9,000 mi × ¹/₆₉ gallon/mi = 130 gallons × 6.7 lb/gal = 867 lb fuel × 3.14 lb/lb = 2,700 lb/passenger. Now how many passengers again? 50,000? … 136,200,000 kg of CO₂ emissions.

The 3.14 (pi? no…) is (12 + 2 × 16) ÷ 12 mass of CO₂ to C, and multiply that by 12 ÷ 14 mass ratio of C to CH₂ for mixed “hydrocarbon” fuel. Good factor. Vetted, and everything. Conveniently “pi” in coincident value, so hard to completely forget.

Anyway. A lot of CO₂ to fly dignitaries who have about as much clout quelling the world’s CO₂ emissions as do a pickup-truck full of sock puppets. I’ve long wondered why the heck they don’t put their actions where their mouths bespeak … comprehensive video conferencing. Not evan 100 of the 50,000 would actually need to meet in person. And the supporting technology companies would be cum’n in they’z shorts. 250,000 networked vid feeds and screens! Even if every participant used up 1 kW of power, 15 hr/day, they’d still be doing almost that in HVAC and lighting costs in Doha, Marrakesh or Snorkelburg. 1 × 15 × 50,000 × 12 days = 9,000,000 kWh. Each kWh seems to take ¼ lb of CO₂ output from a nasty coal-fired plant. 2,250,000 lb of CO₂.

2,250,000 lb ÷ 2.205 (lb/kg) = 1,000,000 kg of CO₂. For 4-screen-per-participant video conferencing. Either 20 kg per participant, or ¹/₁₃₇ the amount of actually flying to location. Per person. Per event.


Reply to  GoatGuy
November 3, 2017 9:46 am

You are also assuming coach or business class flying, GG – how likely is that? Very few of those 50,000 were sardine-packed. Certainly none of the “world leaders.” (The space reserved for POTUS on AF1 is more square feet than my house is.)

Reply to  GoatGuy
November 3, 2017 3:02 pm

But all this – doubtless accurate – calculating omits the value to – say – Paris, of the touristy spending – you know, postcards, souvenir fridge magnets, eight course meals, the services of the local good-time boys and girls, car hire of up-scale Citroens, and the rest.


Bill Powers
November 3, 2017 8:52 am

Operative word “Shindig’ Defined as a large, lively, party, especially one celebrating something..

Best places, nicest hotels, fancy restaurants, well aged wines. Price is no object since they are “shindigging” on other peoples money. That would be the taxpayers who will not only pay the cost of the “shindig” but suffer the cost of the upcoming totalitarian regulations that the bureaucrats will exempt themselves from. We need a worldwide uprising against bureaucratic hot air not CO2 which is good for crops and helps feed the hungry.

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 3, 2017 9:04 am

Actually, not really (but I’m not defending the junkets ( much better word )). The majority of participants are on government budgets; the poorer countries panhandle their richer ‘allies’ for plane tickets and hotel fare. They promise massages and levity. In turn, they all end up paying hotel-rates for all comestibles, wine, hot-and-cold running manservants and scullery maids. Paying IS an object, for most. And for honor-bound (but not necessarily free-of-legerdemain) so-called rich country participants, they’re quite happy with the accommodations and comestibles. E’n if it is European Wine of unknown vintage, but good form; even if it is “glorified cafeteria food” for the most part. NO ONE LEAVES HUNGRY. That much is for sure.

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 3, 2017 9:06 am

We most certainly do and if we don’t do it quickly Western civilisation is extinct.

November 3, 2017 8:57 am

And note that working both in LB and kg got my numbers off by 2.205 in the end. ¹/₆₆ the amount. 44 lb/person. Oh well… factor of 2 is much better than a factor of 100 off. (grins)

November 3, 2017 9:06 am

Here’s some COP23 background:

“Peak emissions report gives reasons to be hopeful about the Bonn climate summit”



Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2017 9:18 am

Greenie climate cheerleading nonsense, Griffie. Same old, same old.

Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2017 10:32 am


and guess what, right on cue. “A new report on peak emissions indicates that climate action is working.”

Precisely as I predicted. The alarmists start taking credit for stopping global warming as soon as they realise we’re heading for a cooling period, which we are.

There will be another scam emerging soon.

Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2017 1:11 pm

So they really all need to fly to meeting to talk about junk that is totally outside there control 🙂

Reply to  Griff
November 3, 2017 10:02 pm

Hi Griff is Griffith university named after you

Reply to  Griff
November 4, 2017 4:14 am

November 3, 2017 at 9:06 am

Susan Crockford is still waiting for her apology.


November 3, 2017 9:10 am

“Traveling on a Boeing 747 like Air Force One – which guzzles around one gallon of jet fuel every 16.5 miles – means the summit will consume an estimated 27 million gallons of fuel.”

Geez, Air Force One, at 16.5 MPG gets better fuel mileage than my Dodge 1 Ton dually. Good thing I didn’t drive to Paris. At least these COP conferences are good for the economy. Why didn’t anyone do a study to establish how much cash infusion these shindigs do for local economies. Should be a conference every month somewhere, and spread the wealth around.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 3, 2017 9:15 am

Read above. Factor of 100 off. Easily dispelled by good math. Which participating author seems not to have had. Good math.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  GoatGuy
November 3, 2017 11:55 am

Or, as I prefer to have it called, simple arithmetic. The problem is that most reporters are too simple to understand the simplicities of the world.

Reply to  GoatGuy
November 3, 2017 12:00 pm

Yeah…I forgot the sarc tag. Probably more like off by a factor of 1000. Just getting a 747-8 off the ground to cruise altitude takes 16-17 tons of fuel or 5,400 gallons, (at almost 1 million pound take-off gross weight for an 747-8) so this calculation would depend completely on the distance of the journey. Multiple take off and landing on the same distance traveled would use a whole lot more fuel than a non stop trip with one landing.
Taxiing is also a huge drag on fuel consumption, but clearly take-off is very fuel intensive.

The 747’s maximum takeoff weight ranges from 735,000 pounds (333,400 kg) for the -100 to 970,000 lb (439,985 kg) for the -8. Its range has increased from 5,300 nautical miles (6,100 mi, 9,800 km) on the -100 to 8,000 nmi (9,200 mi, 14,815 km) on the -8. The fuel capacity alone of these airplanes is generally 155,000 kg (345,000 lbs) with the 7 tanks configuration, or 165,000 kg (367,000 lbs) with 9 tanks. That is up to 64,000 gallons of jet fuel it takes to ‘fill er up’ for a new Boeing 747.

Tom Judd
November 3, 2017 9:14 am

I think everybody here must be familiar with the following concept. Allow me to explain. The travels to the Conference(s) of Parties (COP) by UN bureaucrats, delegates, and genital crabs are good travels. Our travels for vacations, or more technically, Cruising out Partying (COP) are bad travels.

So what our betters are talking about here is a classic case of Good Cop, Bad Cop.

Naturally, we are the bad cops. And, our most excellent betters are the good cops. And the good cop, bad cop technique is being used to interrogate the planet earth to get the answer they want.

Of course, if our illustrious betters don’t get the answer they want from the foregoing technique they will employ another technique to get the answer they want. It’s called torture. They will erect giant chopping machines ..,

Reply to  Tom Judd
November 3, 2017 9:16 am

Read about the ¹/₆₆ factor … if they had massively teleconferenced instead of met. Above. Moi…

November 3, 2017 9:25 am

I’d like to think the Trump administration will be applying a blanket boycott on this hyper-opulent and decadent clownfest. There’s good political capital to be made out of staying away. There’s a moral high ground just waiting to be occupied as they get on with the job of trying to make the country more safe whilst the rest of the halfwit Western bureaucraps spend vast sums of tax payers hard-earned on pampering themselves at a completely useless and farcically stupid event. Not only that but they will be making agreements to hand over astronomical sums of tax payers hard-earned to grinning third world dictators who show up solely for the free stuff. All while they hypocritically generate enough carbon dioxide through fossil fuel burning to power a third world nation.

Hoyt Clagwell
November 3, 2017 9:30 am

Thanks Anthony, I’ve learned a lot reading WUWT. Today I learned that COP doesn’t stand for Clowns On Parade.

Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
November 4, 2017 4:20 am

Hoyt Clagwell
November 3, 2017 at 9:30 am

Thanks Anthony, I’ve learned a lot reading WUWT. Today I learned that COP doesn’t stand for Clowns On Parade.

Sorry to disagree Hoyt, but I think your first thought was correct.


Bruce Cobb
November 3, 2017 9:34 am

Climatism and rank hypocrisy seem to fit together hand and glove. They were made for each other.

steve walsh
November 3, 2017 9:37 am

One word: Skype.

November 3, 2017 10:36 am

Mugabi will doubtless be chairing the whole thing. Just his type of politics, kill everyone that disagrees with you.

Mickey Reno
November 3, 2017 10:39 am

Well, they’ll emit lots of life-giving CO2 and employ lots of waiters, maids, cooks and drivers to have their silly little party. So, that’s good, at least. The only problem is, they’ll understand neither of these two good aspects of their attendance and they’ll come home and seek to ruin the West’s industrial economy, liberty and energy consuming way of life. The cult of Climate Scientology continues apace…

Stephen Singer
November 3, 2017 11:05 am

Interesting that no COP meeting has ever occurred the United States isn’t it. Suppose there’s a reason for that?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Stephen Singer
November 3, 2017 11:34 am

It would be quite appropriate to hold it in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 3, 2017 6:16 pm

You would have to bring in quite a few more trailers to house the 50,000 party goers that attend.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 3, 2017 7:12 pm

That’s the point. The party goers would stay home. It would be a showing for only the fervent believers. Put them in the Motel6 and Super 8 next to a tank farm.

The partiers, like Hollywood types such a Leo DiHypocrite, would stay home. They could claim a carbon credit.

CD in Wisconsin
November 3, 2017 11:06 am

Quote from the post:

“…..Every year, thousands of people come from all over the world to participate in trough feeding wealth redistribution climate reparations high level negotiations to figure out how the heavy hitters must compensate poorer countries for supposedly causing “climate change” through such things as generating electricity, driving cars, growing food, and yes, even going on travel/holiday…..”.

I seem to recall hearing this argument before, and I’ll make it again here.

If we accept the fact that the wealthy developed nations increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, then the U.N. wealth redistributionists seem to conveniently ignore the fact that those nations have contributed to the increase in agricultural yield in the poorer developing nations with that CO2 increase.

How much did the CO2 rise contribute to the increased crop yield of the nations that are supposed to be at the receiving end of this scheme? 10%? 15%? What is its monetary value, added up over time?

If one acknowledges this argument, it could be said that the wealthy nations possibly might not owe the poorer nations anything at all. I will hazard a guess though and say that this subject is unlikely to be brought up at COP23 in Bonn because nothing must stand in the way of U.N. political agendas.

I thought the U.N. was supposed to be about maintaining world peace?

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 3, 2017 12:26 pm

Oops….isn’t likely to be brought up….

November 3, 2017 11:16 am

Some climate piggies are more equal than others.

Joel O’Bryan
November 3, 2017 11:31 am

“the toothless and pointless “Paris Accord” of which the USA is no longer a part of, thanks to president Donald Trump.”

Incorrect. Under the Paris agreement which Trump WH says it will follow on the withdrawal protocol, the US will not effectively pull-out until November 4, 2020.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 3, 2017 12:13 pm

And the USA election is the following day. If it hasn’t cooled off a few degrees by then making all this seem redundant, then the next election could be partially about what the next President would do to either stay in Paris, or if Trump wins a second term, exit on Nov 5th. By Nov 2020, this climate madness is going to reach new heights if the Alarmists get their way, so expect a big plank of the 2020 election campaign to be over CAGW and carbon tax/redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor. I predict it will be between AL Gore vs. DJ Trump. And Trump will win again, because most people, some secretively, despise this whole notion of CO2 having much to do with any warming.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 3, 2017 1:16 pm

What is humorous about that is having a party still bound by an agreement they make no effort to honour and no intention of meeting any obligations financial or otherwise.

Sometimes having a piece of paper with something written on it is actually worthless 🙂

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 3, 2017 1:54 pm

Show me the (actual) payments associated with staying in for that time period.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 3, 2017 7:01 pm

The US government has a full seat at the table for the COPs until then and sending scientists to prepare for IPCC AR6.

Not saying I like it. But US is still a full party to Paris until November 2020.
What I would hope Trump would do is pull out of the entire UNFCCC charade. That only has a 1 year withdrawal period.

And that would be much harder for a Democrat President to undo without Senate Ratification of some new US obligation to the UNFCCC climate hustle.

November 3, 2017 12:15 pm

It’s a yin yang thing. Planet-killing tourism is somewhat offset by virtuous climate conference travel. I could calculate at what point virtuous travel would balance travel of the planet-killing kind, but for that I would need a yuuge grant.

November 3, 2017 12:17 pm

You don’t understand, it’s hoi polloi who are supposed to give up everything to save the planet.
Our leaders are much too important to worry about cutting back their lifestyles.

November 3, 2017 12:31 pm

Its very simple. Make those who are mouthing about CO2 being a problem, pay a large “levy”, to compensate the environment.

Oh wait.. they tried that, and VERY FEW PEOPLE ticked the box, even for small extra “Green” cost.

Charles Gerard Nelson
November 3, 2017 2:08 pm

Traveling on a Boeing 747 like Air Force One – which guzzles around one gallon of jet fuel every 16.5 miles!

Gary Pearse
November 3, 2017 2:11 pm

Good Lord. Are they trying to say you have to fleece the tourists more but left it in s tangle of govmentese with a hopeful expression on their faces.

I’ve always thought of making a trip to Australia having met a large number of fun down to earth Ozzies, very well adjusted characters. What ever happened to these folks in two generations? Even Europeans have started to question the même and Oz seems impervious to evidence that the major part of tge whole thing was a natural cycle.

We’re they bamboozled by the spin on climategate? We’re they really okay with the Karlization of temperatures to try to end the embarrassing ‘Pause’, which seems to be reasserting itself? Do they know about the Ship of Fools incident where Tierney got stuck into Antarctic ice on a junket to observe the onslaught of global warming and in the process needed rescuing by a Chinese icebreaker and Antarctic researchers who lost a whole season’s work and sued the expedition for 3million? Do Ozzies know Turner received an award for this? Do they know the last known work of this fellow was to discover thousands of frozen Adelie penguins, blaming it on global warming and then being informed they had died over hundreds of years of natural causes and the lack of predators/carrion-eaters left them to accumulate?

There is a hardy, small thankless clutch of skeptics working daily on their behalf. Are Ozzies impervious to the egregious goings on unearthed? Someone has to go in and save this once proud individualist nation – its more desparate than the situation of East Timor of a few decades ago.

Steve from Rockwood
November 3, 2017 2:25 pm

I wonder what Richard Branson would say about all this air travel.

Warren Blair
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
November 3, 2017 3:30 pm

Write to Richard demanding the closure of all businesses that produce CO2 from lighting, heating and burning of fossil fuel.

Mike Maguire
November 3, 2017 3:09 pm
Warren Blair
November 3, 2017 3:25 pm

Dr Moyle and her co-authors at Griffith University and James Cook University are closing their departments (returning all funding) as they’ve just realised their departments are producing enormous amounts of CO2 due to heating, lighting, air travel, car travel and human activity.
Dr Moyle and her co-authors have pledged to:
Never again use carbon spewing air travel for holidays or conferences.
Never again use a carbon spewing automobile including electric vehicles (that primarily use carbon spewing coal generated electricity).
Never again use plastics or occupy any building made of concrete.

November 3, 2017 5:08 pm

That’s all self-admiration of the ruling political class. This has nothing to do with climate.

November 3, 2017 5:37 pm

COP23 is work, not “tourism.”

& vital to addressing the climate emergency
we find ourselves in.

Warren Blair
Reply to  crackers345
November 3, 2017 6:52 pm

crackers345 I’ve read a few of your posts.
Why do left-leaning types believe AGW is a “climate emergency”?
Is there anything else occurring that concerns you more?

Reply to  Warren Blair
November 4, 2017 3:07 pm

crackers345 is correct, it is a “climate emergency”
we are several degrees colder than the roman period & sadly it looks like it’s going to get a lot cooler over the next 30yrs.
I will probably become a climate refugee & move south.

So we need a war to wipe out a large amount of poor people in warm climates, so we rich people can walk/fly in & take over the best bits…just like we’ve done many times before in history.

If you want to know the future….read history.

Reply to  Warren Blair
November 4, 2017 7:36 pm

no evidence at all the any “roman period”
was global, let alone globally warmer
than today.

i’m sure you don’t have such evidence, so
don’t bother pretending

Reply to  Warren Blair
November 4, 2017 9:35 pm

PLENTY of evidence that MWP and RWP and Holocene Optimum were GLOBAL and significantly warmer than now.

Your ignorance precedes you, as always.

Reply to  Warren Blair
November 4, 2017 9:40 pm

Heck there was even a period name the “Neoglaciation” as the world cooled down from about 3000 years ago to the LIA.

Current temperatures are, fortunately, slightly warmer than those of the LIA, but still have to climb further to reach the temperatures of the MWP and RWP

We are fortunate to live in what can only be described as..

“The Modern Slightly Warm Period”

Reply to  crackers345
November 3, 2017 7:04 pm


There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.. it is a manufactured figment of the globalist agenda.

Global temperature is still only a tiny, but HIGHLY beneficial amount out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 yeras.

If CO2 did actually cause this slight warming, we should be HIGHLY GRATEFUL for being saved from even further LIA eras.

Move to Siberia, if you want it COLD. ! Don’t stay in your fossil fuel heated and cooled inner city ghetto.


Non Nomen
Reply to  AndyG55
November 4, 2017 5:37 am

Couldn’t agree more. +100²

Patrick MJD
Reply to  crackers345
November 3, 2017 10:29 pm

The climate I’ve lived in since 2005, is perfect, bit cold for late spring Australia, but perfect. The climate I lived in in NZ since 1995, was perfect, colder than Aus, warmer than the UK, but perfect. The climate I lived in in the UK before that was perfect, colder than NZ, but perfect. And the climate in the UK until 1995 was perfect. I didn’t notice any disaster in that time.

So I have lived in three very different climate zones…during the period claimed to be a problem…and nothing, NOTHING to do with climate has in any way been a problem for the millions of people living in those zones.

Where is the problem?

Reply to  crackers345
November 3, 2017 11:09 pm

If there really was a climate emergency you lot would embrace Nuclear power because the world runs on energy .The trouble is you have morphed from the ban the bomb brigade and cannot bring yourselves to even understand that your stupid anti energy policies will harm all the poorer people of the world.

Reply to  crackers345
November 3, 2017 11:25 pm

But, Crackers, it’s work that destroys Gaia…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  crackers345
November 4, 2017 11:02 am

COP23 is most assuredly NOT work. It produces nothing of any value, and in fact makes humanity worse off.

November 3, 2017 6:41 pm

Stop all tourism immediately, including for COP23. Has that saved the planet?
No heating allowed in any building above 10 degrees C – just wear more layers of clothing. Planet saved yet?
Stop all energy-intensive manufacturing. What next?

Jeff Alberts
November 3, 2017 7:23 pm

“Each gallon of burned jet fuel produces about 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, ”

Hmm, is that right? Roughly 8 pounds of liquid burned creates at least 21 pounds of a gas? I have no idea, really, but it just doesn’t seem possible.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 3, 2017 7:41 pm

yes, that’s right, because the oxygen atoms that
make up
the co2 come from
the atmosphere, not the

Patrick MJD
Reply to  crackers345
November 3, 2017 10:17 pm

Yes it’s called OXIDATION. It’s how all the water on earth was created.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 3, 2017 11:27 pm

This type of questions where baffling consensus scientists of phlogiston era.

Latimer Alder
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 4, 2017 2:08 am

Let’s do the chemistry (simplified a bit to ignore hydrogen)

C (atomic weight 12) plus O2 (atomic weight 32) –> CO2 (atomic weight 44)

So ratio is 44/12. 8 pounds C –> 29 pounds CO2.

Yep…the sum is about right.

Patrick MJD
November 3, 2017 10:16 pm

Australia does appear to be at the front of stupid these days.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 4, 2017 1:41 pm

Patrick MJD
Australia is in front but the intense rivalry that Australia has with New Zealand will cause a race to the bottom .New Zealand has changed its government and the greenbeans are part of it so just watch New Zealand forge ahead in the stupid stakes

Reply to  gwan
November 4, 2017 9:14 pm

Yeah NZ went the wrong direction.

They’ll right the ship soon enough. I have faith in people.

November 3, 2017 11:37 pm

Dr Char-lee Moyle, from QUT’s Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, and her co-authors from Griffith University and James Cook University can rest assured. There are plenty of other destinations – even for COP meetings.

michael hart
November 4, 2017 12:46 am

It might well be an exceptionally schizoid conference this time around. Great pleasure will be had from saying nasty things, often about how Donald Trump ruined it all by so bigly disrespecting a great party, a party they didn’t want him at anyway.

My only wish, nay, prayer, is that they would all resign, en-masse, in protest. Then he could tell them via Twitter that they were already fired. Nothing ever actually has to be real or make sense in the world of global warming, but it could yet be entertaining.

Latimer Alder
November 4, 2017 2:01 am

An observation this week from Lord (Nigel) Lawson…chairman of GWPF and one-time UK Energy Minister

‘If cutting emissions made economic sense, people would be doing it anyway.

It is only the fact that it doesn’t that requires big international agreements’

Virtue signalling writ large.

November 4, 2017 5:23 am

Go to Australia by train, the most eco friendly way to travel.

Non Nomen
Reply to  NIk
November 4, 2017 5:41 am

I prefer going from Coober Pedy to Ayers Rock by ship.

Richard Thornton
November 4, 2017 7:54 am

If the global warming is as dire as those propoments say and let’s say those persons comprise 25% of the planet if they stopped making any emmissions at all or at least the very most minimal then in their eyes the problem would nearly be solved and surely the sceptics would see the results and follow suit. So please all Greens step forth and eliminate all of your “pollution” and emmissions forthwith.

November 4, 2017 8:35 am

It makes sense individuals expect to profit from the scheme of selling guilt and shame.

November 4, 2017 9:13 pm

Another good article.

Lol I have nothing to add beyond that.

andrew dickens
November 6, 2017 7:39 am

Does anyone know what all these thousands of delegates do all day at these conferences? Has anyone ever attended one? Who pays their expenses? What about the little countries – do they have massive delegations? Who pays for them?

November 8, 2017 10:57 am

No mention of carbon-offsets that are easy and cheap for purchase at all these COP conferences. Anthony Watts, are you intentionally misleading your flock? Why omit the obvious answer that is easily verifiable. Too busy?

Reply to  tech_heavy
November 10, 2017 12:35 pm

“Too busy?”

Or because ‘carbon offsets’ are a load of bollox on a par with the old Roman Catholic church’s peddling of ‘Indulgences’?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights