The UN Wants Your Input, Providing You Support Climate Action

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The UN appears to be worried they are becoming detached from the real world, so they have created a climate “safe space” for enthusiasts to contribute their ideas for encouraging climate action.

UN makes open call for ideas on fighting climate change

Published on 30/01/2018, 4:52pm

A new portal poses three pressing climate questions, with governments to take part in open talks with those who present answers in May

By Megan Darby

Researchers, campaigners, business leaders and members of the public have an unprecedented chance to influence UN climate talks in 2018.

In a radical opening up of the process, groups and individuals will present their ideas on climate action directly to government representatives during a meeting in Bonn this May.

The plans are led by Fiji, which holds the rotating presidency of the talks. They draw on Pacific “talanoa” storytelling traditions in a bid to make the process more inclusive.

In an exclusive interview, Fiji’s chief climate diplomat Nazhat Shameem Khan told Climate Home News that one of the major criticisms of the UN process was the lack of connection between those taking action and the UN diplomats.

“Dialogue is the way to start to bridge that gap, both philosophically and substantively,” said Shameem Khan.

Fiji’s concept for the May meeting is unusual in the extent to which it brings the two worlds together. There are to be three working groups to address the questions:

  • Where are we?
  • Where do we want to go?
  • How do we get there?

At UN climate talks in Bonn in November, one negotiator told Climate Home News: “In here, we are becoming detached from the real world.”

Read more: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/30/un-makes-open-call-ideas-fighting-climate-change/

The Talanoa mandate on the UN portal website is bureaucratic gibberish;

The Conference of the Parties, by its decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 20, decided to convene a facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Agreement and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Agreement. At COP23, the Talanoa Dialogue was launched, to start in January 2018.

In accordance with decision 1/CP.23, paragraph 16, the efforts of Parties in relation to action and support in the pre-2020 period will also be considered as an element of the Talanoa Dialogue. Further information on the pre-2020 implementation and ambition are available here.

Read more: https://talanoadialogue.com/mandate

The UNFCCC site makes the purpose of Talanoa a little clearer;

“Talanoa is a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue. The purpose of Talanoa is to share stories, build empathy and to make wise decisions for the collective good. The process of Talanoa involves the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.

During the process, participants build trust and advance knowledge through empathy and understanding. Blaming others and making critical observations are inconsistent with building mutual trust and respect, and therefore inconsistent with the Talanoa concept. Talanoa fosters stability and inclusiveness in dialogue, by creating a safe space that embraces mutual respect for a platform for decision making for a greater good.”

Read more: http://unfccc.int/focus/talanoa_dialogue/items/10265.php

I suspect contributions like “climate action is a useless waste of money” would be rejected as it is a “critical observation”, whereas a heart rending story of how climate change killed your pet goldfish by triggering an algal bloom in your homeopathic fish tank might get star billing at the Bonn conference in May, maybe even free tickets to attend the conference.

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “The UN Wants Your Input, Providing You Support Climate Action

  1. FANTASTIC!!!! Couldn’t make it up!
    British readers will recognise this kind of self-serving, pseudo-intellectual, virtue-signalling bullshit from the wonderful parody series of the BBC called W1A and its predecessor (same writers and some actors) about the London Olympics, called 2012. These feature the appointment of such essential employees as “Director of Legacy”, “Director of Sustainability” and “Director of Better” and other roles created out of “reimagining” management structures.
    More please. Who needs comedians when we have these sorts of idiots publicly making fool of themselves with such earnest twaddle.

    • Have heart. Why don’t we use Fijian practices, so successful in the past. Don’t you hope that your country would achieve their standard of living?

      • Kaizen comes to mind.
        The question, what process/policies determine what is or isn’t considered and shared.

      • Sarcasm aside, there is a big scary stinky pile of people that think that “gaining” the Fiji standard of living would be an achievement, and that what we would give up to get there would be reasonable. (remember Obama telling us to get used to it … it’s the new normal).
        Over the last 25 years or so we had been pushed into the consensus approach (Talanoa) to governance … “be nice and agree with me about the small emotional based issues, or else we don’t want to hear from you, you troublemaker. And by the way, we will indeed use the small (emotional based) issues to set the policy for the big important issues … but don’t tell anyone about that yet”.

      • If I proposed that CO2 is good for plant life, and humanity (not to mention almost every other living organism) and that burning coal produces more of this life giving elixir, would I have the red carpet rolled out for me?

      • Many Fijians who don’t like Fiji’s standard of living move to Australia. Unfortunately though Australia’s standard of living is falling due to an influx of the politically left and watermelon greens. (Not the Fijians)

      • “Steve B January 31, 2018 at 1:03 pm”
        If it was not for Indians, the Fijians would not have any standard of living. And many Fijians move to New Zealand first.

    • Here is the best suggestion that can be made to ALL parties concerned or unconcerned:
      If you are truly concerned about AGW and the climate…
      Don’t utilize anything that is a direct product or byproduct of Fossil Fuels
      (there are over 6000 of them so be careful. Here is a sample list http://whgbetc.com/petro-products.pdf )
      If your house is electrified from the grid, pull your meter immediately, the grid is energized by fossil fuel and you can’t be 100% certain where your electrons have come from.
      Walk Everywhere (all current conveyances have been built utilizing Fossil Fuels)
      Do not fly to any more COP meetings (airlines cannot fly without using fossil fuels too)
      Do not run the water in your house, the pipes have been created using Fossil Fuels)
      Remove your toilet seats (install outhouse in your backyard)
      Gather water from a nearby stream and distill it using a Solar Oven
      In short completely divest yourself from all Fossil Fuel products or byproducts,
      and do it now or obviously you really don’t care.

      • And – at least by implication – do not surf the interweb, or sully it with your – politely – somewhat odd opinions.
        Auto.

  2. How about this?
    http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10290728/slides/slide_22.jpg
    AGW is a hoax in as far as it claims it has a solution to an imminent problem.
    That solution assumes the ultimate cause of this imminent problem but doesn’t include addressing this imminent problem directly, only indirectly through limiting the assumed cause íf the assumed cause is the ultimate cause at all.
    If the assumed cause is not the cause at all, we still sit with the imminent problem because we haven’t focused any funding on dealing with it directly e.g. mitigation strategies for sea level rise, floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc, etc.
    If the precautionary principle is anything to go by, then dealing with this imminent problem directly should be Plan A, and indirectly, Plan B.
    All we’re doing now is “Going Green” but we’re not preparing for any Climate Change.

    • The problem with that cartoon is that the bullet points on the screen are as big a lie as catastrophic man made global warming.

      • Many many TONS of baggage built in to those bullet points, they could all be dismantled easily, and i love the vague word “renewables” which has no real meaning, except maybe energy dystopia.

      • John Bell: “Renewables” means millions of dollars for the energy/oil companies and billionaires that lap up subsidies while creating unreliable energy for the masses.

      • MarkW
        It is worse than that, our obsession with CO2 is making many of those things worse. For example look at all the new pollutants we are creating in our efforts to reduce CO2.

    • The problem w/that cartoon is, as I learned the hard way as an engineer, you must zero in on the exact problem(s) and start from there to get the best solution. If “climate” is a false flag, then it has to be omitted from the considerations.

    • If the precautionary principle is anything to go

      We have been thru this the precautionary principle is a logical fallacy which is at best a hoax and myth and worst downright dangerous. It is always used by uneducated which usually translates to certain groups anti-vax and anti-science.
      You are equating “precautionary” as having little or no risk and you have absolutely no basis to make that claim. Science is about assessing every risk including being stupid enough to invoke the “precautionary principle”.

      • If you are playing their own “precautionary principle” game back at them, them being AGW, and because we are talking of an imminent cataclysmic live and death situation here, shouldn’t we be seeing more direct physical measures being taken to mitigate possible climate damage?
        Take SLR for example. With tens of millions of lives at stake, shouldn’t we be, as a precautionary measure, start moving those people back? Just in case CO2 reduction don’t reverse SLR in time. Moving that amount of people takes years of planning. Shouldn’t we start that with the same urgency as reducing CO2?
        Shouldn’t this be a legitimate question in the UN’s discussion?

    • Is it a “better world” if “fighting climate change” results in more expensive energy (in terms of human hours of work, and materials/land used)? Be aware that expensive energy will cause EVERYTHING else to be more expensive and in short supply. Is it a “better world” if there is less water, less food, less medicine, less invention, less technology, fewer tractors/combines, fewer labor-saving devices, fewer new drugs, and concomitant huge declines in human productivity? And then there is the looting of capital from productive enterprises (huge new taxes) to try to compensate for all the other losses. Not to mention all the restrictions on individual freedom that would be necessary.
      I am convinced that “fighting climate change” would cause more death and suffering than has ever before been seen in the history of the world. These people seem to want a new world of no freedom and extreme limitations. In the 20th century, forced utopianism had a consistent history of causing enormous suffering. If you want the whole world to collapse into collectivist primitive barbarism, go ahead, “fight climate change”. Can mankind ever learn from previous such delusions?

  3. May I quote the great Peter Green in the song “Oh Well”.
    “…. don’t ask me what I think of you
    I might not give the answer that you want me to… “

  4. Where do we want to go?
    The next exotic COP location.
    How do we get there?
    By business class air travel at public expense.

    • Now there is some input that we could give that may not be thrown out. “In order to reduce carbon pollution, I feel that the delegates should meet virtually through teleconferencing.”

    • Business class is for peons. Try private jet. Do not forget to reserve the private limousine for pickup at the airfield.

    • Where are we? La-La Land
      Where do we want to go? Over the Rainbow
      How do we get there? Riding on unicorns.

  5. “At UN climate talks in Bonn in November, one negotiator told Climate Home News: “In here, we are becoming detached from the real world.”
    Hey, ain’t that the truth!

  6. The UN Charter should have forbidden this kind of overreach, in which the UN goes above the heads of govt and appeals to “the (right-on) people”. Questions should be asked about the funding for the UN’s World Govt activities.

    • +1 and not just this activity. The “charter” has expanded to world governance and they aren’t shy about it. What amazes me is the UN has accomplished nothing but growing itself into the world’s largest bureaucracy and no one is holding them to task for it.

      • this a million times over. the un is nothing more than an unaccountable quango with a penchant for wasting tax payer dollars. it needs to be disbanded in short order.

  7. “In here, we are becoming detached from the real world.”
    “Becoming”? Poor deluded fellow. The UN and its climate cotillion has been detached from the real world for decades. They live in a make-believe world, pretending to solve a make-believe problem. And now, in desperation, they want people to share their feewings about their make-believe world, but only if they Believe.
    It is laughably pathetic.

  8. Here is my input for the IPCC:
    How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-climate-alarmist-scientific-talking-points-to-win-the-debate/
    How Do You Know Climate Alarmists Are Lying? Their Lips Are Moving
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/how-do-you-know-a-climate-alarmist-is-lying-their-lips-are-moving/

  9. Idea #1: Personal re-breathers will recycle CO2 into carbon-based white-wash to smear over one’s face which should then be turned toward the sun to increase the earth’s albedo.

    • Hilarious, but not sure a carbon-based white-wash could be made (that usually titanium-dioxide based). How ’bout carbon-black on the face turned skyward at nite to radiate heat out to space?

  10. I think we all have a wonderful opportunity here to provide some valuable input. We should all submit stories of how our lives have improved due to the modest climate change that’s been observed. “I’m a farmer, and my crop yields have steadily increased as carbon dioxide levels have increased and the growing season has lengthened.” As long as you keep it positive, how can they reject it? (heh heh)

  11. The only thing they need to discuss is the cost differential between mitigating Climate Change and adapting to Climate Change.
    Since everything in this world boils down to money the best thing they can do is take the cheapest option.

  12. Simple soluton! Show they’re not hypocrites by eliminating all non green energy. They’ll be spending their time washing clothes by hand and hanging them out on clotheslines, and have no free time or money to spend on climate propaganda porn.

  13. They want more magical thinking. Because that’s all they’ve got, and has worked out so well for them.

  14. Another suggestion that would probably be rejected as it is a “critical observation” would be for them to remove their heads from their butts.
    /grin

    • Hey, that answers all 3 of their questions of “where are we”, “where do we want to go”, and “how do we get there”!

  15. Seems really tertiary, like the project given to the wallflowers that are three layers removed from the real doings. The chances any real policy would be generated on this feelgood nonsense is zero.

  16. Some ideas: Since carbon seems to be the source of feared climate change, all climate scientists should demonstrate how they can immediately reduce their personal carbon footprints by 50%, to serve as an example to everyone how this can be comfortably achieved. In the spirit of leadership by setting an example to all people and business organizations, all future climate conferences should also reduce their carbon footprints by 50%. Import bans should be imposed on all nations that do not sign or participate in climate change agreements. All nations requesting reparation money due to climate change damage should first demonstrate a reduction of their own overall carbon footprints by 25%, to show how they are truly concerned about carbon-created climate change. Due to the increasingly large carbon footprint created by mining crypto-currency, all member nations should be called upon to ban all activities related to it (cypto-mining is estimated to have consumed 32TWh last year, and this is growing quickly) .
    What do you think about these suggestions?
    I guess I am tired of being asked to apologize for my carbon footprint and of being forced to pay a carbon tax to those that create the concern but do not demonstrate it. This UN initiative may be a good way to send it back to them.

  17. How do we get there?
    The UN should create a crapto-currency called BUTTcoin (Build Up a Terrific Tomorrow) that would be traded in a virtual economy called Uranus (the Greek deity of the atmosphere). Climate scientists would convert their grant miners (climate models) into BUTTcoin miners to mine BUTTcoin from Uranus. Mining BUTTcoins from Uranus would be climate scientists highest scientific achievement. The number of BUTTcoins would be limited to 350 to symbolize the target of 350 ppm CO2. Any BUTTcoins mined above the 350 threshold would automatically be spent on climactic solutions. Since only climate scientists could mine BUTTcoins, they would become fabulously wealthy, and then everyone would want to become a climate scientist. They would save the world and become heroes like Bill Nye and Al Gore. I’m cereal.

  18. Fifty years after spending other peoples money they will probably still be at this point in their pathetic excuse for meetings and breakout sessions…….
    Where are we?
    Where do we want to go?
    How do we get there?

  19. “They draw on Pacific “talanoa” storytelling traditions in a bid to make the process more inclusive.”

    They already include the likes of Greenpeace to tell some pretty tall stories at the IPCC. In fact it seems the only people they don’t include are those who might disagree with their predetermined outcomes. Somehow I don’t see that changing.

  20. With all due respect to Fijian traditions and culture, did the Enlightenment not come about because people needed to be liberated from belief-based perceptions of reality to one founded on reason and the scientific method? Listening to and telling stories will not challenge the veracity or otherwise of what is said. The foundation of all religion is story after all, and look how doctrinal stories have become!

    • You are so yesterday. Surely you are not employed by the University of California, Harvard, or other institution of higher torch bearing.

    • I suspect this tradition is one that works best with small groups of people. You get beyond a tribe, not so much. The other thing that should be considered is that this tradition sounds like it is more for dealing with social issues and problems.
      Regardless, it does not sound appropriate for real scientific dialogue. And any time the phrase “collective good” is used, it is probably best to start running.

  21. “Talanoa is a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue.”
    Fiji, otherwise known as the Cannibal Isles.
    What was the traditional inclusion?
    We are putting you on the menu

  22. The UN should instead be asking themselves:
    Why are we lying?
    When will we stop lying?
    And, last but not least:
    Is there any real need for us to exist any more?

    • Why are we lying? To get money and power.
      When will we stop lying? When the lying stops getting us money and power.
      Is there any real need for us to exist any more? We must protect our phoney baloney jobs at all costs.
      [Is this what you were trying to do? -mod]

  23. I’ve heard that a little dab of lip gloss on the side of the mouth will arrest climate change and set the world aright.

  24. See the Talanoadialogue Portal

    As requested by Parties at the twenty-third session UN Climate Change Conference, the COP23, this online platform facilitates access to all inputs to the Talanoa Dialogue. This platform serves this purpose by:
    Allowing submission of inputs to the Talanoa Dialogue by Parties and non-Party stakeholders by uploading the inputs on this platform
    Making visible the Talanoa Dialogue inputs for the following topics:
    Where are we?
    Where do we want to go?
    How do we get there?

    There appear no limitations to “non-Party stakeholders”.
    So please submit polite professional responses at the
    https://talanoadialogue.com/
    e.g., in summary:

    1 At dead end policies proposing ineffective mitigation efforts.
    2 To robust resilient productive societies.
    3 Uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity per Richard Feynman’s 1974 Caltech commencement address.
    Develop inexpensive sustainable fuels and transport.”

    • I would like to remind all of the American Indian Fukawi Tribe, with a strong tradition of story telling:

      Our tribe has rich and long-standing history. Long time ago, our tribe wander the wilderness. For many years, we wander looking for land to call our own. Our chief led our people through mountains, valleys, seashores and plains.
      People were born wandering. People died wandering. After an entire generation of wanderers were born and died, our chief, then very old, led us to top of great mountain. He stood atop mountain summit and faced his people. He looked around. He looked far and wide. He then shouted to the gods,
      “We’re the Fukawi! We’re the Fukawi! WHERE THE F*K ARE WE?!”

  25. Where are we? Want more money.
    Where do we want to go? Get more money?
    How do we get there? Get those who have money to give it to us.

  26. Three more appropriate questions:
    1. Where is our money?
    2. How do we get more?
    3. Who should give it to us?

    • …..and these three questions also
      1. Where is the next climate party?
      2. How do we get elections rigged like Putin and Maduro?
      3. How much do Hollywood clowns cost?

  27. The organisers of this initiative might find it useful to consult this paper :
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2017.1327765
    On the relationship between climate sensitivity and modelling uncertainty
    Cecilie Mauritzen, Tatjana Zivkovic & Vidyunmala Veldore
    Abstract
    -“Climate model projections are used to investigate the potential impacts of climate change on future weather, agriculture, water resources, human health, the global economy, etc. However, climate projections have a broad range of associated uncertainties, and it is a challenge to take account of these uncertainties in impact studies and risk assessments. Knowing which uncertainties matter and which may be reduced via scientific research or political decisions can help policy-makers in making informed decisions, scientists in focusing their resources, and businesses in building resilience to uncertainties that cannot be avoided. On the global scale, the present political resistance or ability to move from agreements to significant action provides the largest uncertainty in climate projections, followed by the uncertainty associated with climate modelling itself. Here, we show that climate sensitivity is a very important source of model uncertainty over large parts of the globe not only for temperature, but also for precipitation and wind projections. Because ‘climate sensitivity’ is a collective term that encompasses a wide range of feedback mechanisms in the climate system, we may not know for a long time whether models with high or low climate sensitivities are more relevant for the twenty-first century projections. Nevertheless, investigations of climate impacts cannot wait. Here we argue that it is physically and statistically unsound to mix climate model with high and low climate sensitivities, and that the subset chosen for any impact study should depend on the question one is trying to answer”-
    Note the last sentence and in their closing statement they say :
    -“We therefore suggest that it is physically and statistically unsound to mix models from the two climate model families (high and low sensitivity models). But how to pick the family? One could pick a set of high-sensitive climate models based on a belief that those models are more physically reliable, a belief that finds support for instance in the finding of (Sherwood et al., 2014 Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L. 2014. Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature 505, 37–42.10.1038/nature12829 [Google Scholar]). Or one could pick a set of high-sensitive climate models if one’s aim is to provide advice guided by the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action. This principle was included in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and has later been incorporated into many international agreements. In order to offer advice within the framework of the precautionary principle, one needs to make impact assessments based on the high-sensitivity projections (i.e. the worst case).
    On the other hand, one could pick a set of low-sensitive climate models if one wishes to address the question: what is the least that can happen? What must we prepare for?
    To summarise, we argue that it is physically and statistically unsound to mix climate model with high and low ECS, and that the subset chosen for any impact study should depend on the question one is trying to answer. “-
    It is an open access article ( at least at the moment so if you want to save it do it now) .

  28. Pretty standard left wing fare.
    They believe in free speech, but only so long as you say what they want to hear.

  29. Hey, they should come here for their dialogue. Lots of great advice too!
    We deserve a round of applause for all of our help.

  30. Where are we?
    Carbon fueled Utopia
    Where do we want to go?
    Carbon-Free Hell
    How do we get there?
    Follow the Green path.

  31. Signs Of The Times:
    There was no mention of ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’ in President Trumps State of the Union address to Congress nor in any of the democrat responses to his speech, that I saw. From a news report this morning, only the hard core socialist dictator-wannabe Bernie ‘Feel the Bern’ Sanders mentioned it after President Trumps SOTU speech.
    #Winning!

    • And Trump said this: “We have ended the war on American Energy — and we have ended the war on clean coal.”
      No doubt heads exploding like in ‘Mars Attacks.’

  32. The gibberish translated: A meeting is called to see where we are re Artcle 4 to to decide how much cash we need frpm the pigeons.
    And the Talanoa trademarked agenda?
    Where are we?
    Where do we want to go?
    How do we get there?
    Is a standard lefty (not too subtle) classic patronizing form of гас¡sм – gee these savages are very clever! This happens to be the agenda for every meeting, except in a subversive enterprise like climateering, the unspoken item on the agenda is “Why are we really here?” There is no secret that it has nothing to do with climate.

  33. But not so good to see the worst of McCarthyism is alive and well in New York in the disgraceful
    hounding by “respectable” scientists and liberals of Rebekah Mercer at the American Natural History Museum. No wait, this is more reminiscent of the third reich and its all too willing thugs than anything else. The UN climatistas and its fellow travelling Greens must love New York at the moment

  34. This is where climate message consultants make their money. Of course it is a high profit margin business because it involves cut and paste work from previous clients but who will know the difference.

  35. Can we get a video of these sessions? The world needs a record of this festival of consultants. Such a video could rival Plan 9 from Outer Space for a following.

  36. The UN appears to be worried they are becoming detached from the real world, ….sorry remind me when they were attached to the real world ?

  37. If the UN wants my advice on ‘fighting climate change’, then I’ll give it. “Don’t bother about it”. ‘Climate Change’ is the product of a self-serving, myopic, deluded, primitive, pseudo-intellectual, virtue-signalling load of bullshit that is on the way out, weighed down by its criminality.

  38. Democratic, fair and impartial; “only submissions from verified stakeholders are allowed” . . .
    Deadline for submission of inputs
    The deadlines for submission of inputs are:
    •2 April 2018 for discussions in conjunction with the April/May session (30 April – 10 May)
    •29 October 2018 for discussions in conjunction with COP 24 (3 – 14 December)
    Verification of inputs
    Once received, all submissions will be verified to ensure the information is appropriate. It will then be registered and published on the Talanoa Dialogue platform.
    As part of the verification process, we will authenticate you as a stakeholder in order to avoid possible misuse and to confirm sources of inputs:
    •For Parties – only submissions from national focal points, or submissions on their behalf, are allowed
    •For non-Party stakeholders – only submissions from verified stakeholders are allowed. Verification may include investigating your name and email with respect to your organization and/or a telephone call to you or your organization.
    https://talanoadialogue.com/upload-inputs

    • Hmm isn’t the idea we’re all stakeholders when it comes to saving the planet?
      I’d submit the following couple of suggestions for How To Get There:
      – Lead by example. Both our leading organizations as well as leading persons. In how work, travel, living and leisure is performed.
      – Look at what organizations and events have a massive pollution impact compared to their true benefit to society or nature and reduce these organizations and events. Some which come to mind (due to the mind boggling amount of construction and travel of participants, supporters and fans involved): Olympic Games and some massive world championships could be reduced from every year or every 4 years to every 5 years or even less frequent. Formula One and other racing events to have less races on the calendar instead of expanding. Less massive international climate and similar conferences where lots of people travel to but not much is accomplished relative to what’s invested to organize it.
      – In each country, identify the worst polluters and help them to do better, with investments if necessary, instead of being repressive/fining or creating more bureaucracy or just waiting for others to take action. Allow for those helped to (partially) pay back later in case your help causes them reduced costs or other benefits down the line.

  39. This just proves the Alarmists are losing. They are desperate for input that will turn the tide of public opinion.

  40. Once received, all submissions will be verified to ensure the information is appropriate.

    Hmmm… well, this seems to be a variation on a theme they floated about five years ago. In March 2013, the UNDP launched a survey which one of the UN’s honchos blessed by declaring:

    the era of making decisions about global issues behind closed doors with little citizen involvement was coming to an end.

    Participants were told that:

    These inputs [from the surveys], along with those from across the UN system and beyond, including the outcomes of consultations going on worldwide and the voices of businesses, academia and the scientific community, will feed into the work of the Panel, which will present its report in May [2015]

    To the surprise of no reasonable person, “Action taken on climate change” was dead last! So the powers that be ditched the results in favour of those obtained from a 24-hour marathon amongst a carefully selected group of almost 10,000 in 97 countries around the globe. Presumably the UN powers that be had to do this in order to ensure that the information collected was “appropriate” 😉
    For all the gory details, please see: UN survey: participants one day 10,000 trumps two year 8 million plus”

  41. I tried meeting the UN’s exacting requirements on input to the UN but failed. The UN may be motivated by a desire to appear to seek input while in reality rejecting input that conflicts with the party line.

  42. Concerning “Safe spaces”: We defer to the philosopher Sakini in “Teahouse of the August Moon”: Pain makes you think. Thinking makes you wise. Wisdom makes life endurable. Socks up, Boss.”

  43. We must tell them that it is not mitigation but it should be adaptation with reference to climate change [as defined by IPCC & UNFCCC]. Governments must be advised to study agro-climates at local/regional level and based on such historical results provide adaptation guidelines.
    In the case of mitigation, governments must be advised how to control air, water, soil and food pollution at local and regional level — carbon dioxide is not a pollution.
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Comments are closed.