From CFACTBy CFACT |August 27th, 2019|Environment
How does the United Nations convince people that they are super serious in their outrage about fossil fuels? How about flying 4,000 people from all over the world in fossil-fueled jet airplanes to isolated Salt Lake City to whine about it? Sounds like a good plan to the United Nations bureaucracy, which is sponsoring a sustainability and climate change conference this week in Salt Lake City.
The UN brags that up to 4,000 people are likely to attend, representing more 300 nongovernmental organizations (read, environmental activist groups) and more than 80 countries. There is no compelling agenda, no compelling actions items, and no expected meaningful outcome from the conference. It is simply an opportunity for leftist global activists to get together and express outrage about economic freedom and the existential global climate disruption that is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced – surpassing Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, the Black Plague, smallpox, AIDS, and the threat of nuclear war combined.
Salt Lake City is an isolated, medium-sized city with little national or international media impact. Most people flying to Salt Lake City for the UN conference will have to make at least one or two connecting flights to get there, exacerbating their carbon footprint for the conference. Why didn’t the UN choose New York or Brussels for such a conference? Because, silly, UN bureaucrats get tired of New York and Brussels and want to go someplace really cool and fun for their events. Carbon footprint, shmarbon footprint.
Seriously, now, if global warming is the greatest existential threat facing humanity, as the UN and Democratic presidential hopefuls claim, why would the UN induce 4,000 people to carbon-bomb the atmosphere with 4,000 multi-leg, roundtrip flights to whine about it? Almost nobody (other than us wonks here at CFACT) really cares or will be paying attention to the conference. Couldn’t they hold the conference at UN facilities in New York or Brussels? Or better yet, couldn’t the conference can be held online for a much lower carbon footprint?
The truth is, Salt Lake City is a beautiful place. There are breathtaking mountains all around. Posh Park City is just a 20-minute drive away. Environmental leftists may even catch a glimpse of part-time nearby resident Robert Redford. Holding the conference in Salt Lake City is an opportunity for the self-righteous environmental left to travel to a gorgeous city, take a nice vacation at taxpayer or employer expense, and all the while compliment each other on how they really CARE about climate change. All while carbon-bombing the atmosphere in order to travel there.
Makes you wonder just how existential they believe their contrived climate crisis truly is….
Author
CFACT, founded in 1985 by Craig Rucker and the late (truly great) David Rothbard, examines the relationship between human freedom, and issues of energy, environment, climate, economics, civil rights and more.
I disagree with tax dollars being spent on silly conventions, but wonder whether any airline will add any additional flights to their schedules?
Of course, even without additional airline flights scheduled, there will certainly be oodles of additional limousine and taxi trips, and lots of elevator trips up and down.
SR
I guess the UN Central Command has a new mission to convert the American hinterland to the propaganda line.
At least some of our massive dues to the UN and being spent locally.
Those feeding at the public trough go tt conventions because it is a nice activity that makes them feel important.
The theme of the conventions does not matter. Any current theme will do and while summaries will be made, not much will get done.
For serious skiers, Alta is much better than Park City.
Heartland also went to Salt Lake City for their Rebuttal to UN ‘Civil Society’ Sustainability Conference, and has posted it online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naTVziGVk64
I note that earth shattering asteroids did not make the list.
That is the ONLY item which can possibly be dealt with given a long enough time frame of discovery.
It would still require a certain degree of political will, which other than a certain US President, seems to be sorely lacking in the world today.
“Because, silly, UN bureaucrats get tired of New York and Brussels and want to go someplace really cool and fun for their events. Carbon footprint, shmarbon footprint.”
Meanwhile, other fun things to do in area this weekend:
Burning Man Festival to the North west of Salt Lake City.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Black+Rock+City,+NV/@40.780938,-119.2235675,13.63z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x809fb834cedea63b:0xbeb0dbe188039187!8m2!3d40.7886448!4d-119.2030177?hl=en&authuser=0
The place is packed with all sorts of strange vehicles straight out of a Mad Max movie. All burning fossil fuels.
The Department of Mutant Vehicles at Burning Man is NOT worried about carbon foot prints.
Can someone please remind me why climate change would be a bad thing?
1. We’d have a direct path through the Arctic making shipping more efficient.
2. Coffee could be grown in less remote places.
3. Food crops are begging for more CO2 so they’d grow faster.
4. Sewer cities like NYC and San Francisco would be gone.
5. More people die from cold exposure than heat exposure so we’d save lives.
6. People wouldn’t need to snowbird to warmer climates in the winter.
7. Fargo could have a water park.
8. 90% of Canada’s population lives within 100 miles of the US border because it’s too cold up north. They’d be able to spread out more if it was warmer.
9. Lots of deaths on snowy and icy roads. Again, saving lives.
10. I’d be able to wear shorts more throughout the year.
11. If there were more hurricanes then CNN would have more real news to report on other than Trump’s tweets. Of course, there has been NO increase in number or intensity of tornadoes or hurricanes even though the earth has supposed to have warmed nearly 2C.
RE: “Sewer cities like NYC and San Francisco would be gone.”
True, but the sludge from those sewers would be relocated at Federal/FEMA expense and some of them might wind up here.
“1. We’d have a direct path through the Arctic making shipping more efficient.”
Or ice all the way to Panama, depending on which way the climate changes.
Because if climate change would be mostly a good thing, politicians, media, and activists couldn’t use it to gain attention and virtue signaling points.
If they were really concerned about the increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels then they would hold meetings like this over the Internet and stay at home. The technology is already in place. Apparently taking trips is fun and they really do not care about how much CO2 their trip taking adds to the atmosphere.
Everyone else has to worry about CO2 emissions not them.
Flying thousands of people in is so transparently hypocritical one must assume the gathering
is really about something else entirely .
Given the UN ‘s involvement my bet is there will be a small break out clique
of top dogs who focus on the UN global governance and population reduction goals .
They will be pleased to know that over the course of their gathering approximately
700,000 abortions will have taken place world wide . How’s that for a CO2 reduction strategy ?
Hypocrite heaven!