Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The United Nations has allegedly deplatformed countries including the USA, Australia and South Africa from the upcoming climate conference in New York, because those nations support building coal plants, though China and India will still be invited to speak.
Leading countries blocked from speaking at UN climate summit
Secretary-general takes tough line on select coal-supporting nationsLeslie Hook in London
Leading economies such as Japan and Australia will not be invited to speak at next week’s crunch UN climate change summit, as their continued support for coal clashes with the demands of the organisation’s secretary-general as he sounds the alarm on climate change.
…
Also excluded will be the US, which has said it intends to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, as well as Brazil and Saudi Arabia, which have criticised the climate pact.
“Only the boldest and most transformative actions [will] make the stage,” said Amina Mohammed, UN deputy secretary-general, on Wednesday. “We will see on Monday who is stepping up.”
…
However some coal-loving countries such as China and India, the world’s two biggest builders of new coal stations, will still speak at the summit, according to the draft agenda.
Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/1902158a-d994-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
…
How do you think the USA, Australia, South Africa and other nations should respond to this UN snub?
There would appear to be a big difference between “blocked” as stated in the headline and
“not invited” as the article claims further down. Blocked means that the US and Australia etc.
requested to speak and were turned down. Uninvited means that they were never requested
to speak. I would imagine that not all 193 member countries were invited to speak and no-one
would be complaining about that. Finally given that the US has a seat on the security council
and a permanent veto it in all likelihood assert the right to speak whenever it likes.
You forgot about the part where we fund most of the UN.
UN?…United Nonsense! It’s not a snub, it’s a near miss. What an embarrassment it would be, if invited , to have to lecture to discreants that have the mind of a duck. It’s a lucky near miss. We just need to keep the facts in focus.
Germany is still building coal power plants. It had a big one come on line in 2018!
Has Germany been deplatformed as well?
Much of Germany’s energy is from coal, but it appears they now want to get rid of all of it??
Their population has been stagnent and decreasing slightly since 2004. 5th or 6th largest user of fossil fuels in the world currently.
The US should continue funding and supporting the U.N. otherwise US adversaries like China will gain increased U.N. influence. Instead, the US can ally with countries the U.N. has chosen to block from speaking.
Snubbed countries should immediately reduce U.N. funding and staff by at least 10%. Those resources will be allocated to scrutinize the IPCC and critique what is scientifically defensible from the purely political U.N. agenda on climate change.
Their snub of countries with any hint of dissension illustrates quite vividly just how political the U.N. really is. My bet is there will be no shortage of qualified scientists volunteering to help in this joint effort.
Yes, this is the correct and sensible way to handle it. The focus should indeed be to put an end to climate hysteria, and for that a proper national approach to the science is necessary along with other sympathetic countries. The free ride for hysteria needs to be ended. That will take a substantial domestic science inquiry.
It should also be to point out in any case who is doing all the CO2 emitting. The US needs to focus attention on the fact that all the action in emission reduction is being demanded (and not just by the UN, but by US based activists) from the US and the West.
But the bulk of the emissions are being done and being increased by China, India and so on.
This needs to be publicly pointed out and denounced. The US needs to be saying, publicly and repeatedly, and with allies, that if you want to reduce global emissions, start with China. If you want to reduce global coal use, start with the country that mines and burns more than the rest of the world put together. Don’t start by turning off standby TV sets in Tuvalu or Salt Lake City.
But one other thing is needed also.
The US needs to stop the indiscriminate bombing, and stop the endless pointless wars, and restore the moral authority and financial responsibility that it has lost as a result of them.
People here will find this very offensive and probably will react very aggressively. But its an inconvenient truth that these wars and bombings have not been either right, in the interests of the US, or in the interests of the West. On the contrary, they are deeply damaging to both, and they are a great and increasing threat to the previously unquestioned leadership of the US in the West.
The Summit will take place on 23 September 2019 at UN Headquarters in New York. It will be held in the General Assembly Hall. I suggest all energy supply lines to the UN building be shut off externally. This will reduce their CO2 ‘carbon’ foot print a bit and educate them on how to operate without fossil fuel support.
Think of it as a teaching moment…..
Start the campaign with “UnUN, Deplatform the Corruption”
I’ve the Green New Deal. I wish I could debate them on it. Without air travel, what will happen to places like The Bahamas, Cancun, and Hawaii without tourism? How many jobs will be destroyed without the air industry, trucking, mining, gas, oil, ranching, etc? How much land will the Feds need to steal from people to put up tens of thousands of wind turbines, which each need a minimum of 50 acres to be somewhat efficient? How much land for solar farms? Are we still okay with trains and ships? If I want to go to Ireland, will it now take several weeks to get there? I guess the government will have to pay us all for months of vacation, since just going overseas and back will take 4 weeks for the roundtrip without even a day of sightseeing. But we won’t have new ships, because we can’t build them without coal and oil based fuels. How about new concrete without oil? Nope. Asphalt is an oil byproduct, so we will have to go back to dirt roads. Plastic is also an oil byproduct so no more plastic products.
Jeremiah puckett… They don’t think that far ahead… I am from London, and without tourism england would loose billions, the central london hotels and all the theaters would close as its mostly holiday makers that go to the shows and stay at the hotels… With out fossil fuels the uk would come to a stop, as no products could be shipped here, no foods, no new buildings, and due to weather we have here, the roads wouldn’t last long… The greens have totally lost the plot and are now demanding that humanity comes to a stop, the U.N has been talking about co2 for forty years, yet have done nothing with the billions they get from world governments.
Jeremiah Puckett: You’re points are spot on. The debate means nothing to people who argue based on emotion, taking positions based on false idea. They have belief’s with no consideration given to logic or basic understanding of both sides of the argument.
How should the US react? By reconquering the last bit of their country which is occupied by a foreign power.
UN ,does not sound to united to me. Get rid of the unelected bureaucrats and start from scratch.Same with EU.
“How do you think the USA, Australia, South Africa and other nations should respond to this UN snub?”
‘No Taxation without representation’ comes to mind.
But it won’t come to that – unfortunately.
Deplatform us well let’s defund the UN?
How the UN hijacked climate science for the global socialism agenda:
The Climate Accord has nothing to do with climate. It’s a transfer of wealth from the “designated” developed/rich countries to the “designated” developing/poor countries.
Poor countries can emit beneficial CO2 emissions with impunity……..and they are, to stimulate their economies. Rich countries must cut back in order to stifle their economies.
Supposedly, the rich countries wrecked the climate of the poor countries and are paying reparations and to help the poor countries adapt to the fake climate crisis……….which is actually a climate optimum for life on this greening planet based on authentic science.
CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere, so developing countries huge increase in CO2 is dwarfing cuts from other counties………..but so what?
1. So what based on the Climate Accord, which is designed for this to happen.
2. So what based on authentic science which tells us CO2 is a beneficial gas.
3. Not so what for the world that has been lied to about items #1 and #2, using fake/junk science and broken climate models simulating conditions for the next 100 years based model output that is over estimating temperatures in the real world and have no skill at forecasting weather. While at the same time, we hear ZERO about massive benefits that dwarf the negatives.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/38156/
Why would any country continue to fund an entity where they are not allowed to particpate?
Get very sticky with the visas
When the UN was instituted what they had in mind was to stop nations blowing each other up, using the usual self-serving fantasies. What they didn’t want was for people to then use the platform to spread various socialistic self serving fantasies. The UN has gone backwards.
Further to on visas. Homeland Security has information that activists may be attending the UN conference. Are you a delegate? Step this way please sir/ madam join long queue to pick up a questionnaire, where born? Police record? Details? Parents names, domicile your address in USA ETC ETC then long queue to overworked and a bit thick HS official who goes thu’ the whole thing ad infinitum and compiles a list of suspects ( ie all) which is made public.
How should they respond? With a resounding Hooray!
Just think of it, not having to listen to the prophesies of doom by an anointed schoolgirl. Bless!
Evict the UN
Mr. Secretary, we paid for that microphone. And that building, and…
Perhaps if we just didn’t bother to go?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-banned-from-speaking-at-un-climate-change-summit-in-unprecedented-rebuke
‘Race against climate change’
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres earlier this year warned only leaders with a clear climate action plan would be allowed to speak at the summit as the cost of inaction is too high.
…
Countries like Australia, Japan and South Africa who support the coal industry have consequently been removed from the summit’s draft speaking schedule, along with countries that have been critical of the Paris climate accord, such as the United States, Brazil and Saudi Arab
———————
These countries may still attend but will not be asked to speak. What would be the point. They are to talk about actions being taken by their country to reach zero emissions. there are NO olicies in these countries so if invited to speak they would only be able to say “none”!
UN-United Nazis. Deplatforming was a hallmark of Hitler’s Brownshirts. Denying others the right to speak is an abomination and a denial of Human Rights, in contravention of their own Declaration of Human Rights! Hypocrisy is one thing, but this is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Disagree with those who would quit the UN. It’s a forum for whiners and complainers, yes. But if you’re going to lead you have to listen to them and use your influence. And ignore the insults. It goes with the job.
Once again, they are only willing to talk with those who already agree with them.
How left wing of them.
When are we going to “invite” the UN to leave the United States? If they are going to deplatform the USA for its climate views, maybe it’s time for us to defund the UN.