COP25 Press Release: The UN Push for an All Powerful Global Carbon Market

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Chilling mission almost complete press release from the United Nations.

COP25 to Be the Launchpad for Significantly more Climate Ambition

Bonn/ Madrid, 29 November 2019 – As the global climate emergency intensifies and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, governments will gather in Madrid for the UN Climate Change Conference COP25 (2 to 13 December 2019) to take the next crucial steps in the UN climate change process.

The conference will take place under the Presidency of the Government of Chile and will be held with logistical support from the Government of Spain.

Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change said: “This year, we have seen accelerating climate change impacts, including increased droughts, storms and heat waves, with dire consequences for poverty eradication, human health, migration and inequality.

“The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly. We must urgently deploy all the tools of multilateral cooperation to make COP25 the launchpad for more climate ambition to put the world on a transformational path towards low carbon and resilience,” she said.

A key objective of COP25 is to raise overall ambition also by completing several key aspects with respect to the full operationalization of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

Last year at COP24 in Poland, the bulk of the implementation guidelines of the Paris Agreement were agreed, with the exception of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

Article 6 is to provide guidelines for how international climate markets will work, as a key component of the world’s economic toolbox for addressing climate change.

Other focus areas at COP25 will include adaptation, loss and damage, transparency, finance, capacity-building, Indigenous issues, oceans, forestry, gender and more.

Notably, the provision of finance and technology is crucial for developing countries to green their economies and build resilience.

“While we have seen some progress with respect to climate-related financing for developing countries, we will continue to urge developed nations to fulfil their pledge of mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020,” Ms. Espinosa said. “We also must see overall global finance flows reflect the deep transformation throughout society that we need: away from carbon-heavy investment and towards more sustainable and resilient growth. Drops in the bucket are not enough: we need a sea change.”

COP25 to  Set the Stage for Enhanced NDCs

In 2020, nations are to submit new or updated national climate action plans, referred to as Nationally-Determined Contributions, or “NDCs”.

According to the UN Environment Programme’s 2019 Emission Gap Report published this week, unless global greenhouse gas emissions fall by 7.6 per cent each year between 2020 and 2030, the world will miss the opportunity to get on track towards the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

This means collective ambition would need to increase more than fivefold over current levels to deliver the cuts needed over the next decade for the 1.5°C goal.

“Current NDCs remain inadequate,” said Executive Secretary Espinosa. “If we stay on our current trajectory, it’s estimated that  global temperatures could more than double by the end of this century. This will have enormous negative consequences for humanity and threaten our existence on this planet. We need an immediate and urgent change in trajectory.

It’s achievable, but to stabilize global temperature rise by 1.5 Celsius by the end of this century, we need to reduce emissions 45 per cent by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. It’s an extremely difficult challenge, but meeting it is absolutely necessary to the health, safety and security of everyone on this planet—both in the short- and long-term.”

With regard to raising ambition, COP25 will be informed by the outcomes of the Climate Summit in New York in September and Climate Weeks in Africa, Asia and Latin America co-organized by UN Climate Change this year.

“At these key events, we saw an enormous groundswell of action, with many contributions from governments and  non-Party stakeholders, including regions, cities, businesses and investors. Their contributions are crucial to drive the transformation we need, said Executive Secretary Espinosa.

At the New York Climate Summit, Chile launched a Climate Ambition Alliance that brings together nations upscaling action by 2020, as well as those working towards achieving net zero CO2 emissions by 2050.

About the UNFCCC

With 197 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to keep a global average temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The UNFCCC is also the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The ultimate objective of all agreements under the UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, in a time frame which allows ecosystems to adapt naturally and enables sustainable development.

For media enquiries, please contact

Alexander Saier
UNFCCC Communications and Outreach
(mobile) +49 172 179 8835; E-mail: asaier(at)

UNFCCC Press Office: press(at)

See also:

Overview of UNFCCC and COP25 Presidency social media channels:


In my opinion the United Nations is trying to turn itself into a governing body at least as powerful as the European Union, possibly even as powerful as the Soviet Union. Climate policy appears to be the instrument of their ascendancy.

British EU apologists frequently claim EU membership is vital for British climate policy, so why not replicate this “success” on a much larger scale? Whoever sets the rules of a strong international carbon market controls the global economy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 29, 2019 2:10 pm

“Current NDCs remain inadequate,” said Executive Secretary Espinosa. “If we stay on our current trajectory, it’s estimated that global temperatures could more than double by the end of this century.”

Sorry, but did I understand that correctly?

London summer temperatures could rise to over 60C on occasions?

Other parts of the world would see temperatures above 100C?

Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2019 2:44 pm

Even worse, it might be over 900 degrees Rankin!

Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2019 2:48 pm

Doubling would be around 600K. Might want to keep that window open.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
November 29, 2019 8:30 pm

Or, you might want to keep it closed. I lived in California for decades without the luxury of air conditioning in my cars. I found from personal experience that once the ambient temperature exceeded about 110 deg F, it was better to roll up the windows.

Reply to  Scissor
November 30, 2019 9:17 am

Yes, total horseshit from Executive Secretary Espinosa. Nothing like having someone at the top who has so little idea what he is talking about, he does not even realise what rubbish he is talking.

Other focus areas at COP25 will include adaptation, loss and damage, transparency, finance, capacity-building, Indigenous issues, oceans, forestry, gender and more.

Did he just say transparency ?? You mean like making IPCC emails a matter of open public record rather than hiding behind diplomatic immunity of the UN. Like transparency in finance, maybe you’d like to agree to independent auditing rather than hiding behind diplomatic immunity of the UN.

Trump was right to refuse to pay into the Green Slush Fund, with zero accountability and legal immunity world wide, this is one huge ball of corruption and money laundering, totally beyond any audit and legal control.

Starting a “world carbon market” in a structure outside of all control … What could possibly go wrong with that?

Article 6 is to provide guidelines for how international climate markets will work

All markets are regulated, not because it’s a law of nature but because it has been found to be necessary. Since you are legally beyond and above regulation , the discussion stops here.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2019 2:56 pm

No, you misunderstood. Taking an arbitrary ‘0’ of the freezing point of water is no way to set the scale. It’s in Kelvin.

Global temperature will rise from about 288K to 576K, obviously.

Now do you see why you should be terrified, and give all your money to the UN to let them tell you what you can and can’t do? It’s so clear….

Rich Davis
Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2019 3:58 pm

The only way you can legitimately talk about temperature doubling is to work in the absolute scale using Kelvin (or if you’re really obscure, degrees Rankine).

If the all-time high temperature recorded in London was 38.1C, that is 311K. Doubling that would be 622K or 349C. Compare that with 462C on Venus, and we can see that the prediction is well within the bounds of probability. /sarc

Oh but I suppose they mean to say something like the minuscule increase in temperature since the end of the LIA might double from what it is today. The horror!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 29, 2019 8:34 pm

The statement about “doubling” says a lot about the technical qualifications of the people running the circus. And, what the hell does “gender and more” have to do with climate and responses address climate change? They might as well re-brand this as Social Justice Warrior Convention.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 30, 2019 10:40 am

Let me mansplain the obvious to you Clyde, since you’re not keeping up with the times…From what I’ve heard on National Propaganda Radio (, our planet previously identified as a cis-gendered womyn known as mother Gaia, but due to some hot flashes, persistent harassment from her long-time abusive partner, the toxic male Mars, and some bi-curious experimentation with the seriously hot Venus, ze is a bit queered lately and is transitioning to a transgender man named Guyo. We must all affirm him by using his pronouns!

Please take this stuff seriously, OK Boomer?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rich Davis
November 30, 2019 12:16 pm

Thank you for the ‘education.’ I’ve never considered myself to be politically correct. And, I don’t intend to start now, at this late date. I’ll just call it as I see it. I’ll probably “shuffle off this mortal coil” before they finish building the re-education camps anyway.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2019 4:18 pm

That’s what you get when non-science majors try to write or talk about “sciency” stuff.

Born in 1958, Ms. Espinosa did her postgraduate studies in international law at the Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales in Geneva and holds a degree in international relations from El Colegio de Mexico.”

This is just all about the $100 Billion… nothing else but the money. It is lavish amounts of OPM to spend on themselves and their business-class jet travel junkets around the world to lux resorts for meetings. Meetings to look important. They are all idiots who think we are idiots.

Well, okay, most people who think the UN is good for anything ARE idiots. There are a few useful functions of the UN like the ICAO for international aviation coordination. The rest could probably just disappear and no one would notice. Time to defund the UN wholesale.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  HotScot
November 30, 2019 12:49 am

HotScot, that’s a silly mistake, but the next line reads:
“It’s achievable, but to stabilize global temperature rise by 1.5 Celsius by the end of this century,”
so it should be quite clear what she means.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
November 30, 2019 1:24 am

Henning Nielsen

So the world is now tasked with the job of deciphering nonsensical paragraphs issued by the UN?

A qualifying sentence could have been added but, no, probably because no one noticed.

We are constantly told by the political elite that language matters, evidently not when it doesn’t suit them!

November 29, 2019 2:12 pm

What the actual F 😐 $100 billion pays for schools, food banks, healthcare, roads, better infrastructure…. What the hell is the u.n. doing with the 100s of billions they are stealing of us hard working tax payers?

“we will continue to urge developed nations to fulfil their pledge of mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020,” Ms. Espinosa said”

Reply to  Sunny
November 29, 2019 2:36 pm


I am inspired by our glorious leaders, especially Jeremy corbyn and believe we should pledge 200 billion a year to the fund and give free heat pumps to all uk households and that with every gallon of petrol purchased we should get 100 trees to plant


Reply to  Sunny
November 29, 2019 2:45 pm

The DRC is a living testimony to how good these guys are. Even they are sick of them.

Actually a bit of a shame on the healthcare workers, they were actually doing something.

Reply to  Sunny
November 29, 2019 4:05 pm

..and every one of these ‘developing countries’ already receive tons of money and aid from us…either directly or indirectly

Reply to  Latitude
November 29, 2019 5:42 pm

Latitude, I am confused at the term developing countries in the case of India and China. I have been to China and most people there live a similar life to Western cultures, and they have the highest number of billionaires in the world. That’s not to say there is no poverty.

India has a mix, they too have people enjoying extreme wealth. You will find extreme poverty here as well though and that is likely to do with the ‘cast system.

The point is that both these countries are nuclear bomb capable and both send rockets into space, shouldn’t they be spending that money on their own poor?

Ashok Patel
Reply to  Megs
November 29, 2019 11:31 pm

Speaking for India, I would say in is considered a developing country and should continues as developing country because according to the International Energy Agency, nearly 240 million Indians lacked lack access to electricity in 2017. Although India has abundant Coal reserves, it has not been able to put it to use due to hurdles by various NGOs.

What the developed countries could do is supply clean coal technology free and allow India to boost its electricity production. Going the renewable energy direction for India would be financially and logistically disastrous in a short span of 5 to 10 years.

Coal is the cheapest source for energy and should be encouraged with a caveat that it should be made clean as much as possible. Once India develops and can afford the luxury of renewable energy, India will join the mad bandwagon !

Progress without pollution is not possible. Example London 1900-1950, U.S. 1940-70.
I would go for any form of cheap energy till everyone in India gets basic electricity.

The people without electricity are not because of cast system. Many rural areas are without electricity and is not specific to any cast or creed. Cast system has been hyped by the Media.

Reply to  Ashok Patel
November 30, 2019 3:12 am

Ashok, I was in India in 1991 with my husband and three of our young sons. We had a whirlwind 6 day experience traveling independently in the golden triangle. Yes a very small area of India. It was a culture shock, but beautiful, colourful and exciting too. I have memories of a handsome 15 year old boy with amber eyes following us around the market place keen to sell us a trinket that we didn’t need. His charm won out, I was a soft touch.

My husband returned last year on a trip through northern India on the way to Nepal. There were cultural talks during his tour and the cast system was discussed, he said that the differences were evident. I wasn’t there and this isn’t in any way a judgment.

Australia is considered a developed country, our population is little more than 25 million and we contribute financially to many developing countries. We are not capable of nuclear power, let alone nuclear bombs and we are certainly not sending any rockets into space any time soon.

I personally don’t have a problem with coal, and the restraints in regards to it’s use in India at the expense of the Indian people doesn’t seem right to me. The Australian government seems to be going down the track of renewable energy against the will of the majority of Australians, it is likely to destroy us financially, and all for nothing. Our small population contributes such a small amount of CO2 that even if we ceased to exist it wouldn’t make a difference to the global tally, nor would it make a difference to global climate which is in itself irrelevant anyway, CO2 is not the enemy.

Please, don’t ever think that ‘renewable energy’ is a good thing, with a population the size of India the ecological damage to supply the power you need would far surpass that of coal.

My final point is that the money spent on atomic bomb technology and sending rockets into space would be better spent on sorting out the day to day problems of your people.

Australia is in many instances putting other countries ahead of it’s own people, is doesn’t spend it’s money wisely. I suspect they are not the only ones.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ashok Patel
November 30, 2019 12:54 pm

Without any doubt, India should not be hindered from using coal to raise living standards. Those who want to stop this are indeed elitist neo-colonialists.

With respect, however, leaving aside the legitimate question of whether the UK owes a debt for colonialism, India’s development is no more the responsibility of the broader West, or of a global body than is Indiana’s.

The whole canard that CO2 is a problem, has largely been a vehicle invented by global socialists for making claims against already-developed countries to force wealth transfers. India will not grow wealthy taking hand-outs from other countries. India must have free markets and sane policy to encourage internal economic growth.

Economic growth does not require pollution. Practically speaking, economic development requires CO2 emissions, but CO2 is not pollution.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Megs
November 30, 2019 12:53 am

Megs, AFAIK, even South Korea is defined in the UN system as a “developing economy”. I’ve been there, and it looks to me as an at least well developed economy as my country of Norway. Could it have something to do with the nationality of a former UN leader?
(Ban Ki-moon)

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
November 30, 2019 4:03 am

Henning I can only speak from my own experience and knowledge but I am open to learning from the experience of others. My education is recently expanding due to this site so please forgive my ‘blank’ response.

I’ve been to Norway, loved it! This is good opportunity to raise a point in regard to your beautiful country. You are hailed to us as a fine example of a country who has successfully taken renewable energy by the horns! It seems odd to me that comparisons can be made at all when the differences between countries, any countries, are so very different.

How can you compare countries with different climate, population and geography. Not to mention the difference in the physical size of our countries. When you think it through carefully there are things that work perfectly in your country that would never work in Australia. I’m talking all things renewable, electric vehicles etc. This is not exclusive of course, we are different in so many ways. That’s a good thing.

We are also constantly reminded of your superior education system, our government can’t seem to grasp that it is to a large degree due to the high standards at which you accept young people to study as teachers. We have also cut out important subjects such as maths in the final years of high school. When I say cut out, I mean they are no longer compulsory.

Getting back to your comment, it seems that there are many countries better off than we are led to believe.

Reply to  Sunny
November 29, 2019 4:31 pm

Sunny, the un-elected UN is way too clever to ‘steal’ anything themselves – they just pile the pressure on the weak-kneed politicians in the developed countries to steal it from us. Get it?

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
November 30, 2019 4:03 am

Here is how it works:

Global warming alarmism is a multi-trillion dollar scam – now the most costly scam in human history. Corrupt politicians love a big scam – the bigger the better – because they can skim off the most graft – a little scam is hardly worth the trouble.

Reply to  Sunny
November 30, 2019 5:23 am

well throw THIS into that news and ponder the collusion

lagarde gives me the cold shudders, a real life cruella deville

Frank Hansen
November 29, 2019 2:47 pm

The only meaningful temperature scale when talking about a doubling of temperature would be Kelvin. You cannot meaningfully talk about the doubling of a quantity that can be negative. That rules out Celsius, Remur or Fahrenheit. The U.N. will make us believe that the current Earth mean temperature around 288 degrees Kelvin will double ?

Sweet Old Bob
November 29, 2019 2:51 pm

Dirty COPs are a menace …..

Al Miller
November 29, 2019 2:57 pm

“This year, we have seen accelerating climate change impacts, including increased droughts, storms and heat waves, with dire consequences for poverty eradication, human health, migration and inequality.

Lies- plain and simple lies! Shocking that an organization purportedly created to better the world is so shamelessly lying to us all. Not that they don’t have a history of that.
De-fund the UN.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Al Miller
November 29, 2019 3:41 pm

This is the bit that it hinges on. When they demonstrate the facts and then demonstrate the connection to CO2 and then demonstrate why the consequences will be as bad as they predict, then I’ll consider whether the proposed course of action is the best. There are a lot of hurdles to jump if they want my support. Just ignoring the hurdles and running around them is what is keeping a lot of people offside.

Reply to  4 Eyes
November 29, 2019 4:38 pm

4 Eyes – I fully agree with your sentiments, but unless you are a politician your opinion doesn’t matter a whit to the UN. They are a global, unelected supranational body that is accountable to no one except (indirectly) to the foolish governments that donate their taxpayers money to the UN Climate Fund or whatever they call their giant slush fund. But these days rioting in the streets seems to be the only thing that lets governments know that the taxpayers don’t support their taxes being sent to the UN to fund this global boondoggle.

Reply to  Al Miller
November 29, 2019 8:04 pm

Radical-green extremism was never about the environment – it was always a false crisis, a smokescreen for their true objective, the totalitarian control of our society.

Many “green” politicians covertly or openly favour a Chinese-style dictatorship. They continue to sabotage our energy systems with deeply-flawed intermittent energy schemes that destabilize the electrical grid and could lead to major catastrophes, especially if grids fail in winter. They fully understand what they are doing – nobody could be this stupid for this long.

The true radical-green objective is to create an economic disaster, like Venezuela or Zimbabwe, as a means of gaining total political control. The radical greens have already gained control of most of our educational and professional institutions as a means to achieve their objectives – that strategy originated in the 1930’s and is now called “The Long March through the Institutions”.
“There’s little debate that modern-day American universities, public education, mainstream media, Hollywood and political advocacy groups are dominated by Leftists. This is no accident, but part of a deliberate strategy to pave the way for communist revolution developed more than eight decades ago by an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci.
Described as one of the world’s most important and influential Marxist theorists since Marx himself, if you are not familiar with Gramsci, you should be.
The Italian communist (1891 – 1937) is credited with the blueprint that has served as the foundation for the Cultural Marxist movement in modern America.
Later dubbed by 1960s German student activist Rudi Dutschke as “the long march through the institutions,” Gramsci wrote in the 1930s of a “war of position” for socialists and communists to subvert Western culture from the inside in an attempt to compel it to redefine itself.
Gramsci used war metaphors to distinguish between a political “war of position” – which he compared to trench warfare – and the “war of movement (or maneuver)” which would be a sudden full-frontal assault resulting in complete social upheaval.”

When I wrote the following papers earlier this year, my views were considered excessive – but it took only months for the radical greens to prove me correct.

Told you so.

Regards, Allan

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” – Yogi Berra
“Not so much.” – Borat Sagdiyev 🙂


Hypothesis: Radical Greens Are The Great Killers Of Our Age
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019

Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March Of Professional Societies To Promote Climate Change
By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019

CO2, Global Warming, Climate And Energy
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019

The Cost To Society Of Radical Environmentalism
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 4, 2019

What The Green New Deal Is Really About — And It’s Not The Climate
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., July 19, 2019

The Next Great Extinction Event Will Not Be Global Warming – It Will Be Global Cooling
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., September 1, 2019

The Liberals’ Covert Green Plan for Canada – Poverty and Dictatorship
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019

The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling, And It May Have Already Started
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019

Ron Long
November 29, 2019 2:58 pm

This Goat Grope is under the direction of Chile. The demands for “equal economic” status, manifesting itself as riots and looting, in Chile is driving their economy into recession. Already the Chile peso has seen historic devaluation, at least 50% of all hotel reservations nationwide have been cancelled, a large percentage of public transit buses have been burned, at least 100 supermarkets have been looted, etc, etc. Now Chile wants to utilize COP 25 to tell everyone else how things should be? Disconnect Writ Large.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ron Long
November 29, 2019 5:37 pm

Look on the bright side.
Grrrreta is headed for Spain (one the original colonialist nations) instead of Chile (one of Spain’s past colonies).

CD in Wisconsin
November 29, 2019 3:00 pm

“..With 197 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement…”

If I correctly recall a discussion that took place here at WUWT some time ago, the Palestinian Authority is a member of the UNFCCC. By U.S. law, the United States is supposed to withdraw its financial support to any U.N. organization that includes the Palestinians.

If there is to be any U.S. response to this U.N. press release and Ms. Espinosa, it should include a refutation of the scientifically unsupportable claims she made in the press statement and an announcement that the U.S. govt is going to invoke the law referenced above and terminate its financial support for the UNFCCC. The U.S. should then encourage other countries to do the same.

That response would demonstrate what I (and hopefully many others) think of this press release and the relentless B.S. the UNFCCC (and other U.N. agencies) keep issuing. Unfortunately, Trump is probably not going to do this.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 30, 2019 4:41 am

Trump’s strategy for opposing the Climate Cabal is to ignore it…to speak nothing of it least it get more time in the propaganda press.

With Climate landing at the bottom of American’s list of concerns, that strategy seems to be working.

November 29, 2019 3:06 pm

“We must urgently deploy all the tools of multilateral cooperation to make COP25 the launchpad (sic) for more climate ambition to put the world on a transformational path towards low carbon and resilience,” she said.”

The premise is false. Reduced carbon (i.e., hydrocarbons) in energy production will REDUCE resilience (unless the resultant energy-production losses are replaced by hydro and/or nuclear, joule for joule.)

November 29, 2019 3:09 pm

So much stupid in one place…..

Reply to  Mondeoman
November 30, 2019 3:41 am

I work in a place that is filled with the same kind of stupid. My coworkers have swallowed the green kool-aid in its entirety.

The sad part is that they all have degrees in science, like I do, but they have been brainwashed. I don’t know what I am doing there.

Reply to  Klem
November 30, 2019 4:14 am

Klem, those of us without science degrees feel the same way. We too are up against the so very many people who have been brainwashed.

We look to to likes of you to reassure us that we have not!

November 29, 2019 3:12 pm

United Nations: “A Very Ineffective Club of Dictators”

In December 2018, the Wall Street Journal did an interview with William Easterly, who is development economist at NYU. When Mr. Easterly started work for the World Bank, the “dominant view favored heavy-handed, top-down planning,” as many experts saw poor countries as blank slates ready for a technocratic Plan.

Unsurprisingly, the development leaders were enamored with central planning, that doled out their technocratic genius like a “benevolent dictators.” Within time, Easterly realized that stated-driven approaches were inferior to those market-driven. In Ghana, their leaders supported economic freedom allowing the market work. In fact, he calls the United Nation as “a very ineffective club of dictators.

In most cases, the World Bank ended up just giving loans to really bad governments. Essentially, the World and International Monetary Fund never design aid programs incentives to grow. Like most examples of Western arrogance, these aid programs were simply expected to provide a silver bullet to issues such as population control that didn’t resolve any of the underlying problems. As a writer, Mr. Easterly wrote a book, entitled “The Tyranny of Experts: Economist, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor,” where he discusses the failures of the development community.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
November 29, 2019 4:13 pm

My single experience with representatives of the world bank left me with the impression they were arrogant turds. Dressed to impress in expensive suits on a power station visit in a remote part of Bangladesh. They eventually did not make the visit because it required a short trip on a small river boat that they felt was below their status. I was the only visitor who made it to the site that day.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
November 29, 2019 5:17 pm

United Nations: “A Global Government level money laundering scheme.”

November 29, 2019 3:18 pm

This has nothing to do with climate but with Totalitarianism.

Therefore UN must be eradicated asap.

November 29, 2019 3:18 pm

I’m just waiting for the COP to announce its “dream team” of financial management of the $100 billion per year “protection money” they want to sweat out of developed nations (b.t.w. does this infer that China is not “developed”. Isn’t that a bit raaaacist?)

Anyway, if Greta is appointed Chief Financial Controller and Pope Francis is appointed Chief Financial Enforcer, we should see similar remarkable results as achieved during the Spanish Inquisition.

As we all know – “no one expects the Spanish Inquisition . . .”

Reply to  Mr.
November 29, 2019 4:54 pm

Outside of the tier I and II cities, China is clearly developing.

Reply to  Scissor
November 29, 2019 5:59 pm

Developing military arms? Developing intellectual property theft methods? Developing methods to circumvent patent laws? Developing equipment to use to claim control of all of the West Philippine Sea?

China is as developed as the rulers want to be at this time. Otherwise they would not be spending so much on preparing for war, so I disagree with the premise that they are not a developed country.

Clearly the choice is theirs. Much of the production facilities they use for the consumer goods shipped around the world and for military equipment could be used for the benefit of their people. But then they could not achieve their stated goal of world domination.

Funny note: I was researching to see how much it costs to feed 200,000,000 people and GOOGLE gave me a 1927 Yearbook of Agriculture article that spoke of “if milk production per cow was increased by 100 pounds per year, the same number of cows could supply the US population when it was projected to reach 200,000,000”. Additional research showed the actual annual increase from 4500 pounds a year then to the current over 23,000 pounds per year easily outstripped that projection such that the 22,000,000 US milk cows in 1927 is down to under 9,500,000 now. Gosh, I love this site. The things I learn just trying to respond to a comment like Scissor’s above.

Reply to  Drake
November 30, 2019 9:57 am

Certainly, China’s rulers control as much as they can but even the situation in HK shows that their control is limited.

In any case, China has made great strides in eliminating hunger and reducing poverty. Their major cities are modern and have every convenience known. Outside of those cities, the country is mostly sh*thole. Perhaps the rulers want it that way as you say.

William Astley
November 29, 2019 3:23 pm

It is a reality type problem.

The idiots asking for the money actually live off of the money… so naturally they sing the same tune…. send more money…. urgent and getting more urgent!!!

The Developed countries have spent all the money they have and have spent all the money they can borrow.

And in addition the are promising to spend more money which they do not have on other stuff such as health care and cool sounding new programs.

Money, in that it must come from somewhere, as opposed to idiots promising to send more money, which they do not have appears to be the real issue.

Reply to  William Astley
November 29, 2019 4:26 pm

Without the USA, it will be challenging for other countries to access the USD needed for buying stuff in the global market. It may open the opportunity for China to step up because most of the stuff (apart from UN admin fees) is made in China. It would keep the Chinese economy ticking over by making stuff but does not solve China’s emerging demographic bomb. China needs foreign investment that provides a return. Supplying solar panels free to Pacific nations cannot provide a return. China cannot provide stuff without strings.

November 29, 2019 3:24 pm

There was just a news piece about student climate demonstrators on the radio. The theme seemed to be that capitalism has to go. I think they’re dropping any pretense that CAGW has anything to do with science.

I think I better get on with learning Mandarin so I can talk to our new overlords. The Chinese aren’t going to ruin their economy on the altar of CAGW. They, therefore, will be the last country with a functional economy.

Coram Deo
November 29, 2019 3:27 pm

video – 16 minutes 37 seconds
Alex Newman explains how globalist Deep State functionaries are fomenting hysteria over “climate change” and “global warming” to steal liberty and money from humanity. Among other issues, Alex discusses the science, the agenda, and the deadly consequences of allowing this fraud to continue.

November 29, 2019 3:27 pm

The UN is phasing itself into being the de facto One World Government. So how many wars have they recently stopped? Isn’t that their primary mission? They’ve grown into an organization larger than some of the governments they’re supposed to be protecting. Decidedly anti West and pro Marxist why does the West continue being their main benefactors other than the fact that’s where the majority of their support money comes from? Really, what’s in it for the Western industrialized nations? I bet Trump would like to boot them out of the prime real estate they occupy in New York and develop it 🙂

Sceared european
November 29, 2019 3:32 pm

Agenda 21.

Alasdair Fairbairn
November 29, 2019 3:44 pm

This COP25 is just step 25 in a progressive agenda for the UN,the UNFCCC, the IPCC et al to take total global control of the world’s economies. Answerable to no one with the capability to create whatever legal structures it likes in the hands of a few elites it will be wide open to abuse and corruption at levels far greater than those we experience in our current capitalistic system. It will protect itself by draconian suppression and coercion of individual wishes. All done on the back of dubious and false claims of impending climate crisis.

This edifice should be dismantled forthwith and those involved called to task.

Fortunately I am elderly so need not fear that my comments will be dredged up and used to justify my being sent to a place of re-education as a persona non- grata.

November 29, 2019 3:44 pm

The Muslim Jihadi’s wreaking havoc with knives in London and The Hague are attacking the wrong people in the wrong towns.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
November 29, 2019 5:01 pm

But according to the Remainers, the UK needs to stay in the EU so Brussels’ bureaucratic diktats can ensure more “Religion of Peace” immigration to the UK.
And London Mayor Sadiq Khan hailed the public heroes who disarmed Usman Khan, the knife wielding assailant.

The amazing thing IMO… this part as reported,
“Videos on social media showed a crowd of people who had tackled the man to the ground, wrestled the knife away, and were ushered away by police who then shot him.

Even London police have had enough of the Muslim barbarians.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 30, 2019 8:14 am

He was in jail for about 12 months for previous crimes and was let out, with “conditions”, before committing these further crimes before being shot. He was also wearing a “fake” suicide vest.

These people cannot be bargained with, cannot be reasoned with, do not feel pity or remorse and absolutely will not stop…ah well, you get the picture.

John in NZ
November 29, 2019 3:47 pm

Someone should tell them that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John in NZ
November 29, 2019 8:41 pm

You said, “Someone should tell them that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.” We do that here at WUWT all the time. But, the trolls keep coming back, with the same lame claims.

Curious George
November 29, 2019 3:48 pm

“As the global climate emergency intensifies ..” – only if measured by barrels of black ink.

November 29, 2019 3:59 pm

They can burn their money, more power to them, er I mean us.

Rich Davis
November 29, 2019 4:04 pm

Too bad climate fantasists! America won’t be playing along.

You’re welcome, world.

November 29, 2019 4:07 pm

“In my opinion the United Nations is trying to turn itself into a governing body at least as powerful as the European Union, possibly even as powerful as the Soviet Union. Climate policy appears to be the instrument of their ascendancy.”

..did you just wake up to that??

The whole game is a one world government..and they’re it

michael hart
November 29, 2019 4:12 pm

“COP25 to Be the Launchpad for Significantly more Climate Ambition.”

Hardly. Their ambitions have already been at stratospheric levels for a few decades.
They are, however, still plumbing the abyssal depths of desperate rhetoric.

November 29, 2019 4:24 pm

“adaptation, loss and damage, transparency, finance, capacity-building, Indigenous issues, oceans, forestry, gender and more”

There is an urgent need to develop non-binary names for hurricanes.

November 29, 2019 4:44 pm

Eric, you wrote toward the end of the post, “In my opinion the United Nations is trying to turn itself into a governing body at least as powerful as the European Union, possibly even as powerful as the Soviet Union. Climate policy appears to be the instrument of their ascendancy.”

These knuckleheads spent too much time listening to Lennon’s communist manifesto, the Beatles song titled “Imagine”.


Gunga Din
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 29, 2019 7:47 pm

A pleasant sounding song until you consider the words.
A pipe dream and a nightmare to achieve. To make a reality would require eliminating all those who disagree.

Ronald Bruce
November 29, 2019 4:52 pm

The UN is intends to force us into their oneworld socialist government. Do the following. Do to the warmists socialists what they want to do to us. Cut them off from all fossil fuels, modern technology, confiscate all their assets and possessions, force them to live in caves and produce all their needs themselves. This is what they want to do to us so it’s fair and reasonable they show us the way.

November 29, 2019 5:03 pm

Can we expect to see more of THIS sort of insanity only based on “Climate Change” as the underlying driver?

‘All Canadians now can breathe freely’ — woman handcuffed and issued $100 ticket for not holding escalator handrail wins at Supreme Court. The victor: Bela Kosoian, from London, Ont., was arrested by police in Laval after not holding a handrail on a subway escalator.…The unanimous decision, written by Supreme Court Justice Suzanne Côté, awarded Kosoian $20,000 in damages. The Montreal transit authority, the STM, is responsible for half of the damages and the police officer who arrested and ticketed Kosoian — Fabio Camacho — for the other half.

Rick C PE
November 29, 2019 5:20 pm

The $100B/yr Green Climate Fund is a fantasy. Obama only managed $1B and the entire EU has only pledged about $5.7B. Since Trump’s Paris pull out, it seems unlikely that the other developed countries will step up when they don’t even have the funds to keep their own decarbonization plans going. Seems clear that raising taxes or imposing carbon pricing will result in a lot of internal protest and “yellow vest” style unrest.

Maybe they could use the AOC financing plan of just opening a bunch of banks to lend freshly printed money provided by the central banks. But if the UN can’t even get to 10% of their goal without the US, where is the other 90% going to come from? And will it keep coming in years 2-10? Lots of magical thinking going on there.

November 29, 2019 6:12 pm

… it’s estimated that global temperatures could more than double by the end of this century.”

So at a current temperature of 16°C (60.8°F), that’s 289.15K (520.47°R), so if you double that you get 578.3K (1040.94°R), or 305.15°C (581.27°F). In less than 100 years. No wonder they’re so alarmed(/sarc). No wonder I don’t believe a damnthing the gullible damnfools say.

November 29, 2019 6:12 pm

“While we have seen some progress with respect to climate-related financing for developing countries, we will continue to urge developed nations to fulfil their pledge of mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020,” Ms. Espinosa said.”

“progress with respect to climate-related financing for developing countries”, Really?
Exactly what countries are supplying that funding?

“we will continue to urge developed nations to fulfil their pledge of mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020,” Ms. Espinosa said.”, In other words, you want the world to pony up the funds originally committed to establishing a “Green Fund” and hand them over to the U.N. so the U.N. can establish an all powerful “World Order”? More totalitarian unelected bureaucrats who don’t deserve any payment for their world coup.

PS In case you haven’t noticed Ms Espinoza, 2020 is 32 days away. I doubt the drooling unelected bureaucrats can expect any more funds in 2020, than they received in 2019.

November 29, 2019 6:16 pm

Um, maybe it’s time for the US to leave the UN?

Mike Maguire
November 29, 2019 6:24 pm

Their doubling, is not in the numerical sense but as in twice as bad. Everything must ALWAYS be even worse than we thought……….even as it turns out better than predicted.

If something was not as bad as predicted, then it can’t have the desired affect of scaring people into doing what they say must be done.

The manufactured narratives must ALWAYS use more scarier verbiage because many people were not scared enough by the previous false narratives based on the most extreme scenarios of speculative, broken model simulations.

Global warming had to be replaced by climate change, then climate crisis and now climate emergency.
+2.0 C tipping point with the science settled and debate over…..had to be replaced with the current, 1.5 Deg C tipping point, which is now the new settled science.
When we reach that tipping point and nothing bad happens, then they will change the false narrative to a new one that sounds scarier but they may be getting maxed right here on that.
It’s going to be almost impossible to top the end of our planet with a climate apocalypse in 2030.
And it would be one thing if conditions were getting a bit worse for life and they just exaggerated a bit.
However, they are turning the current climate optimum for life…and us rescuing the planet from being gravely deprived of beneficial CO2 into the complete opposite.
Crisis is not bad enough. Now it’s an emergency!
There is no other word that is more extreme in telling a person how bad something is………..even as life screams to us that it wants MORE CO2, not less. The planet is greening up.

In 1989, we were told that disasters would be hitting as soon as 2000. That was shifted forward when disasters did NOT happen in 2000, even though, we were told then that it was worse then expected. Try to figure that one out. How are no disasters worse then widespread disasters?

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”

Amazing that people still believe this source on climate or weather with their track record of getting it so wrong much of the time(always with predictions for really bad stuff that never happens).

In the past 30 years, have they ever acknowledged something that wasn’t as bad as they said it would be?
Their 3 decade long insistence that climate change is a major threat to the global food supply is the most anti science position ever. All the data of crop production/yields supports massive increases, not in spite of but because of the best weather/climate and CO2 for growing food in the last 1,000 years……likely since humans have existed because of the CO2. Same thing with widespread research from thousands of studies on plants.
It’s amazing that this entity has any credibility left on climate or science.
But the problem is not only how bad their science is as much as the way people have been led to believe in it.

Climate science was the perfect field to hijack(because almost nobody understands it and they must TRUST the experts-them) and CO2 the perfect way to control the life blood of every country………by controlling and taxing their cheap, reliable, abundant and dense energy source.
Fossil fuels power the planet. Now, they are being used by the UN to impose world socialism with them in charge. The Climate Accord will do almost nothing to affect weather/climate. But its a massive step in the global socialism direction, spreading the wealth from the rich to poor countries under the absurd guise that we damaged other countries climate and need to pay reparations to them so they can adapt. Adapt by doing what? Building bigger bins to store the larger crops (-:

Reply to  Mike Maguire
November 30, 2019 12:41 am

Well said Mike Maguire.
I agree with you 100%..
I have watched this saga unfold and the politicians and bureaucrats are trying everything to stoke up alarm The weather is not getting harsher and the world has always had floods and droughts,storms and hurricanes and the data tells us that they are not getting worse .
Some parts of the world are having a milder climate but that proves nothing .
I am sure that climate change is being used to take control and most of the people pushing the scam are well aware that there is no absolute proof that the doubling of CO2 will cause more than . 6 C increase in world temperature .
This is a great time to be living on this planet but a horde of idiots are doing their level worst to wreck our civilization that has flourished since the 1950s .
We had no electric stove ,no refrigeration .no washing machine .
Wood fires cooked our food and kept us warm and when our tank ran dry of water we filled drums and transported them on a horse and sledge .
Graham Anderson
Proud to be a farmer feeding the world .

Serge Wright
Reply to  Mike Maguire
November 30, 2019 2:14 pm

It’s always amusing to read the old alarmist predictions. Ironically we are now 30 years from 1989 when we were told that temperatures would rise by an amount of somewhere between 1-7 degrees C over the next 30 years. Instead of a midpoint rise of ~4 degrees the actual rise since that time was ~0.5 degrees C and almost half of that was due to the large El Nino in 2016, not CO2.

November 29, 2019 7:08 pm

This has to be one off funniest “own” goals I’ve scene. The UNFCCC’s pet climate committee, the IPCC, recently pointed out that there is no brewing climate catastrophe, and the idea has no scientific basis.

Maybe they were forced to retract it. I don’t know.

But it doesn’t take much scientific knowledge to understand that if today it’s 288K and tomorrow the forecast is for 294K there isn’t much happening in the temperature climate.

November 29, 2019 7:23 pm

The United Nations is corrupt and subject to Lysenkoism, as the facts show.
Supporters and climate change scientists are known as “lisenkoists” because they use intimidation, censorship and defamation against official science.
These people are corrupt and want to be established by law in your home.
United States and other countries must cut funds for the United Nation and get out of this corrupt and obsolete institution.
When there is Lisenkoism, bad things are born, like eugenics.
Don’t believe it?
Search “Lysekoism” and what they did to scientist opposited, discredited like ours today.
The United Nations should be subordinated to the nations, not the other way around.
Obviously, in addition to some petitions, official science does not seem to be worried about being replaced by lisenkoist science.

Tom Abbott
November 29, 2019 7:44 pm

From the article: “Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change said: “This year, we have seen accelerating climate change impacts, including increased droughts, storms and heat waves, with dire consequences for poverty eradication, human health, migration and inequality.”

The UN is officially lying to us. None of those claims are true.

November 30, 2019 12:13 am

” … Other focus areas at COP25 will include adaptation, loss and damage, transparency, finance, capacity-building, Indigenous issues, oceans, forestry, gender and more. … ”

They forgot inner-city mural appreciation, refugee welfare issues and 14th century door-knockers.

November 30, 2019 12:32 am

So, another scheme that will result in us being ripped off and the cash going to make the filthy rich even filthier and richer.

November 30, 2019 3:36 am

2019: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

2015: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

2012: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

2009: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

2007: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

2005: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

2004: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

1988: The world’s small window of opportunity to address climate change is closing rapidly.

November 30, 2019 4:13 am

$100 Billion doesn’t sound like peanuts. But, in context it is.

And the context is… the Climate Problem they INVENTED. The problem is way too big to solve in the time frame they have given us.

Zero Emissions by 2050 “OR CURTAINS”.

By 2050 the world will consume between 900 and 1200 Quads of energy (unless the Globalists get their way and the population is reduced SOMEHOW to half a billion).

Calculating the cheapest solution:

300,000 GWh/Quad and 8,700 GWh Max Annually from a 1 GW Nuclear Plant that costs at least $4 Billion (assuming a “mass production nuclear solution) and more like $14 Billion today (All other sources cost multiples of this). Thirty years to 2050.

Crunching those EXTREMELY conservative numbers, we’d need to spend $126 Trillion on 31,000 Nuclear plants over 30 years…OR $4.2 Trillion each year FOR AN ACTUAL solution to CO2 emissions. Actual costs would be around 10 times higher with Renewables and back-up storage.

So, the the $100 Billion IS JUST PEANUTS in the context of the CO2 problem they INVENTED.

42 times that $100 Billion is the problem they say we have…so what’s the use in wasting the $100 Billion since we are doomed as a species without spending at the very LEAST $4.2 Trillion annually to actually FIX IT.

And $40 Trillion + with renewables and batteries.

The problem they INVENTED… that currently isn’t costing us anything except increased crop yields and less damaging cold… HAS A PRICE TAG 42 times the number they are willing to toss out there.

Their STORY doesn’t hold up to 6th grade math.

If the UN put out the $4.2 Trillion number, they’d get no takers. The $100 Billion is the best the gangsters think the world will swallow…so there it is. Enough to fill their pockets for another year.

November 30, 2019 8:37 am

Maybe I’m wrong but the UN seems to have made a computational error. They say we must reduce emissions 7.6% every year by 2030 which is a 55% reduction over those 10 years. Then 2 paragraphs later say we must reduce emissions 45% by 2030. Which is it?

November 30, 2019 8:53 am

They must be racking up frequent flyer miles.

What a scheme, pay for your abuse as defined by the UN to the UN. I see nothing wrong with that if we don’t pay.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Piggs Peak
November 30, 2019 11:50 am

The comment in the piece about Article Six quite important. I urge all readers to see for themselves what Article Six contains. I refer specifically to 6.2, 6.4 and 6.6.

The deal is this: CDM-based carbon trading ends in a few weeks. It’s based on the Kyoto agreement and it’s “clean development mechanism” (CDM). The rules for how a carbon offset is calculated are governed by the Executive Board”s collected decisions. All of them are publicly accessible on line.

What is happening, in brief, is that the core mechanism of carbon trading is going to change. Carbon “accounting” is supposed to create a level playing field so emitters pay and sequesters get paid. Traders handle the transactions and everyone gets rich on fees and commissions and speculation in carbon futures, if you can afford it. That’s what being elite is all about.

Brazil leading the charge, says this carbon trading stuff brought very little money to developing countries. They proposed in the June climate talks that the carbon money pie be divided prior to ascertaining who will offset what, and that a chunk of carbon market be set aside, guaranteed, for developing countries. Developed countries had a fit.

This was opposed by the free-trade (rich) countries who want to continue to plunder the carbon market.

Developing countries lined up behind Brazil. The “failure” of the climate talks in June and September (when the coordinated media campaign was abuzz with tales of calamity and consequence) was due to the stubborn resistance to all attempts to block a set-aside for poor countries. That is why you heard absolutely nothing about the “why” in the MSM about the failure of the talks. Obviously the poor are getting shafted when the sales pitch is how much the poor are going to “benefit”.

So watch the Article Six negotiations closely. Apart from the political control aspects of the cli-sci biz, the value of carbon trading is far greater than the miserable $100 bn the unanswerable governance body wants per year. That is just a teaser to get the control mechanism going.

The mega-rich can’t find anything left worth investing in. Gaining control of the energy economy promises fruitful gains for oligarchs and the banking sector generally.

So watch what Brazil has to say at COP25.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Piggs Peak
December 1, 2019 3:05 am

“Crispin in Waterloo but really in Piggs Peak November 30, 2019 at 11:50 am

Carbon “accounting” is supposed to create a level playing field so emitters pay and sequesters get paid.”

Yes. Emissions, will be “accounted” for by Govn’ts. This is already happening, ie, they are already making up the figures so that targets are met and no payment is required.

November 30, 2019 2:04 pm

David Wojick at CFACT says, “The rules will be set by the 20,000 national negotiators, not the UN.” Does that have any effect on the UN’s agenda to turn itself into a governing body at least as powerful as the European Union, possibly even as powerful as the Soviet Union?

November 30, 2019 7:28 pm

Article 6 will be gutted, sliced and diced by the end of COP25. They had already done it in Poland but a few desperado countries still hoping for some cheap climate cash kept it alive by kicking it along.

Patrick MJD
December 1, 2019 3:06 am

How anyone can’t see this as a sc@m is beyond me.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 1, 2019 10:26 am

“How anyone can’t see this as a sc@m is beyond me.”

Well, if your job [and superb perks, and substantial pension] depend on you NOT seeing this as a $cam, it is unlikely that you will see this as the utter $c@m it is.
As you and I both know!


Gerry Manderer
December 5, 2019 6:34 am

Haha, good to know I wasn’t the only one to read it that way!


Now that’s what I call”jumping the shark”!

December 7, 2019 4:29 pm

“COP25 to Be the Launchpad for Significantly more Climate Ambition”

Ambition is fine but without the legal framework of the EPA of the USA, the UN’s aspiration to a global EPA role is pure ambition and no substance.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
December 7, 2019 5:07 pm

The only “ambition” is to establish control over more of the world’s money. Therefore an EPA is irrelevant, except to provide a fig leaf by such ploys as Social Cost of Carbon.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights