Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Chilling mission almost complete press release from the United Nations.
UN CLIMATE PRESS RELEASE / 29 NOV, 2019
COP25 to Be the Launchpad for Significantly more Climate AmbitionBonn/ 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.intUNFCCC Press Office: press(at)unfccc.int
See also: http://unfccc.int
Source: https://unfccc.int/news/cop25-to-be-the-launchpad-for-significantly-more-climate-ambition-0
Overview of UNFCCC and COP25 Presidency social media channels: https://unfccc.int/virtual-participation-cop25
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
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”.
Regards,
Bob
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.
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.
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.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/11/29/woman-handcuffed-for-not-holding-handrail-on-an-escalator-wins-at-supreme-court-of-canada.html
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.
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.
“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.
Um, maybe it’s time for the US to leave the UN?
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?
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989
“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 (-:
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
” … 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.
So, another scheme that will result in us being ripped off and the cash going to make the filthy rich even filthier and richer.
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.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/22/old-climate-fears-revisited/
$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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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?
https://www.cfact.org/2019/11/29/doe-should-revive-the-office-of-policy-analysis/#comment-4706921171
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.
How anyone can’t see this as a sc@m is beyond me.
Patrick,
“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!
Auto
Haha, good to know I wasn’t the only one to read it that way!
DOUBLE 😂.
Now that’s what I call”jumping the shark”!
“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.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/30/cer/
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.