Davos: “Climate Change seems to be Outgrowing the … Institutions … who have Dealt with it Until Now”

Snipers hold their position on the roof of a hotel during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in the Swiss Alps resort of Davos, Switzerland January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The World Economic Forum, which hosts the annual $71,000 / ticket private jet party in Davos, has published an article which urges climate action be made a UN Security Council issue.

A short history of climate change and the UN Security Council

19 Jan 2020
Karolina Eklöw Global Shaper, Stockholm Hub

  • Climate change has risen up the Security Council agenda in recent years.
  • Countries’ stances on climate change often mirror other geopolitical aims.
  • While consensus is building, climate change isn’t waiting around.

As the United Nations approaches its 75th anniversary, the impact of anthropogenic climate change is sweeping across our planet. The UN was built in the aftermath of World War II; a time profoundly different to our modern world. The five victory powers – the UK, France, Russia, the US and China – formed a body within the UN, dedicated to the the maintenance of international peace and security, whose consensus they agreed to abide by

That body – the UN Security Council – still constitutes the legal backbone of UN efforts. As such, its five permanent members – the P5 – dominate the content of the council’s agenda. Today, 10 elected member states – the E10 – are also allowed to attend the council on a rotating basis every two years, bringing their own interests to the table.

Changes within the nature of conflict and the conflict with nature

The nature of conflict has changed in the 21st century. Developments in technology, the emergence of non-state actors and the social implications of globalization are altering the global policy regime at an accelerating pace. Since the start of the second millennium, the world has also experienced multiple paradigm shifts on climate change – from ignorance, to engagement, to collective head-scratching.

Today the relationship between humanity and nature is in conflict, too. The complexity of climate change seems to be outgrowing the international institutions, such as COP, the UNFCCC and the IPCC, who have dealt with it until now. The recognition of environmental degradation, climate change and climate-related security risks as some of the most pressing global concerns means this topic has climbed the political agenda. Indeed, the most eminent of international security arenas – the UN Security Council – has tabled climate change on multiple occasions since the start of the millennium.

In the world, so in the council – sooner or later, at least

Climate change was first discussed by the council in 2007, when it was tabled by the UK. Consensus on its importance was absent, however, and the other members’ interest went unpiqued.

In 2011, a Security Council Presidential Statement asked the UN Secretary General at the time, Ban-Ki Moon, to provide contextual information about climate change in his reporting to the Council. However, the response from the system was lukewarm.

Throughout the years, the US, France and the UK worked together to ensure climate change featured on the council’s agenda. Russia and China, in contrast, traditionally responded by suggesting the topic was the preserve of other UN organs such as UN Environment and the General Assembly. This stance was largely backed by the G77, the group of 135 least-developed states – and so, by extension, the majority of the UN’s 193 member states.

But 2017 saw a change to the status quo. Since then, the Security Council has seen a drastic uptick in the number of meetings on the topic of natural phenomena under differing formats and themes – from environmental law and climate-related security risks to natural disasters. The meetings and debates were organised by a diverse spectra of E10 members with varying – but ever-growing – participation, especially of member states from the G77. 

Outside the council, the US announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. Just days later, China offered to step in as an alternative climate partner to the European Union – while around the same time, China announced its loyalty to multilateralism to the audience at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos – all of which supports the idea that a country’s motivations for tackling climate change can be intimately linked with its overall ambitions within the multilateral panorama.

In 2018, China adjusted its position in the Security Council and declared climate change to be relevant in a security context, in light of its wish to enhance multilateral cooperation and to take a comprehensive approach to security risks. Simultaneously, the US had withdrawn its engagement and had backed away from even paying lip service to climate change in all UN fora, following the change of administration in Washington. While the two P5 members rotated 180 degrees, Russia remained steady in its opposition to the inclusion of climate in the work of the Security Council. Meanwhile, outside the confines of the council, Russia joined the Paris Agreement in 2019.

Climate ambition exposes diplomatic appetite

The climate discussion is a microcosm of the geopolitical landscape, giving clues to multilateral appetites and diplomatic ambitions elsewhere. At an arsenal of defence and security conferences – such as within NATO in late 2019 – climate change, security and related risks have been considered at the highest level. This trend does not necessarily suggest a securitisation of climate, but perhaps a climatization of security. 

In summary, climate change is undeniably receiving growing attention; from streets crammed with school strikers to senior leaders who voice varying degrees of concern. The majority of powers subscribe to the significance of climate-related change, despite a persistent polarisation around the means to mitigate its effects.

Climate change, on the other hand, won’t wait for consensus.

License and Republishing
World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with our Terms of Use.

Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/a-short-history-of-climate-change-and-the-un-security-council/

Why all the fuss about transferring oversight of global climate policy to the United Nations Security Council? The following from the United Nations website.

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The UN security council is the only UN body which can issue rulings backed by the threat of force.

Only one country, one President, stands in the way of the United Nations Security Council embracing climate action as part of its core mission.

If President Trump falls, if a climate activist takes his place in the White House, the climate activist takeover of the UN Security Council will be complete. The UN will have the power to issue climate demands for cuts in fossil fuel production (except from Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council), or climate reparations for developing countries (which still includes China), backed by the threat of the armed might of UN Security Council members.

Advertisements

96 thoughts on “Davos: “Climate Change seems to be Outgrowing the … Institutions … who have Dealt with it Until Now”

    • I have to agree.

      Further, I hold the opinion that the USA might as well just stop providing aid at to anyone all, and fix its internal issues before considering further aid. Why should they support the very countries that appear to outright detest them and what they stand for? I don’t get that at all.

      • We need to thoroughly ‘reverse engineer’ this by understanding the connections between the IMF and the U.N. Who are the key players right now? Name names.
        This is just out from the IMF economic forecast:
        “Weather-related disasters such as tropical storms, floods, heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires have imposed severe humanitarian costs and livelihood loss across multiple regions in recent years. Climate change, the driver of the increased frequency and intensity of weather-related disasters, already endangers health and economic outcomes, and not only in the directly affected regions. It could pose challenges to other areas that may not yet feel the direct effects, including by contributing to cross-border migration or financial stress (for instance, in the insurance sector). A continuation of the trends could inflict even bigger losses across more countries.”

      • U.S. Aid is bribe money. The world trades in dollars. With a 22 Trillion dollar debt we cannot afford the majority of nations to decide to start trading in the Yuan. We could no longer print treasury securities as collateral against our overspending.

        Our Governments overspending has put us in a catch 22. We have to keep devaluing the dollar, that the world trades in, to make the interest on the growing debt more manageable. Something is going to have to give. And Man Made Debt is going to make this whole Man Made Global Warm…ahh we really meant Climate Change all alone Scam look like a 5 year old bouncy castle party at Disney World.

        • The world trades OIL in US dollars. It can trade other goods in whatever currency it wants. But the US enforces the petrodollar with military force. That seems to be the only thing keeping its currency from collapsing…

    • Howsabout a bare bones limited United Liberal Democratic Nations club instead and let the gaggle of gangsters please themselves? You can become an aspirational member and have a say if you pay your dues but no vote until you meet the membership criteria.

      • The problem is that many dictatorships call themselves democratic, they even go through the motions of having elections.

        You would be amazed the number of useful idiots who would tell you to your face that Soviet Russia was a democracy.

    • As a permanent member of the Security Council, the US can veto any proposal that threatens US sovereignty or economic security. The President who allows the UN to dictate US domestic energy policy is likely to be a 1 term President. And further, it would likely be unconstitutional if the President allowed the UN directive to control domestic policy without Congress’s specific approval.

      We saw exactly this scenario with 0bama’s CPP. The CPP was certainly unconstitutional and the Supreme Court put a stay on its implementation while lawsuits were working their way up through the judicial system. Ultimately without Congress’s approval CPP was dead. The same fate awaits a CPP 2.0 if a Democrat occupies the White House in 2021.

      This all goes back to the central role of a Supreme Court honoring the separation of powers doctrine in the US. Constitution. The US president may control the US vote on the UN Security Council, but he/she cannot dictate domestic policy in areas not permitted by legislation from Congress as long as we have a Supreme Court faithful to the constitution. Which is why the Left went bat-shit crazy over Kavanuagh’s confirmation process. And it is why the Demorats have promised to pack the Supreme Court with 4 new Progressive (read: intellectually dishonest) Associate Justices to bring the number to 13 to be able to overrule the Faithful Five there now.

    • “To embrace the possibilities of tomorrow we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the Apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers, and they want to see us do badly but we won’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the 70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.”
      — US President Donald Trump, World Economic Forum, 21 January 2020

      “BEST PRESIDENT EVER!”

  1. If anyone can save us from the horrors of Climate Change, it’s the smug bastards who attend the Davos piss up.

  2. Who made Karolina Eklöw a “Global Shaper” of Stockholm Hub and how do I get paid to that job.

    BTW Karolina Eklöw, Global Shaper, Stockholm Hub. #What?

    • I believe the name for this is AstroTurf, the Global Shapers are basically the youth wing of the WEF politburo, designed to create the impression that “youth” loves the WEF and its aims, but somebody needs to tell Greenpeace and similar, who normally like to trash anywhere that hosts global capitalists. Hence the Davos armed camp. Go Greenpeace!

  3. I enjoyed the non-political commentary. If President Trump falls, if a climate activist takes his place in the White House, the climate activist takeover of the UN Security Council will be complete. All the more reason to help (and pray) that President Trump stays in power.

      • Learn to ignore smear campaigns of MSM. Trump is just a Republican and opposes the special interests, the donor class.

        Trump’s talks are screened and available globally. Watch, for example, his 10 minutes related to Iran this month.

      • Richard
        …that amoral and devious man…

        As opposed to that amoral, corrupt and devious woman?
        Or, in 2020, any of the amoral, corrupt, incompetent and devious Democrat candidates?

        Just asking…

          • We know he was a pig. If he’s still being piggish it’s pretty well underwraps.
            In the meantime, he’s keeping his promises, he’s turned the economy around to the point it can’t go any further, for the moment. Wages way up, percentage wise for the bottom 40% of the workforce. The much ballyhooed $15 minimum wage is underwater. Even many of the entry level barristas or hamburger flippers are making more.

            The only cloud on the horizon is the out of control spending, and I expect Trump to start changing that if re-elected.

      • …amoral … man…

        The Left can’t use the term „moral” because they have no definition of moral code.
        In extreme, in multicultural post national society they are multiple moral codes, often opposing each other.

      • First of all, Trump’s behavior is unacceptably populist. On the issue of climate change, it is very wrong, but on other issues, such as migration, it is right. That is why they will be re-elected.

        • Fighting against a scam is wrong? One that requires as enforcer the UN so enforcement can be completely free from the people’s voice and solely in the hands of a corrupt elite who specialize in looting and despotism. You can’t be serious.

        • malkom700, …… GETTA CLUE, …… it was Obummer that embraced “climate change”, .. not Trump.

    • No it won’t Russia can veto anything the same as any permanent members of security council can. Even if you get a US change to a green lunatic president Russia woudl still block any change because it’s economy relies on oil and gas.

      • The author thinks Russia joining the Paris Agreement in 2019 means they will now support global climate initiatives.

        I get the impression that Russia thinks we’re insane, and they tried to tell us so on several occasions, now they’re just nodding along with the madness, as long as nobody bothers them or their gas market.

        • Putin’s Russia is one of the last remaining forces for stability in the world. If they joined Paris Agreement, it was probably to have more influence than not being part of it.

          In 2018, China adjusted its position in the Security Council and declared climate change to be relevant in a security context

          Of course China are all for the current stupidity. Under Paris, they have NO obligations to cut their own growth but they will do everything they can to help the West destroy their own productive economies. Only the greenblob could see massively polluting , non democratic China as an example for the enviro movement.

          It must be hard to keep a straight face pushing all this global warming catastrophy from inside a building with a metre of snow on the roof !!

        • Pres. Putin made it very clear at his recent address that the real reason for Russia signing, is the worry about entire Siberian cities on permafrost. Which, for any warning reason, could be existentially threatened.

          • You have never been to Siberia I gather. Every building in permafrost areas there are built either to avoid melting the permafrost underneath, or have a foundation that isn’t affected by the permafrost melting. The latter is preferable since it is very difficult to insulate a building well enough to maintain the permafrost underneath indefinitely.

        • Emissions limits in the COP process are counted where the fossil fuels are consumed (burned), NOT where they are produced.

          As such Russia knows the world will never stop oil production. But Russia would love to see oil at $200/bbl.p if a US president killed US domestic oil production. And the Green Slime desparately needs to have the US natural gas boom in the US chopped off at the knees to support the Wind and Solar scam-hustle against the middle class.

      • Bird choppers need a lot of gas for backup generators.
        Gas is replacing nuclear energy, that’s why Germany has not reduced emissions.
        Oil is mainly for cars and heating, can’t be replaced soon by any middle age technology.

      • Russia doesn’t need to veto anything. They will just ignore any demands, and the useful idiots will look the other way.

  4. It would be very interesting to know how many of the “Elite” group pushing the Climate Change agenda own carbon credits they hope to resell at a very, very profitable price once all the Govt’s have signed in.

  5. Since the start of the second millennium, the world has also experienced multiple paradigm shifts on climate change – from ignorance, to engagement, to collective head-scratching.

    Did they really mean the second millennium? So around the year 1000 onwards?

    I’m definitely scratching my head over that idea.

    • That would be the MWP, followed by the LIA, all in 1 millennium.
      Both scratched out by the 3rd millennium….

  6. I figures that this screed from the WEF was written by a Swede.

    Quote: “…While consensus is building, climate change isn’t waiting around…”
    The climate hasn’t been waiting for anyone or anything for millions and billions of years. It isn’t going to wait for any Swedes from Stockholm or anywhere else. The natural drivers of climate are going to do whatever they want do whenever they feel like doing it. And there is nothing any Swedes or anyone else can do about it.

    Maybe 100,000 years after we humans (including the ones from Sweden) have gone extinct, the climate probably won’t even remember we were ever here—and it probably won’t care that we were ever here either.

  7. Just days later, China offered to step in as an alternative climate partnerto the European Union – while around the same time, China announced its loyalty to multilateralism to the audience at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos – all of which supports the idea that a country’s motivations for tackling climate change can be intimately linked with its overall ambitions within the multilateral panorama.

    That single sentence us impressive. Apart from making little rational sense, what exactly has China committed to? Receiving billions of dollars, while ramping up CO2 emissions to world-record levels. Whereas the USA were supposed to pay billions of dollars instead (and Obama illegally paid sone anyway).

    That is supposed to be comparable? China has ‘stepped in’ to ‘replace’ the USA? That’s what they are implying.

  8. ” The complexity of climate change seems to be outgrowing the international institutions,”

    Translated: Sometime in the last 30 years we have lost the ball, but we want USA citizens to send us money. We’ll think of something to do with it.

  9. More of the same. “No one is taking CC seriously so we have to do something about it…. like intimidation, shaming, and bullying. Until we get more money from any country we consider them heretics.”

  10. No one will give a sh*t about what the UN say with or without Trump. India, China, Russia, US, etc will give them the middle finger just like before.

    • Yes correct, the article is wrong it makes it seem like the US is the only thing in the way of the UN and there is a lot more than that.

  11. Good luck with getting the UN Security Council to sanction themselves over CO2. The United States, China and Russia would not agree to any sanctions, and each one of those has veto power.

    Alarmists should realize they have lost this game. Nobody is taking it seriously. Some are paying lip service but that’s about all you are going to get. The ban-CO2 movement is losing steam because it is unrealistic. This author’s article appealing to the UN Security Council is another sign of desperation on the part of the alarmists.

    • China and Russia would agree to “fight” climate change. The provisos are:
      a) western countries go first
      b) western countries pay us to “reduce emissions”

      And of course in twenty years we’ll (China and Russia) adjust our emissions data to show we are complying.

    • and the UN forces theyd ike to threaten nations with?
      are made up of…oh yeah mostly people from the nations they want to intimidate,
      as well as funding from them
      bit of a fail there?

      time to flog off the american HQ huh, as well as all funding

  12. My latest paper includes 25 scientific falsifications of the CAGW/Climate Change scam.

    It’s never been about the science – it’s all about wolves stampeding the sheep.

    THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
    By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf

    • Yes. What we see is a desperate gambler’s multi; betting that a problem is caused by carbon dioxide, released by man, that it will be globally catastrophic and that we only have a few years to prevent it by spending massive wads of cash and killing the economy in the process.

      If any one of those legs fail, the whole shebang falls down. It could simply be the reality that, without an economy to fund it, conservation works would halt. It could simply be that all our wads of cash will never be enough (we even hear this a lot from believers themselves), which would beg the question why it wouldn’t be better spent elsewhere?

      More likely though, it’s simply that the science is false, that CO2 is not a cause of problems, that most CO2 has little to do with mankind and it isn’t even that catastrophic (the worst I can say, as a horticulturist, is that extra plant growth will increase fuel-loads for bushfires, thus requiring a correct, already known response in relation to fuel-loads in order to avert more disasters of the magnitude seen lately in Australia).

      Only one leg needs to fail for the whole multi to be lost. Yet so many legs are, indeed, legless that only the ignorant or the desperate could conceive it to be a sure thing. Thus, the expected payout (saving the World) must be of that magnitude (nothing could be bigger) in order to attract any attention at all.

  13. The one-and-only climate-change horse has already bolted, we are told, but if we rebuild the stable in 24-carat gold with diamond inlays, shut the door and give the keys to the most useless of politicians, they’ll turn it into a time-machine, go back and put it right.

    And who could possibly believe otherwise? No wonder those that do are called ‘deniers’.

    Yes, that was sarcasm.

  14. ” … Snipers hold their position on the roof of a hotel during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in the Swiss Alps resort of Davos …”

    Looks like they lost their rifle during the blizzard.

  15. Climate change is the smoke and mirrors of global politics. It hides selfish and greedy goals of the most powerful nations and their leaders.

    Energy independence of the USA changes global political arena. USA withdraws its army from Middle-East, Europe and Japan. EU’s best option is nuclear energy.

  16. Making the UN Security Council take charge of the Climate.

    Because they’ve done such a cracking job taking care of Peace & Security.
    /sarc.

    • I would wholeheartedly support the security council being in charge of fighting climate change if all UN staff and diplomats:

      a) give up cars
      b) give up airplane travel and use sailing ships to cross the oceans
      c) use the postal service for communication (overseas mail going by sailing ship)

      For a period of ten years. This will show the world that it can be done.

    • Ya but addressing Climate Change is straight forward for the UN :
      – just let regional conflicts grow up as usual, or better, contribute to their propagation and make the death toll skyrocket : the only actual competence of the UN.

  17. It’s not that long ago that suggestions Climate Change was a tool to drive world government were pooh-poohed as a nutty conspiracy theory.

    • yes, because thats almost always the ptb response to truth they dont want outed
      werent the fbi or cia the ones to coin the phrase to try and divert attention from their own corrupt actions?

  18. “…the emergence of non-state actors…”

    Greta has a name you insensitive twits! How Dare You!

    But yes, this article’s author has effectively confessed that they believe the voices of NGO should be given equal (if not superior) weight to that of the actual governments.

    Personally on the topic of the UN I can see two solutions.

    – Raze it to the ground. Salt the earth. Sell the survivors into slavery.
    or
    – Have Western Nations game the system. Currently for example the US has one vote. Now if the US were to redefine themselves as a massive collection of independent nation states under a banner of a mutual defence and trade agreement (say… run out of Washington with a President or something and each nation can elect a series of representatives and – for want of a better word, senators) and the US would go from 1 vote to 50. Australia could remind everyone that we are a federation of what once were independent colonies and go to seven votes (8 if we take the ACT seriously… but yeah, nah. That’s never going to happen). England could go via counties… except for Sussex, which will be abolished via Royal decree just out of spite and then the Anglo-sphere would be in a position to control the UN from here till Farcedom.

    Easy really.

    (also I am not a complete monster. If we are forced to go with the first idea I am willing to compromise on the salt.)

  19. Seen from a military standpoint: The growing dependency in particular Western Europe on weather dependent energy, opened up for the invasion after a week of high pressure with no wind during the winter. Western Europe had lost it’s power and Eastern Europe did not have enough power in spare – The invasion was easy, they were powerless to defend themselves.

    As I see it: If the UN security council was really concerned about security, they would ban Climate Policy in the current form, they would turn 180°, thus build pipelines, dig oil and gas, and build nuclear power stations, lay the basis for peaceful trade, innovation and development – They would stop pretending to be climate gods.

    This was science fiction – as sanity is currently absent.

  20. Nothing wrong with saying that serious climate issues need to be addressed from a global viewpoint, since the atmosphere mixes perfectly without consideration of nation state boundaries and although the oceans redistribute heat content on a much slower scale, the nature of their currents are also global.

    However, if wrong-headed/criminally corrupt actors start enforcing climate nonsense through the UN and no nation state can stop their madness, then the world is in deep doodoo.

    The sorts of threats worthy of global attention:
    1. Stratosphere-busting volcanic eruptions capable of step change cooling of global climate.
    2. Major solar shut-downs akin to the Maunder Minimum.
    3. Uncontrolled deforestation on a global scale driven by non-state actors.
    4. Global economies driving the creation of megacities with their attendant excessive use of energy, heat-absorbing construction materials etc etc.

    The sorts of climate activity worthy of global attention (other bodies from the UNSC) include:
    1. Setting globally uniform standards for siting weather stations, maintaining them and ensuring daily data is collected accurately and stored without homogenisation.
    2. Climate science research on global atmospheric issues, solar activity, cosmic ray activity, polar ice sheet monitoring etc.
    3. Maintenance of satellites for generating modern weather data (since having 50 independent satellites generating the same data for nation state actors is economically inefficient in the extreme).

    Uk floods are not worthy of UN policy making, nor are localised tsunamis, typhoons, droughts, even bush fires. Those are the purview of national governments, even if global solidarity may provide short-term financial assistance to cover costs of recovery.

    People do, however, need to get comfortable with the concept of global for a being appropriate for addressing truly global issues. If the US cannot grow up enough to accept that, they can no longer be considered leaders in any grown up world.

    Equally, there need to be checks and balances to stop nakedly selfish economic actions being forced through under the aegis of apparent global issues.

    There can also be a rapid creation of a virtual global body, stopping these self-righteous bureaucrats racking up millions of air miles whilst telling everyone else to stop eating cows or else.

    They want to be ‘climate leaders’ they need to set a proper example…..

  21. Off topic but please can the experts on here give comment on this site:

    http://temperature.global/

    This site purports to give live unadjusted temperatures from around the world and averages them.

    But there are no names or addresses and it is very short on detail.

    Is it a hoax?

    • Not sure what is going on.
      Apart from cross domain cookies, I cannot find anything suspicious.
      It is about the only website running HTTP instead of HTTPS.
      The about section does not reveal any names, could be for political reasons.
      No direct reference to the data claimed used.
      It is about as credible as the IPCC doctored data, without adequate information.

      Conclusion:
      Fun to see, but no idea what to use it for.
      This is sad, because the idea is great and could have been a magnificent service.

      • Thanks for the comments Carl. Your conclusion is the same as mine.
        Without the supporting information the warmists can simply dismiss it as fake news unfortunately.

  22. “Climate change has risen up the Security Council agenda in recent years.”

    So it should be, because one day the UN and IPCC will have to held accountable for their crimes against humanity. The lies and injustices that they perpetuate to further their agenda to take control of the wests wealth and redistribute it so the UN can become a world government has delayed lifting two thirds of the global population out of abject poverty. Millions are still dying from contaminated water and starvation because the UN is determined to deny them access to cheap fossil fuelled energy until it controls the worlds economy.

    We have seen this before; Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin et al.

    How dare they.

  23. Karolina Eklöw Global Shaper needs to get out into the real world and not just sit in the coffee house talking with friends all day. Has she seen what happens when a large military force goes into a country like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? The people will not give up as easily as she thinks. The British are still smarting from an expedition to quell some rowdy citizens in North America in the 1775 to 1781 time frame.

  24. 71 thousand for food and drinks with millionaires and billionaires 😐 Yet these people want our money to save planet… I wonder if greta will be going ever year now as she is old enough to drink now, and has access to yachts or she could take a first class train..

  25. A lot of Global warming fallen in the French Alpes Orientales overnight, also in Corsica. Also due a month’s rain in 24 hours in the south.

Comments are closed.