UN Report Pushes Green Climate Friendly Covid Recovery

UN: 30 years of fake warnings

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In my opinion the United Nations is not serious about climate change. The UN is continuing to try to conflate Covid-19 and climate change, in the apparent hope some of the Covid-19 recovery money sloshing around the world’s banks will spill over into UN climate programmes. But they are ignoring the only genuine, proven path to reducing CO2 emissions, in favour of fabulously expensive and ineffective non-solutions.

COVID-19 brought countries to a halt but climate change kept devastating the world, UN report says

By Luke Cooper • Producer
10:27pm Sep 9, 202

The United in Science Report shows the pandemic will still lead to a drop this year in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is heating the Earth, but there are still drastic ongoing impacts that date from before the COVID-19 outbreak.

“This has been an unprecedented year for people and planet,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives worldwide. At the same time, the heating of our planet and climate disruption has continued apace.

“Never before has it been so clear that we need long-term, inclusive, clean transitions to tackle the climate crisis and achieve sustainable development.

“We must turn the recovery from the pandemic into a real opportunity to build a better future.”

What needs to be done?

The WMO’s suggested course of action to combat the climate change crisis is simple: all countries and all job sectors need to actively work to slash emissions.

The 2016 Paris Agreement, signed by 189 countries, promised to work towards reducing global warming to just 1.5C above temperatures seen in pre-industrial times.

For this to occur by 2030, worldwide emissions need to drop by seven per cent. That is now only possible through an embrace of policies such as renewable energy, low carbon transport and a phase out of coal, the report says.

Read more: https://www.9news.com.au/national/climate-change-global-warming-australia-greenhouse-gases-emissions-environment-un-wmo-report/e28af6d6-e3ae-4475-82db-ce33d142f99e

The United in Science report is available here.

The following from the report is the UN’s plan for reducing CO2 emissions.

We have the solutions to get on track

Is it then possible to bridge the emissions gap? The short answer is yes, but time is running out. The Emissions Gap Reports have provided a detailed assessment of sectoral mitigation options in 2030, which shows that the economic and technical mitigation potential is sufficient to get on track to well below 2 °C and to 1.5 °C. A substantial part of the short-term potential can be realized through scaling up and replicating existing, well-proven policies that simultaneously contribute to other Sustainable Development Goals.

One example is how renewables and energy efficiency, in combination with electrification of end uses (including transport) and a phase out of coal, are key to a successful transition of the global energy sector and to driving down energy-related CO2 emissions. Technological and economic developments offer opportunities to decarbonize the energy sector at a cost that is lower than ever. A key example is the cost declines of renewable energy, which continue to outpace projections. Renewables are by now the cheapest source of new power generation in most parts of the world, with the global weighted average purchase or auction price for new solar power photovoltaic systems and onshore wind turbines now competitive with the marginal operating cost of existing coal plants by 2020 (Figure 3)

Source: https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/united_in_science

Why do I claim the UN is ignoring the only genuine path to emissions reduction?

The reason is, as far as I can tell the report does not even mention nuclear power. Dispatchable, scalable nuclear power is the only system which has even been demonstrated to be a viable zero carbon replacement for fossil fuel. France still derives over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power.

The claim renewables are the cheapest form of power is total fiction, because it fails to consider the cost of backup power. In the absence of affordable, near 100% efficient energy storage, renewables are just an additional cost on top of the cost of the dispatchable energy system, which must still be maintained to cover periods when renewables fail to deliver.

So long as those dispatchable energy systems are required, all renewable systems do is drive up power prices. Customers of renewable heavy power grids are stuck with paying for two parallel energy systems, the reliable dispatchable system, and the unreliable virtue signalling renewable system.

If the UN was serious about reducing emissions, they would put nuclear power at the top of their agenda, because nuclear power is the only demonstrably viable zero carbon path to replacing other forms of dispatchable power.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 9, 2020 6:13 pm

Reuters’ spin:

9 Sept: Global News: Reuters: Greenhouse gases soar to new record despite coronavirus lockdowns: UN
By Cecile Mantovani and Michelle Nichols; Additional reporting by Matthew Green in LONDON and Michelle Nichols in NEW YORK; Editing by Katy Daigle, Rosalba O’Brien and Andrew Cawthorne

The sharp, but short, dip earlier this year represented only a blip in the build-up of climate-warming carbon dioxide, now at its highest level in 3 million years.
“We have seen a drop in the emissions this year because of the COVID crisis and lockdowns in many countries … but this is not going to change the big picture,” Petteri Taalas, head of the World Meteorological Organization, a U.N. agency based in Geneva, told Reuters Television.
“We have continued seeing records in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.”…
“The consequences of our failure to get to grips with the climate emergency are everywhere,” said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, launching the report in New York…

“We are really only adapted and able to deal with a very small range of possible weather,” Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford, told Reuters.
“Even if this is just perturbed a little bit, we come very quickly to the edges of what we as societies can deal with.”…

Reply to  pat
September 10, 2020 7:44 am

“We are really only adapted and able to deal with a very small range of possible weather,”
We are rotinely adapted to daily swings of 20C and seasonal swings of 40C, but somehow we cannot handle a centennial swing of 2C?

Reply to  ferdberple
September 10, 2020 6:28 pm

… an alleged centennial swing of 2C.

Reply to  pat
September 10, 2020 6:40 pm

Reuters and their writers don’t know squat.
People can live successfully and happily from the equator to northern Russia. Some places it’s easier, others are harder. Antarctica is the only place that is not livable for humans. It requires even more power there than anywhere else on the planet to survive.

But as Worrall points out- the only viable substitute for fossil fuel is nuclear power. Preferably we’d start immediately with newer generation reactors and get at least 2 or 3 prospects into service as soon as safely possible.

Robert of Ottawa
September 9, 2020 6:43 pm

Bugger the UN and anyone involved in it.

It is so low life, it deserves no more refined a commant.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
September 9, 2020 8:47 pm


The World Health Organization (WHO) recently advocated the “shotgun marriage” of the Covid-19 recovery and global warming alarmism, as stated by its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Similarly, Prime Minister Trudeau recently announced his “legacy”, an extreme-left Green New Deal for Canada, based on the same bizarre correlation of Covid-19 and climate change. Both are preaching the same irrational insanity.

It is clear that Covid-19 and global warming are NOT even remotely related, and no honest, rational person could be so stupid to suggest they are. Climate activists have certainly been this deliberately, aggressively stupid for decades – that is their standard tactic to shout down the many credible disproofs of their false global warming (CAGW) narrative.

The only common factor in global warming alarmism and the full-Gulag Covid-19 lockdown is they are both false crises, and in all probability are the two greatest frauds, in terms of squandered money and needless human suffering, in human history.

Marc Morano describes the WHO’s irrational “Climate and Covid” proposal:

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus during a news conference from the agency’s Geneva headquarters:
“In particular, the Covid-19 pandemic has given new impetus to the need to accelerate efforts to respond to climate change. The Covid-19 pandemic has given us a glimpse of our world as it could be: cleaner skies and rivers.”
Marc Morano comments: “You were warned, COVID & Climate – A marriage made in authoritarianism. The morphing of the public health bureaucracy and the climate establishment is at hand. Nothing good can come from this arranged marriage.”

Rex Murphy describes Trudeau’s adoption of the same bizarre “Climate and Covid” plan:

An ideological fixation — global warming — is taking over genuine efforts to fix the economy
Rex Murphy, Aug 27, 2020
“I quoted our new economic czar, Chrystia Freeland, in my last column, saying, “I think all Canadians understand that the restart of our economy needs to be green.” To which I asked, “Where, oh where, did she pick up that strange understanding?” Maybe this would be true if there were a poll taken on Pluto, assuming a few Canadians are there, but not from the Canadians on the planet we are already familiar with.
There is no basis whatsoever for asserting that all Canadians believe (or want) the recovery to be “green.” What that statement really represents in this government’s grossly cynical attempt to leverage the great health crisis of our time, and the dislocation and anxiety surrounding it, as an instrument to pursue its one unfailing objective: to blunt, wound and radically downscale our central natural resource industry.”

The full-Gulag lockdown for Covid-19 was NOT necessary:

As in many other countries, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam followed the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations for the Covid-19 full-Gulag lockdown. The WHO is a willing servant of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). That is why President Trump recently defunded the WHO.

September 10, 2020 7:57 am

The Trudeau government hasn’t even figured out how to sell pot and make a profit.

Rex Murphy is a true Canadian Treasure. A Rhodes Scholar while Trudeau’s qualifications are snow board instructor and drama teacher.

As Rex says about Trudeau’s plans: “It is wrong-footed. It will not work. And it will rip our country apart.”

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
September 11, 2020 9:47 am

Plandemic, affirmed.

September 9, 2020 6:46 pm

Warming was not creating enough panic and money inflows, so now the doomsters say the earth is ” heating ” as though the planet is a burrito someone put in a microwave. When will the UN and all the other climate assclowns be defunded and shut down? This green propaganda has got to be stopped at source.

Reply to  Zane
September 9, 2020 7:07 pm

“Zane September 9, 2020 at 6:46 pm
When will the UN … be defunded and shut down? This green propaganda has got to be stopped at source.

This is it. The heart of the matter. We are all beating around the bush playing climate science games and falling into the UN trap. The ozone and the climate alarms are UN creations and serve only the ulterior motives of the UN. WW2 is history now and nothing more. We don’t need the UN. We need to get rid of it.






Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 10, 2020 5:38 am

“When will the UN … be defunded and shut down?”
When Trump is reelected- maybe he should kick the UN out of the country.

September 9, 2020 6:53 pm

“UN is ignoring the only genuine path to emissions reduction”

And ignoring the irrelevance of fossil fuel emissions in atmospheric composition dynamics.


September 9, 2020 7:10 pm

The Climate Alarmist including the UN are not serious about reducing CO2. If they were, nuclear power would be their only recommendation. They are soley interested in reducing ‘fossil’ fuel use and destroying stable society in favour of their dictatorship. Nuclear power is the only viable zero carbon path to replacing some other forms of power. The obsession of the Alarmists and the UN on ‘fossil’ fuels proves that they are blind to the absence of any proof that there is any dangerous global warming and that there are many benefits to increased CO2 levels for food production and human happiness. Human happines is of no interest to the Alarmists and the UN and there as no money in it for them or their cronoies.

September 9, 2020 7:11 pm

Eric, your whole article assumes that CO2 is a problem. If you believe this you are being used by the UN as a (with apologies) “useful idiot”. IMO you should stop supporting the “CO2 is bad” myth, whoever is promulgating it. Please join the right side!

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 9, 2020 8:10 pm

Here’s an idea. All the obese people dying from COVID-19 could be converted to biodiesel (at least their fat could be). The problem is, not enough are dying, as current rates would only amount to a drop in a bucket.

Steve Case
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 9, 2020 9:18 pm

Tottenham is right.

This final statement

If the UN was serious about reducing emissions, they would put nuclear power at the top of their agenda, because nuclear power is the only demonstrably viable zero carbon path to replacing other forms of dispatchable power.

doesn’t clearly say that CO2 is not a problem. In fact it uses the phony “emissions” & “zero carbon” terminology that the alarmists use to paint their fake issue as a world covered with industrial soot.

It’s as if you were recommending to the mob that the rope they plan to lynch you with isn’t strong enough to do the job.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 10, 2020 12:33 am


I don’t think some people properly understand that ‘If>Then>’ is purely a hypothetical construct.

I enjoyed the irony implicit in your posit.

Steve Case
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 10, 2020 1:07 am

Eric, your statement, “…nuclear power is the only demonstrably viable zero carbon path to replacing other forms of dispatchable power.” sounds like you are in favor of the alarmist’s “zero carbon” Green New Deal bullshit. If you’re going to use their words and definitions, at least put them in quotes.

I looked up “dispatchable” and I find that’s an alarmist invention too, it has no other meaning than electric power stations that can be turned on and off at will.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
September 10, 2020 12:37 am

OK, then why did you say this here today:
“Why do I claim the UN is ignoring the only genuine path to emissions reduction?”
“If the UN was serious about reducing emissions, they would put nuclear power at the top of their agenda, because nuclear power is the only demonstrably viable zero carbon path to replacing other forms of dispatchable power.”

Sorry to disagree, Eric, but if you thought that the ‘alarmist obsession with CO2 is a joke’ , surely you wouldn’t have made the above statements, rather you would have pointed out (once again) that their ‘alarmist obsession with CO2 is a joke’. I would have agreed with that, and it may have sent a stronger message! cheers.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
September 10, 2020 2:37 am

@BoyfromTottenham. Without doubt, Eric was trying to be rhetorical and we shouldn’t punish him for all the good work he does here. However the essence of your comment is correct: if CO2 is not a problem, then reducing CO2 emissions is justification for nothing. If nuclear power is beneficial because it is economic and safe (compared to unabated fossil fuels), it does more harm than good to promote nuclear as the solution to a “climate change” non-problem. Leave that to the subsidy farmers. The case for nuclear should be solely based on the rational economic decisions of private investors who can fund the capital and underwrite all the liabilities (and good luck there, I will add for good measure).

Timothy R Robinson
September 9, 2020 8:03 pm

I don’t believe we have the problem with global warming scenario’s that come from IPCC or the UN. But to switch from coal to nuclear would also be costly, not as much for Europe or North America, but for third world nations. Nuclear power plants currently operate in 30 countries, that is still short of the 180+ countries in the world.
The CO2 as the fault of any temperature increase should be reevaluated. It’s been over 40 years that they have been looking at this and it isn’t turning out to be the cause.
We have a long history of varying effects on the earth and most are directly related to the sun and the orbit around the sun, I would guess that any fluctuation in temperature would also be caused by either of those two things.

Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2020 8:16 pm

What other kind of drivel can you expect from a guy with a five-year journalism/international studies degree?

The writer here has ZERO educational training and/or professional experience to understand the complexities of engineering studies that clearly say wind and solar will be reliable or affordable, or not a serious destroyer of the environment in their mineral needs for manufacture.

Luke Cooper is just writing the climate porn scare stories and climate propaganda he is paid to write at the those Libtard propaganda outlets. And if he had a sudden rush of conscience and didn’t write it, those outlets would sack him and hire someone else who would. Which is obviously how he go the job in the first place replacing people tired of writing lies, and promising to write climate propaganda without a care for accuracy or truth. He needs a job, and when your paycheck as young professional depends on writing climate lies, you write climate lies.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 9, 2020 8:18 pm

“…will NOT be reliable or affordable…”

September 9, 2020 8:25 pm

From the NYT: (Reuters) – The U.S. power industry would struggle to meet presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s proposed mandate that it become carbon neutral by 2035 without some big breakthroughs in clean energy technology, according to a Reuters analysis of planning documents and a survey of top utilities.

The UN & US Democrats think they can push the energy companies to accomplish something they can’t and punish them if they don’t.

September 9, 2020 8:32 pm

Considering the World Health Organization’s blatant political prostitution earlier this year, I am sure that the U.N. are just as serious about the climate as they are about chinavirus. Anything for a buck, and tenure.
Also considering the U.N. World Headquarters proximity in space and time to the worst COVID U.S. outbreak, possibly the next, best step would be to move HQ to Bejing, so that they’ll be closer to their money, origin of the disease, and worst source of pollution.

Bryan A
September 9, 2020 9:00 pm

Given the state of the California Dry Lightning Fires and associated smoke dimming sunlight, I wonder how much Solar Energy Generation was affected today.
I’m in Santa Rosa and at 10:00 am our street lights were still on and it was dark like 6:30, just about the time Solar begins to reach peak production
Looking at the CAISO website http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx last week most days had really smooth curves but today’s solar curve looks to be almost impossible to compensate for (balance)

September 9, 2020 10:14 pm

I don’t do polls and I don’t trust polls. My opinion is based on reading social media (mostly TT). My analysis is based on thousands of tweets I have read on many subjects. I’m not formally trained in sociology or “political science” (whatever that is). Here it is:

Viewed from France: very silly move in term of political PR.

In France, quite a few people who hate Macron, his party, the pretend anti immigration (alleged) “right”, the overtly pro immigration left, etc. also hate Didier Raoult, his institute, his protocols, his studies, etc. (Notably Solveig Mineo, the pro re-migration party, etc.) These people on the right usually despise the IPCC.

These people may be few and may be invisible in the media but they have influence. Solveig Mineo is the one (and almost only) feminist who defended Mila (see: #JeSuisMila) and forced the French MSM to take position (lately and with zero courage, as expected) on the issue. (There is no exaggeration in saying that Solveig Mineo single-handedly salvaged the “féminisme” brand in France. She literally did.)

These people are often censored on the social media (yes, that’s censorship not private platform BS please) and come back again and again. They STILL have a voice.

The “official institutions”/pro “science”/”anti fakemed”-spheres had them as supporters. They despise every greeny/ecoloon/techno-phobic so they support the “sciences” even medical scientism and pseudosciences – for the exact same reason “pro science” ecoloons support crazy geoengineering!

Because Pr Raoult was associated with some pro immigrant mantras, they rejected everything from him (also they reject “complotisme” whatever that is).

But linking the (phony) “pandemic” and climate (pseudo) science can only result in discrediting the first for those who despise the second, without any clear benefit for those who support both.

I see that as the equivalent of the pathetic attempt from the Biden people to attack President Trump by linking Trumpism with “people who despise the-military-as-a-techno-financial-institution”: IOW the Pentagon. The people who love the Pentagon/military-industrial-complex-with-revolving-door were probably not strong Trump supporters in the first place!

Some associations are widely inefficient politically because the negative message is only seen by people who already despise the target. If you want Trump to lose support from military personnel, saying “Trump doesn’t have politicized military elites in high regards (those elites that have led US military in so many costly unwinnable wars while promoting ridiculously expensive weapon programs that give little or no military edge in those wars)” may not be the best idea. (It’s the idea that Biden’s handlers settled on, so they may be as stupid as he is senile.)

That was my purely qualitative analysis. (I don’t do quantitative because I don’t do scientism.)

Paul Johnson
September 9, 2020 10:19 pm

“The claim renewables are the cheapest form of power is total fiction, because it fails to consider the cost of backup power.”

Assume a fossil fuel/nuclear power grid that fully meets demand. Add a unicorn intermittently providing 20% to 100% of demand for free with semi-predicable outages of minute, hours, or days. What happens to costs? In the real world, all the existing equipment is still needed to cover unicorn shortfall/outages. Capital, operating, and maintenance costs remain the same or increase due to cycling. Only fuel costs are reduced. Thus, the actual value of non-dispatchable power is at most the avoided fuel cost for the back-up systems.

Reply to  Paul Johnson
September 10, 2020 12:14 am

well look: this is no longer a thought experiment…

you can look at the UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal and see grids with exactly that scenario, grids which have been operating for years like that, with ever increasing amounts of renewables.

and yes baseload power plant, especially coal plant power has been switched off (or in Germany’s case used to export power instead)

Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 12:48 am

Yeah we are looking at the cost power has no climbed too and the stability issues they are encountering and going yeah don’t mind us as we just stay relying on fossil fuels. At the moment they can’t match the cost and reliability of conventional power and so beyond a bit of PR with a small minority in each country why would you bother.

Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 12:59 am

These are not “grids”. There one West Europe grid.

And Switzerland does a lot of balancing.

Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 12:09 pm

Griff, Germany has built over 20 lignite burning power plants in the last 20 years. Lignite is dirty, brown coal, one of the most, if not the most polluting sources of energy on the planet. Some months, especially in the winter and early spring, the total power generated by lignite burning in Germany exceeds solar and wind put together. It’s a flat lie to suggest that Germany uses lignite burning just to export power. The fact is that Germany, in their misguided attempt to shut down nuclear power, tried to rely on wind and solar. They failed. They were forced to build the lignite burning plants and rely more on backup power imported from France which is 70% powered by nuclear.

September 9, 2020 10:47 pm

100% correct about unreliables (unnecesseriables).

September 9, 2020 11:13 pm

“We must turn the recovery from the pandemic into a real opportunity to build a better future.”

I’ve seen this more than once. It’s a brain fart that doesn’t mean anything.

Flight Level
September 9, 2020 11:25 pm

Like when you recognize the insurance agent as the guy caught by security cameras while defacing your car with a sledge hammer.

September 10, 2020 12:17 am

The EU, especially France and Germany ARE making green recovery a prime focus of their covid recovery plans…



Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 1:04 am

Yes we saw a smashing of the manufacturing sectors as they do so because of the cost of power. You can keep trying to spin it like the paid troll you are but a simple look at German manufacture trend will show you what is happening. Like other leftards you think companies or people will just sit around and impose taxes on them directly or indirectly and they won’t react .. they move and vote with there feet.

It’s the same as US democrat idiots who think billionaires are just going to sit around and let you tax away there wealth under the Green New Deal unicorn.

Flavio Capelli
Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 1:05 am

Yeah, and that’s gonna work out so well, we’ll all be swimming in ethically-mined gold.

Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 3:38 pm

Macron was elected with the “greens” and they weren’t very happy with him reaching to “le vote des chasseurs” (hunters). So he gives something to the ecoloons.

Matthew Sykes
September 10, 2020 12:54 am

But the world is mad, insane, people the human race, is infected with fruit cake alarmists and self deluded weirdos.

Look at any religion, Extinction Rebellion, BLM, Marxists, Globalists, Prof Fergusson, the UN. They are absolutely mad. We havent got a hope until we can identify and isolate these lunatics.

September 10, 2020 1:02 am

‘The Greens swept to their best-ever results in the 2019 European elections. Winning nearly 10% of seats, the group were billed as kingmakers in a more fragmented European parliament, as the two largest groups, the centre-right and centre-left, saw their decades-old dominance collapse.

More than a year on, the European Union has adopted its greenest-ever agenda, with the promise of net-zero emissions by 2050 and a European Green Deal to transform the economy, underpinned by a target to spend nearly one-third of EU funds on climate change and the environment.’


Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 2:20 am

If it really takes 1/3 of EU revenue to be spent on “climate change” (the implication of the extract) in what sense can it be said to be economic?
I don’t hear any suggestion that coal or gas would need this level of financial support. In fact, the spending of that money is to move away from fossil fuels, so we can conclude that stay with coal and gas is the “baseline”, costing the EU nothing.
Which leads onto an important question: what other worthy causes could have benefitted from that 1/3 of the EU revenue? Those displaced benefits are the true costs of what the greens have leveraged out.
But if that’s what the EU wants to do with the money it is entrusted to spend wisely on behalf of its members, it makes it all the better that the UK won’t be contributing.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
September 10, 2020 3:24 am

The Municipale Elections in France were marked by a historic abstention rate of 59%, because of the epidemic.

At 5 p.m on the day of the second vote turnout was 34.67%.

Paris did not vote for the green party but instead returned to power, like the idiots everybody knows they are, Anne Hidalgo PS.

In late July Anne Hidalgo said she no longer wants to work with two elected representatives of the green party adding “they are hysterical militantes”.

Personally I can’t stand Hidalgo but for once she’s not wrong there.

Climate believer
September 10, 2020 1:37 am

United Nations

“The #COVID19 pandemic is demonstrating what we all know: millennia of patriarchy have resulted in a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture which damages everyone – women, men, girls & boys.”

….an utterly disgusting organisation, #defundUN


How the UN damages women and children then dares to lecture us……


Ronald Bruce
September 10, 2020 2:41 am

The marxists will use every subterfuge, tell every lie, distort every fact and never face reality to force their one world communist government on every one. Not one of the warmist IPCC or any other warmist prediction has come true. Their lies are only to gain power over us.

September 10, 2020 2:42 am

UN’s hilarious quote, “ Renewables are by now the cheapest source of new power generation in most parts of the world.”

What complete and utter Leftist BS….

Solar and wind are roughly 4 TIMES more expensive than hydro, natural gas, nuke, and coal, if Alt-en subsidies, 100% backup costs, and actual (not name-plate) output are used to calculate alt-en’s real costs…

Serge Wright
September 10, 2020 3:15 am

If the UN was serious about climate change they wouldn’t have done a deal with China, the world’s largest emitter, to allow them to increase their CO2 emissions without limits, up to at least 2030. This is all about politics and the helping transfer global power from the west to China.

Joseph Zorzin
September 10, 2020 5:33 am

“The claim renewables are the cheapest form of power is total fiction, because it fails to consider the cost of backup power.”

It also fails to consider the economic and ecological costs of such use of the land. Here in tiny Massachusetts about 8,000 acres of forest have been utterly destroyed to install solar “farms” in the past 5 years. The fact that they call them farms really ticks me off, me being a forester since Nixon was in the White House.

September 10, 2020 6:48 am

“United in Science” can be translated as a) doctrinal orthodoxy and b) corrupted and co-opted science to fit the doctrine at the expense of science process and fact checking of data, models, and grantees.

This is the first global pandemic following HIPPA privacy rules on occurrence and spread and the first pandemic molded and shaped to fit prevailing and unrelated policy crusades.

September 10, 2020 7:15 am

And what of the next coronovirus from Chinese wet markets and related cave creatures? The UN is a derelict organization.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights