What Renewable Energy Price Shock? UN Urges Fossil Fuel Extractors to Slash Production

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

As the USA, Britain, Europe and China reel from a self inflicted renewable energy failures, the United Nations has doubled down on stupid by demanding producers slash production by 45% by 2030, to save the world from global warming.

Climate change: Fossil fuel production set to soar over next decade

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

Plans by governments to extract fossil fuels up to 2030 are incompatible with keeping global temperatures to safe levels, says the UN.

The UNEP production gap report says countries will drill or mine more than double the levels needed to keep the 1.5C threshold alive. 

Oil and gas recovery is set to rise sharply with only a modest decrease in coal. 

There has been little change since the first report was published in 2019.

With the COP26 climate conference just over a week away, there is already a huge focus on the carbon-cutting ambitions of the biggest emitters. 

But despite the flurry of net zero emission goals and the increased pledges of many countries, some of the biggest oil, gas and coal producers have not set out plans for the rapid reductions in fossil fuels that scientists say are necessary to limit temperatures in coming years.

Earlier this year, researchers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of the dangers for humanity of allowing temperatures to rise by more than 1.5C this century. To keep under this threshold will require cuts in carbon emissions of around 45% by 2030 based on 2010 levels. 

“The research is clear: global coal, oil, and gas production must start declining immediately and steeply to be consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5C,” says Ploy Achakulwisut, a lead author on the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute. 

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58971131

Can there possibly be a stronger indication that the UN has reached the end of its useful life, than pushing a report urging more cake consumption in the midst of a bread shortage? Or in the UN’s case, slashing fossil fuel production in the middle of a fossil fuel supply crisis?

Any government which attempts to act on the UN report will be removed by their own people. There is only so much “climate action” ordinary people can take.

5 33 votes
Article Rating
98 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
October 20, 2021 6:08 pm

That is the sort of policy that leads to pitchforks and torches, perhaps not metaphorically.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 20, 2021 6:17 pm

When they come for the pitchforks, they may actually get some.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Scissor
October 21, 2021 10:59 am

Lots of pitchforks in my neighborhood and if the UN messes with our petrol and electricity we will be sharpening them….

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 20, 2021 7:13 pm

I think the French had a more effective approach…

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 20, 2021 7:26 pm

Or the Italians
Think Mussolini and some piano wire

To paraphrase Hans Gruber, “when you steal ten trillion dollars they will find you, unless they think you are already dead.”

Rats will start looking for a way out as the titanic sinks

John
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 20, 2021 8:40 pm

I expect you may be mistaken I think pitchforks torches and burning the guilty will be the public response

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 21, 2021 10:45 am

The catastrophes will come from Climate Change policy. Not climate change. Climate change is a non-problem that needs to be ignored.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 21, 2021 1:39 pm
Gerry, England
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 6:27 am

That seems quite reasonable since we are not able to remove these morons via the ballot box then as per von Clausewitz, the pursuit of politics must be carried out by other means.

Chris
October 20, 2021 6:11 pm

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is in that que.

PCman999
October 20, 2021 6:26 pm

We’re already 1.5°C above pre-industrial, and it’ll get even higher after all the creative-bookkeeping-climate-feedbacks kick in, if the climate alarmists are to be believed. So, we’re already “Let’s Go Brandon” – then stfu.

Burn all the coal like it’s going out style!

You can stop when there are no more “third world countries” or developing countries burning dung to stay alive.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  PCman999
October 21, 2021 5:58 am

I read where the Canadian government has banned using “Let’s go Brandon”.

Authoritarians stick together, it appears.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 21, 2021 7:40 am

Trucks to go…Trucks to go…Trucks to go. Come on everyone join in!

Robert of Texas
October 20, 2021 6:28 pm

I demand the abolishment of the U.N. to save the world from Global Stupidity.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 20, 2021 8:38 pm

Robert, the horror of a cold winter coming to Europe, with windmills still and no backup natural gas, even at spot prices of $40/ Million Btus (instead of $3) coupled with empty food shelves, shuttered industries and high unemployment could result in a manmade bubonic scale disaster. God help the innocents!

The UN will be massively defunded as will the incompetent scientists, governments and institutes, and hopefully the Champagne marxists billionaire underwriters of this calamity.

Barry James
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 20, 2021 9:11 pm

Don’t worry about the “Champagne Marxists”. They are making a “killing” from their climate and Covid scams. They will make sure that the UN continues to be their mouthpiece.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Barry James
October 21, 2021 7:10 am

But sooner or later all the Bernie Madoffs of climate change will face a double judgement.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 21, 2021 7:42 am

The entire UN needs to be retired. We should send them all on a nice vacation in the middle of the (rapidly warming according to them) Antarctic.

whiten
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 20, 2021 11:29 pm

There is herd immunity…

and

There is herd madness too.

Herd madness symptoms:
a) mass panic.
b) mass hysteria.
c) solidarity in euphoria.
d) rinse and repeat.
etc.

🙄

cheers

SxyxS
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 21, 2021 1:48 am

Won’t happen
as the UN was created for exactly the purpose of globalization.
And the UN could never achieve it’s goals without phony (Agw,ice age)and artificial crisis (Covid,energy crisis now and in the 70ies).
Since the UN was created we have a permanent creation of doomsday scenarios
Especially since the creation of the club of rome (created by Rockefellers,just as the UN territory was donated by them)
All these scenarios have 2 things in common(ist):
They are all total bullshit and they are all(by some incredible and impossible coincidence ) made in USA – Just like the UN.

While all these doomsday scenarios are total nonsense they must exist so the handlers of the UN (same as Bidens)),
as it is impossible to install a global tax,a global currency or to control others countries economy (by controling the co2 output) without those crisis.

And the climate itself has changed as much as Saddam,Assad or Ghaddafi had changed :
They didn’t – the only thing that has really changed was the newscoverage to justify massive interventions.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 21, 2021 11:04 am

When I was a much younger girl and not yet jaded by reality, I used to be offended by the huge billboards down south calling to toss the UN out of the USA. Now I wish it had happened in the 1960s, we would have been spared the IPCC and CAGW!

n.n
October 20, 2021 6:34 pm

intermittents are politically congruent (“=”) reliables

Throw another baby on the barbie, we have passed the progressive threshold, and have adopted critical energy theory in a modern frame. Take a knee and follow the cargo at the Twilight Fringe. Or perhaps it’s the outer limits.

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
Ron Long
Reply to  n.n
October 20, 2021 6:51 pm

Beam me up, Scottie, there’s no intelligent life on this planet.

Spetzer86
October 20, 2021 6:58 pm

Easy peasy. We just flip the UN building over to RE power and have done. No common wire transport either. They either make their own or it’s a big, dark, (and largely airless) building in NY.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Spetzer86
October 21, 2021 3:54 am

Spetzer86,
Naw! Let an experienced NYC developer; like, say, Donald Trump, remodel it into the best hotel and casino EVAH! Then he can fleece, er, I mean win back, all the ill gotten monies of the cleptocrats that comprise most of the UN crime gang!
It disconcerting to see that Trump has fallen from the ranks of the Forbes 400, while no less than four pharmaceutical CEOs have been added to it! Maybe the Bai Den Crime Family business model IS a better plan to follow!
Silly Trump tries to make money developing real estate, and building hotels and casinos; while the Bai Dens get rich by selling access and influence to Zhao, and skimming off foreign aid money wherever they can! At least Hunter has finally developed a marketable skill, now that he has been proclaimed an artist! Following family tradition, shouldn’t that be ‘con artist’?

tygrus
October 20, 2021 7:04 pm

We can disconnect solar & wind but if we are desperate it takes months & years to increase output above the current supply. Hydro, biofuel & geothermal has some capacity to meet increased demand (follow demand) for short times but can’t backup the entire grid in all places.

Building more wind turbines & solar PV to have spare capacity is only possible if you compensate them to sit idle the rest of the time. The intermittency of wind & solar can’t follow demand, more of these only exacerbates the oversupply/undersupply. Building more requires more peaking capacity from others sources to fill the gaps.

What’s funny is in a grid with mixed sources, if I add a load it’s almost everything but wind & solar that will vary to meet the demand. The hydro & gas may adjust slightly in the short term but if there is capacity for coal or nuclear generation, it’s these base load supplies that change to meet longer periods of demand. BESS are currently economical for <10% load and only a few hours. I don’t know anywhere that can run 100% from battery/hydro for days without needing interconnections & other sources. This may change in the future, probably needs another 20yrs of R&D, cost reductions then another >20yrs of more building to make fossil fuels disappear.

If you have a grid that averages 65% wind, 15% solar PV, 20% gas during the day, adding 1MW to charge a carpark of EV’s will be 100% powered by an increase use of gas not 80% renewables. It would then require you to physically build another 1MW of renewables but again, any further increase use of grid power would be delivered by gas in the short term.

whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 21, 2021 8:32 am

The problem is, the elites don’t want the cheapest deals to be used anymore. Oil, natural gas, petroleum, and coal are all on the undesirable list as far as they are concerned, but they are also the most effective and most reliable options. They must distort the market to get what they want even to be a portion of the energy sector. Outside of some niche markets on the edge of energy requirements, solar and wind are not effective as primary sources. Nuclear and hydro are too burdened with issues for the environmentalists, even though they do have potential. And unicorns don’t breed fast enough to be a viable alternative.

John
Reply to  tygrus
October 20, 2021 8:47 pm

South Australia believes its BS and that Batteries and Bull shit with the 129MWh battery will keep the state running – note they are a small demand centre of circa 2000MW continuous power (10 minutes and the battery is gone) Queensland and Victoria need to teach them a lesson and open the interconnectors

Similarly Macaron needs to teach BOJO the same lesson – open the interconnector on a low wind day and watch the lights go out

lee
Reply to  John
October 20, 2021 11:20 pm

And now coming to you from the state of Wait Awhile (WA), St Mark McGowan is going to build a 100MW battery which will deliver 200Wh. Not only will it beat SA’s 30,000 homes for 1 hour; ours will power 160,000 for two hours. Apparently. I guess our houses are much more power efficient.

Mr.
Reply to  John
October 21, 2021 5:28 am

Are SA’s leased fleet of backup diesel generators still subject to “Commercial In Confidence” secrecy provisions?

As too I understand are Victoria’s?

Calling investigative journalism – where t f are you hiding?

H. D. Hoese
October 20, 2021 7:15 pm

Sigma Xi, has the answer. “Monthly Mental Health “Happy” Hour: Cultivating Resilience and Resourcefulness in the Sciences. Wednesday, October 27, 2021. 3:00 – 4:00 p.m. ET
Virtual on Zoom (Link will be sent to registrants via email) RSVP by Monday, October 25, 2021 Attendance is limited to 50 participants. Of course there is a need as this is their next conference ROOTS TO FRUITS: Responsible Research for a Flourishing Humanity How scientific virtues serve society”

Current issue of American Scientist that they publish actually looks pretty good, but their book reviews have been mostly on books as above. And the Executive Director and CEO says “Sigma Xi Speaks: Promoting Just Solutions to Climate Change.” Please be advised that this is an administration in a society that doesn’t communicate well with their membership, except guess which way. Seems to be common nowadays, makes you wonder if they ever leave the concrete.

TonyL
October 20, 2021 7:18 pm

“Can there possibly be a stronger indication that the UN has reached the end of its useful life”
One could, for example, make a study of all the various Peacekeeping Missions the UN has undertaken in the last 50 years. Take any one of them and do a deep dive to see what the mission was, what the soldiers on the ground did, and what the result was. Time after time, you will see well armed and equipped UN troops stand aside and allow a poorly armed aggressor to massacre unarmed civilians under UN “protection”. Then look at other peacekeeping missions, more slaughter, time after time.

Need more? We can look at UN Humanitarian Relief Missions. Corruption, corruption, corruption. Nothing more on that account.
One notable outcome was the relief mission to Haiti. Soldiers from Ethiopia introduced cholera to the island. It turned out that the army camp was dumping raw sewerage straight into a river which villages downstream used for drinking water. Previous to this, cholera was unknown in Haiti.
Just what that poor benighted country needed, another plague.

Has the UN reached the end of it’s useful life?
What was your first clue.

Dennis
Reply to  TonyL
October 20, 2021 8:09 pm

Probably ignored by many people but POTUS Trump addressed the UN in New York twice and at his first appearance he explained his conversations with UN Leaders and recommendations to them including that the UN downsize and get back to what it was established to do, to stop interfering in the sovereignty of member nations and to reduce spending.

He even joked that the US might have to evict the UN and convert their HQ into a casino hotel to recover some of the monies US taxpayers have contributed towards UN activities that have not been in the best interests of the US.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  TonyL
October 20, 2021 11:34 pm

I hate to be picky, but you meant to say “sewage”, rather than “sewerage, the former is the waste to be removed, sewerage is the means by which is transported, hopefully to an approved disposal facility!!!

Teddy Lee
Reply to  TonyL
October 21, 2021 1:07 am

Useful life ?

David John
October 20, 2021 7:31 pm

Apply the reverse Hansen approach. Shut off all heating to the COP26 venues, and open all the windows!

Redge
Reply to  David John
October 20, 2021 11:08 pm

They’ll just claim the cold is proof of global warming

Alan the Brit
Reply to  David John
October 20, 2021 11:36 pm

Hold COP27 in Antarctica, no hotels, no luxuries, except food, very basic food naturally, not the caviar et al they’re used to, at taxpayers’ expense!!!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 21, 2021 12:00 am

I’ve heard that crickets freeze-dry quite well, with little loss of their natural flavor.

Mr.
Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 21, 2021 5:32 am

Why would you want to pollute Antarctica by having legions of unwashed greens camp there?

Jon
October 20, 2021 7:34 pm

I always think that if a person says global warming is harmful and caused by the people then two things about that person should be true. 1) working to build nuclear power facilities to replace coal and oil fired power plants. Wind and solar cannot take the place of coal fired power plants. 2) no longer eat meat. Cattle are some of the largest carbon producing animals.

If they do not agree with nuclear power production and stopping eating meat they are in it for power or money.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Jon
October 20, 2021 8:53 pm

… 2) no longer eat meat. Cattle are some of the largest carbon producing animals. …

Wha? Cattle don’t produce carbon; they eat it. The grass produces the carbon by fixing CO2, temporarily. If the cows didn’t eat the grass, the grass would die and rot and release the CO2. Ungrazed pastures aren’t turning into coal or oil for goodness sake! Where do you think the grass goes?

What’s your trip, Slick? Why do you hate cows? btw, if we didn’t eat them, they would remain alive and eat more grass. Unless your plan is to endeaden them and leave the deceased herds to bloat up in the fields. Is that your “solution” to brainless UN hysterical drones? Mass cattle murder?

Not to mention that buffaloes and elephants are larger than cows, if that was your meaning.

Since we are being so judgemental, I judge you to be a nut. Leave the cows alone. If you wish to be useful, then help nix the UN.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 20, 2021 11:01 pm

if we didn’t eat them, they would remain alive and eat more grass. Unless your plan is to endeaden them and leave the deceased herds to bloat up in the fields. Is that your “solution” to brainless UN hysterical drones? Mass cattle murder?

Not to mention that buffaloes and elephants are larger than cows, if that was your meaning.

Since we are being so judgemental, I judge you to be a nut. Leave the cows alone. If you wish to be useful, then help nix the UN.

If we didn’t eat them there wouldn’t be a single cow alive today.

Walt
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 21, 2021 9:55 am

The livestock are not the problem. The cows are not eaten by Hindus but there are lots of cows in India.

Jon
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 23, 2021 11:28 am

I eat steak and hamburgers everyday. I see my comment brought much response!

I was hoping to hear more opinions on nuclear power. If as some people say, global warming is a bad thing and human caused, why don’t they encourage nuclear power. Nuclear power could take out coal powered plants.

Nuclear powered plants could supply electricity for electric cars. (What about battery disposal?) Maybe hydrogen powered cars.

If we hope to cut back on carbon base power generation how is that going to happen by demanding people lower their standard of living? Not gonna happen.

Graham
Reply to  Jon
October 20, 2021 9:31 pm

Reply to Jon .
I agree with you that wind and solar cannot take the place of coal or gas fired power plants .
But you have been scammed into believing that farmed animals are some of the largest carbon emitters in the world .
The theory of glow bull warming is that we are extracting fossil fuels that have been locked up for millions of years .
As the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic any doubling of CO2 levels will cause very little warming, if any as the first 400 ppm has almost saturated the .atmospheric band widths .
Farmed animals do not emit one additional kilogram of carbon over their lifetime .
All fodder that farmed animals consume has absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere .
During digestion a small amount of methane is emitted from belching as they chew their cud.
The methode microbes in the animals stomachs multiply rapidly as they digest the cellulose in the forage .They then travel through the animals digestive tract and are absorbed as the animals food.
This methane breaks down in around 8 to 10 years in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and water vapour .
The process is a cycle and it poses no threat to any one .
Enteric methane was introduced by activists at the Kyoto accord and it has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny .
Methane levels in the atmosphere flat lined from 1999 till 2008 and there was no problem.
World coal production was also stable over these ten years at around 4.7 billion tonnes .
Between 2009 and now world coal production has increased to 8.2 billion tonnes in 2018 and this massive increase caused atmospheric methane levels to start rising again .
Proud to be farming carbon neutral cows to feed the world Graham

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Jon
October 21, 2021 11:33 am

You seem confused, all life on Earth is Carbon-based. Ridding the planet of Carbon means ridding the planet of all life, every single speck of it. Perhaps you meant to say that cattle are producers of CO2, carbon dioxide, which is NOT a polutant and is also essential to life on Earth. Cattle are no more emitters of carbon dioxide that humans or any other life form.

Don’t eat meat or eat it, the choice is yours, but don’t eschew the high-quality protein derived from beef, chicken, pork, and other animal sources because you mistakenly believe it is somehow causing environmental damage. That is just a big fat lie!

Editor
October 20, 2021 7:40 pm

For a good time (bring popcorn) Thursday AM at 0900 EDT (0500 UTC), productiongap.org is hosting a Zoom webinar. However, it’s full, however, we can watch on YouTube. From my FB post from an hour or so ago:

Registrations Are Closed

We have reached our Zoom capacity limit. Please contact SEI communications officer Lynsi Burton [deleted] for alternate ways to catch the live stream. Thank you for your interest!

Or:

**If this event is at capacity when you register, please catch the live stream at the SEI YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/c/StockholmEnvironmentInstitute

Gary Pearse
October 20, 2021 8:06 pm

“But despite the flurry of net zero emission goals and the increased pledges of many countries, some of the biggest oil, gas and coal producers have not set out plans for the rapid reductions in fossil fuels that scientists say are necessary to limit temperatures in coming years.”

I thought Eurocrats were diabolical but this shows they are simply stupid! If the world is coming together so strongly on net zero, why should they care if fossil fuel producers don’t slow down their development and production. Dev and production don’t cause climate change. Its burning them that increases CO2 in the atmosphere (so far there is no sign that this causes crisis global warming). If no one buys their product and uses it they just bankrupt the producers.

And these are the drones that want to lead the new world! As someone once said, I’d rather choose the first thousand names out of the telephone directory to govern us.

John
October 20, 2021 8:38 pm

Oil companies have what they call the RRR (reserves replacement ratio)

for the world to stay still this must be = 1

If it is greater than 1 we have growing reserves

Where it is today is less than 1 for most companies

A quick search shows in 2020 Total was the only IOC above 1 (1.17)

all the other major IOCs were less

Exxon 0.72
Royal Dutch Shell 0.65
Chevron 0.44
BP 0.78

This means that within 10 years everybody except Total will be running on empty

By the way I expect these to look worse in 2021 as nobody is doing major projects as under the current XR and UN conditions why would you

So without new exploration get ready for very touch times

Unfortunately unless you own an old refinery tank farm you wont be able to stock pile

Even if you could stock pile none of your everyday food, clothing supply chain etc would be available

Bottom line we need new fossil fuel energy or if you live anywhere other than the temperate climate belt life will be unpleasant if not fatal

for my part I live in a semi arid temperate climate – great but we still need food and fuel

Barry James
October 20, 2021 9:06 pm

The UN and their IPCC idiots must live on a different planet. How can their “policies” be so far removed from reality and still be taken seriously by the world’s governments? This latest farce in Glasgow would be hilarious if it were not causing so much economic and social damage.

griff
Reply to  Barry James
October 21, 2021 1:13 am

The answer is their policies and the science conform to reality…

H.R.
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 4:21 am

“… in an alternate universe.”


You didn’t finish your sentence, griff.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 4:41 am

Their policies and ‘the science’ conforms to the output of flawed, unrealistic climate models. They do not conform to reality Griffy, not even close; are you seriously that delusional that you can’t even see that most basic or fundamental point? You need professional help, dear.

John
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 7:15 pm

no it is in your mind it is your sick state of mental health

Graham
Reply to  John
October 23, 2021 1:19 am

Its not poor Gfiffys fault .
All around the world news broadcasts and news papers are spewing out this propaganda running up to the Glasgow climate shindig .
If Griffy hangs around WUWT he might realize that the science is far from settled and that the worlds politicians are thrashing the horse of climate change for all it is worth to gain power and influence over poor old Griff and his brainwashed mates .
Populations around the world are starting to wake up to this gigantic climate scam and hopefully the climate change horse will not run for to much longer when the general population come to realize how much horse dung is being flung at them.

Robert Leslie Stevenson
Reply to  Barry James
October 21, 2021 2:40 am

Glasgow is a heaven- sent venue for the UN IPCC – Scotland’s government is a coalition of Scottish Nationalists (Bolsheviks) and foaming at the mouth Greens

lynn
October 20, 2021 10:47 pm

Just ignore the UN, just a ship of fools.

stewartpid
Reply to  lynn
October 21, 2021 10:21 am

Just ignore the UN, just a ship of Griffs.
There fixed it!!

October 20, 2021 10:55 pm

There is only so much “climate action” ordinary people can take.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. Making the world safe for our grandchildren cuts little ice when they are daily threatened by fuel poverty.

Redge
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 20, 2021 11:14 pm

Once we switch to unreliables and leave FF in the ground child mortality rates will skyrocket

It’s no coincidence child death rates decreased with the onset of the industrial revolution

Many children didn’t survive to reach adulthood.

From the UK, you’re welcome, Greta

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Redge
October 20, 2021 11:49 pm

Correction, from this UK citizen, you are NOT welcome Greta, unless you can open your mouth & talk sense instead of the Socialist propaganda you have been brainwashed with!!! How Dare You set foot in this once great nation, ever!!!

Timbo
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 21, 2021 2:36 am

Making the world safe for our grandchildren, is going to leave them with a very large tax bill, that I suspect will cause serious issues. The planet will be fine, pls stop this nonsense now.

James H
October 21, 2021 12:15 am

“… doubled down on stupid…”

It is not stupid. It is part of a very calculated strategy to break the world. What’s the deal with 2030? That is the UN goal to have implemented a global government. This is one step in that carefully planned progression.

griff
Reply to  James H
October 21, 2021 1:12 am

Utter nonsense. I’ve been reading for years the UN was aiming at 2021 – and here we are, no world govt.

whiten
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 1:43 am

Same holds or could be said for Germany’s aiming.

You can not deny the holocaust and the other atrocities though… or would you griff!

🤔

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Mr.
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 5:40 am

Another mission the UN has failed at then, Griff?

If you look up the term “EPIC FAIL” in a modern dictionary, you get a picture of UN Headquarters.

H.R.
Reply to  Mr.
October 21, 2021 8:48 pm

You can’t spell UNnecessary without the UN.

griff
October 21, 2021 1:11 am

Those countries are reeling from fossil fuel supply mismanagement and fossil fuel price rises: NONE of the issues are caused by renewables (which are in fact easing the situation).

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 4:51 am

Absolute delusional tosh you poor pathetic excuse for a human being. Griffy – the renewable sector has not delivered when needed. In a foretaste of what will happen if we have more of these ridiculous virtue signalling gadgets, there was a severe lack of wind, a ‘global stilling’ if you will, which led to fossil fuels becoming necessary to pick up the shortfall. The sudden, extreme need for more and more fossil fuels after an attempt to run the market into the ground has caused this major cockup. This mad rush to a medieval lifestyle has got to stop – we have clear warning signs of exactly what is waiting in store for us; cold, misery, massive loss of life and less food.

Jon
Reply to  Richard Page
October 23, 2021 11:31 am

What about nuclear power?

Mr.
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 5:44 am

Griff you must go through dozens of napkins every day wiping the crap off your chin as it drools out of your cake hole.

I trust they’re made out of recycled paper or hemp?

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 9:33 am

I guess the only time price comes up is when it involves fossil fuels. Otherwise, mums the word on tax revenue expense from subsidies, extra grid cost, foregone reliability, and greenwash expenses and distortions.

Walt
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 10:14 am

Renewables are a waste of resources … They do not produce enough energy over their lifetime to balance off the cost of their construction and upkeep..

John
Reply to  griff
October 21, 2021 7:19 pm

Fossil Fuels are produced by independent companies even in the Middle East

it is not countries missmanagement
It is people like you and your XR idiots blocking development of new sources

We need a system to block your kind to any energy other than your own BS

SAMURAI
October 21, 2021 2:12 am

Leftists are out of their minds…

We’re already seeing massive blackouts and brownouts in the EU and China due to lack of sufficient fossil fuel supplies, and it will only get much worse if these nut jobs continue their absurd CAGW agenda of cutting fossil fuel consumption by 45% by 2030.

Wind and Solar are absolutely one of the worst sources to produce grid-level power because they are far too: expensive, intermittent, unreliable and diffuse, and require 100% immediate backup when the wind is too strong or too weak, or the solar panels are blocked by clouds or night comes around, and their energy densities are also laughably tiny.

This will likely be a brutal winter because of the back-to-back La Niña cycle we’re in, and taxpayers will likely have to suffer power outages during the coldest days because the current electrical grids cannot handle the power demands because all the coal and nuclear plant closure that have occurred.

By the way, coal prices have quadrupled since Biden was elected, oh goody:

0AB0CC0E-80E0-4007-9850-9763F5B3C5B9.jpeg
Walt
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 21, 2021 10:29 am

The leftists do not care about the welfare of the public. The costs of food, energy and housing is no worry for them. The worse things get the more they will push for more government rescue programs.

Robert Leslie Stevenson
October 21, 2021 2:24 am

Bringing down Boris Johnson’s UK government would lead to an even more pro UN IPCC administration – left wing Greens, Labour and liberal parties, who would have us back to a feudal system of subsistence living in no time flat.

Vincent Causey
October 21, 2021 2:35 am

I think we really have reached the “tipping point.” Ordinary people are about to be tipped over the edge. This is really because all the low hanging fruit has been picked, and now real sacrifices are demanded of the serfs.

2hotel9
October 21, 2021 3:52 am

No problem! Shut off all electricity, water, gas and sewage to the UN and all their personal residences. They can lead the way.

Walt
Reply to  2hotel9
October 21, 2021 10:33 am

You are dreaming! The people frolicking at the UN are special. Their needs are subsidized …

2hotel9
Reply to  Walt
October 21, 2021 10:45 am

It should actually not be very hard to turn Black Lies Matter and pantifa loose on them, they are attacking other leftists already and plenty of available video of UN security in NYC abusing people of color. Tell them the building is actually a Walmart warehouse run by Starbucks. THAT should get things going!

Sara
October 21, 2021 5:38 am

My concern about so-called fossil fuels is NOT that they are being used, but the RATE AT WHICH they are being consumed, worldwide.

Usage has obviously increased exponentially in the last 40 or so years, and this particular resource has its limits, despite the unexplored/untapped volume. Since these are irreplaceable once they are used up, what alternatives are there, besides nuclear energy, and how will that heat my home and let me cook? Having been through repeated storms in which the power went out in both summer and winter, and sometimes for several days (as happened with my family members down in Texas – yes, I know: windmills, not nukes), the alternative of nuclear energy for lighting and production does make sense.

But frankly, I prefer a gas-burning stove over an electric one because I know that I can light the stovetop burners with a kitchen match. I know that I can light my kitchen and home with oil lamps, as my great-grandparents did, and ditto for heat: a fireplace that can be used for both heat and cooking is more practical than a furnace, and a gas-fired furnace is more likely to keep me warm than electric baseboard heating stuff, and less likely to set my house on fire if there’s a short in the system.

So unless we come up with a viable alternative (e.g., converting organic garbage and plastic to fuel), what happens when the fossil fuels are literally GONE???? Has anyone really spent any time considering that?

While it’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime, it should be addressed now, not at the last minute.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sara
2hotel9
Reply to  Sara
October 21, 2021 10:47 am

Nuclear. Next question.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Sara
October 21, 2021 11:44 am

Fossil fuel consumption has risen over the past 40 years but not exponentially. It continues to rise and will rise still probably for the next 30-40 years. We are not running out. We have plenty for now and more will become available through technology while we design future energy systems so that we need not use the limitations of those resources as a reason to abandon them at present. More importantly they are the major underpinning of all of what works in our society. Removing them is impossible without societal collapse and no, wind/ solar and battery back up are not an option. Too expensive, too unreliable, to hard on the environment and totally unattainable without burning a lot of fossil fuels to build them. You haven’t thought deeply about this issue. Going backwards in technology (candles, oil lamps, burning wood) is ridiculous and totally ignores the scale of what you are trying to replace. IT is great you are interested in these issues but you would serve your interested better by getting more informed about the science and economics of this.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2021 8:49 pm

Not quite sure how needing to use a match makes gas or heating oil more reliable than electricity.
And, statistically speaking, having something on fire inside your home is more likely, not less likely, to lead to a house fire.
Having said that, it is far more efficient from a thermodynamic standpoint to burn the fuel where you want the heat.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Tom Abbott
October 21, 2021 5:48 am

From the article: “Plans by governments to extract fossil fuels up to 2030 are incompatible with keeping global temperatures to safe levels, says the UN.”

Yeah? What do they know?

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 21, 2021 11:53 am

Greenpiss have been handed 32,000 papers from countries, businesses and interested parties that were sent to the IPCC, attempting to modify the contents of the AR6 report. The IPCC, when contacted, said that they do not respond to ‘lobby groups’ and while they ensure that everyone has a voice in the report they ‘are under no obligation to amend or omit anything’. Basically the idea that this is a consensus report has gone out the window now – they won’t allow for mitigation, alternative strategies or any other scientific enquiry. This is a heavily biased report by the IPCC and their fellow travellers to be imposed on the rest of the world.
So, what do the UN know? They know they’ve got the world by its balls and the big squeeze is on.

Tom Abbott
October 21, 2021 5:54 am

From the article: ““The research is clear: global coal, oil, and gas production must start declining immediately and steeply to be consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5C,” says Ploy Achakulwisut, a lead author on the report from the Stockholm Environment Institute. ”

We all know that is not going to happen. The real world is currently ramping up production of coal, oil and gas.

It doesn’t look like we are going to make your goal, Ploy. Now what are you going to do?

ResourceGuy
October 21, 2021 6:17 am

What’s in your wallet? The UN wants to know.

ResourceGuy
October 21, 2021 6:42 am

Climate Crusades reporting is really a global intelligence test about what is missing in each part of the narrative. The less critical thinking the higher your score, which is then used as a quantitative metric for more agenda marketing news.

Power Plant Workers Embrace Change as Industry Adds Renewable Energy (yahoo.com)

ResourceGuy
October 21, 2021 6:54 am
Andy Pattullo
October 21, 2021 7:37 am

The UN, an organization theoretically created to work for the welfare of people, is now dedicated to creating a world where nearly 8 billion people cannot afford to feed, warm or shelter themselves. When did the UN decide it’s mission was to exterminate modern society and end the lives of the majority of our brothers and sisters? How do they look themselves in the mirror? This latest atrocious pronouncement comes at a time when the inevitable outcomes of their recommendations are already visible as the price of energy and all energy-dependent goods rises rapidly making life harder and harder for the poorest among us. The UN has become one of the most ignorant and evil organizations ever devised. Their excuse: a mild one degree C and a bit rise in global temperature that is likely due to mainly natural forces and which has made the world a better place for all.

colin p
October 21, 2021 8:02 am

unfortunately we are way past the time when people could remove incompetent government. the elites do what they do because they know people have become vassals. Greta can remove a government, but not the people.

John the Econ
October 21, 2021 12:25 pm

If this crisis is as dire as they say it is, then the UN complex should be disconnected from the grid immediately. They should be leading by example instead of making empty pronouncements.

Walter Sobchak
October 21, 2021 1:17 pm

The UN is 76 years past the end of its useful life.

US out of UN

UN out of US

Bob Hunter
October 22, 2021 8:32 am

The Net Zero Solution is very simple: Everyone must live in multi family dwellings, take public transit, 2 cell phone & 2 TV limit per family. Maximum size per Condo – 1000 sq ft. But we will allow exceptions for the Bloombergs, Gores etc. Anyone with more than 1000 sq ft will pay an annual $1000/ sq ft carbon tax for every sq ft over a thousand. For those owning their own vehicle the tax will be $10,000 per year.
Obviously ridiculous, but just as ridiculous as the Paris Climate Accord.

%d bloggers like this: