“[CO2] Emissions are at an All Time High”: UN Admits they are Losing

Essay by Eric Worrall

Emissions of glorious CO2 plant food have hit an all time high, according to UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Naturally his solution to this joyful milestone is to try to shut it down.

UN chief hails launch of new expert group to boost net-zero climate change fight

31 March 2022 Climate and Environment

UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday urged private investors businesses, cities, states and regions, to do more to cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions, launching a new group of experts to help with realizing a net-zero future.

Mr. Guterres’s comments came as he unveiled his new initiative to develop stronger standards for “net-zero” pledges by partners below the national government level, in the fight against climate change.

Despite growing pledges of climate action, global emissions are at an all-time high,” Mr. Guterres warned. And they continue to rise, he said, adding that “the latest science shows that climate disruption is causing havoc in every region already.

The key objective is to stop global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – as the international community agreed in Paris in 2015.

Losing the race

But the UN chief warned that the world was losing the race to reduce global temperature rise.

Governments had the biggest responsibility to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century – “especially the G20” industrialized nations he said – before calling on “every business, investor, city, state and region to walk the talk on their net-zero promises”.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has demonstrated that nearly half of humanity is already in the danger zone”, he said. “If we don’t see significant and sustained emissions reductions this decade, the window of opportunity to keep 1.5 alive will be closed – and closed forever.

“And that will be disaster for everyone.”

He praised the commitment being made at Thursday’s meeting to create a new brains’ trust to make the commitments on net zero, a reality, in the form of the new advisory High-Level Expert Group.

Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115222

To me this is one of the starkest examples yet, of how out of touch the United Nations is with the needs of ordinary people.

This year could be very hard. The global grain harvest this year could be down by 25%, the 25% which normally comes from Ukraine. Ukraine may have already missed their optimum planting window, their short but intense growing season is very unforgiving of delays.

In addition, Ukraine and Russia are major fertiliser producers. The coming fertiliser price spike could disrupt the ability of farmers outside the war zone to cover the shortfall caused by the lost Ukrainian harvest.

In a situation this desperate, we should be seizing any small advantage which might help us feed the hungry.

Excess CO2 emissions are potentially such an advantage

CO2 is plant fertiliser. Even NASA admits the world has greened, thanks to anthropogenic CO2.

I doubt one year’s excess emissions will make a lot of difference. But in a time like this, the last thing we should be doing is attempting to cut the lifeline of excess CO2 emissions. Even a small difference might save lives.

But the UN is ignoring all this. In their manic fixation on climate change, they seem completely oblivious to the changing needs of the people who provide their funding.

The solution is obvious.

4.7 33 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Thorbjørn Willoch
April 1, 2022 10:04 am

Ukraine might be 25% of world grain export, but much less than 1% of total world grain production.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Thorbjørn Willoch
April 1, 2022 10:52 am

You could have researched it.


I find that for wheat, the Ukraine produced 33m tonnes out of a global 778m tonnes last year, while Russian exports were 32m tonnes. Very significant. Moreover, prices are not far off doubled, so that will price many poorer buyers out, and stretch budgets for many more.

Reply to  It doesn't add up...
April 1, 2022 6:46 pm

Thinner slices all around.

Reply to  Thorbjørn Willoch
April 1, 2022 11:45 am

Ukraine’s grain production won’t fall to zero. It’ll be reduced, of course, but most of the fighting isn’t taking place in grain fields but along roads, airports, cities, etc. There’s no lack of farm equipment – well, other than all those ubiquitous vids of Ukrainian tractors hauling away Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers, and trucks, that is!

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Duane
April 1, 2022 2:06 pm

DTN has an article on the potential effects of the Ukraine War:


Wiki has some numbers on global food production:


The five largest wheat producers are India, China, the Former
Soviet Union, the EU, & the US (not necessarily in order). Canada,
Australia, & Argentina are also major exporters beside some of
the growers listed above. Most of China’s wheat (soft red winter
wheat) is used as animal feed.

Given the high cost of fertilizer, I’m expecting to see a lot more
soybeans & some soft red winter wheat grown instead of corn in the
Corn Belt. Before the war began, beans were rising relative to corn
as more of them would be used for bio-fuels & fertilizer costs were
already influencing the price. Once the war began, wheat spiked
several dollars which made it high relative to corn. Beans are
legumes so they make their own N2 & wheat uses 35%-40% of the
N2 needed for corn. (NOTES: Natural gas is used to make N2. The
biggest net income of these crops is first corn, then beans & then
wheat. Corn costs much more to grow than the other two so it’s
riskier to grow.)

The shift to spring wheat will probably be higher in ND, SD, & MN as
the growing season is shorter (frost risk) & the soil isn’t as good so
corn yields are less than further south.

Since fertilizer is high, farmers may reduce application rates on the
poorer ground & keep the rates up on better ground which has
higher yield potential. That will probably decrease the national
average yields.

Eventually between reallocating acreage & input costs settling down
things will get back to normal as farmers overproduce. Increasing
alternative fuels requirements will keep prices up which is probably
what Brandon will do to destroy the system. He’s good at that!!!

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 1, 2022 2:46 pm

Another factor I forgot is Russia & Ukraine produce half of
the world’s sunflowers & prices are at record highs. ND, SD,
& MN are the 3 highest producers so acreage will also shift
to them.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 1, 2022 6:48 pm

Exactly right. Climate addled liberals are diverting production from foodstuffs to absurd ethanol corn. The solution is obvious.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 1, 2022 8:20 pm

Australia has only 6% arable land. Guess where the wind, solar BESS backup and new transmission lines are going. Rhetorical question, they are going predominantly on prime agricultural land, and they’re downgrading the land if questions are raised.

Joao Martins
April 1, 2022 10:08 am

“[CO2] Emissions are at an All Time High”: UN Admits they are Losing


They are just regrouping.

Reply to  Joao Martins
April 1, 2022 10:22 am

Yes, the UN has formed a new High-Level Expert Group the members of which will fly to exotic locations to hold their meetings, staying in luxury hotels on full expense accounts.

Reply to  Joao Martins
April 1, 2022 3:19 pm

That is disproof #26 of the false CAGW hypothesis. End of phony CAGW crisis!
Told you so 20 years ago.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 1, 2022 11:08 pm

Evidence is irrelevant, the Agenda (21) must prevail, the manipulation & control of free-enterprise for the benefit of the ruling intellectual elitists & the manipulation & control of the peeps, they must retain their exclusivity at ALL costs, the Agenda must prevail!!!

April 1, 2022 10:11 am

The first thing the US could do is shutdown ethanol production and grow wheat instead of corn in those acres. At one time my home county in Northern was mostly wheat and barley now it corn. The corn highbreds allow corn to be grown in the counties short growing season. Even worse if I burn alcohol free fuel in my vehicle I increase my gas milage by over 10% and nearly 20%. Ethanol is a lose lose, no mater what the proponents say.

Richard M
Reply to  mal
April 1, 2022 1:28 pm

Due to high fertilizer costs the US is reducing corn planting and increasing soybeans.

Rod Evans
Reply to  mal
April 2, 2022 12:58 am

The ethanol mandate, increases the inefficiency of ICE engines which suits the Green advocates fine. The loss of food growing acres thereby increasing the risk of food shortages, also suits them fine. A high proportion of Greens have been convinced by WEF propaganda that there are, too many people in the world. A good famine is something the WEF advocate’s regard as ‘positive’?
It is a full on dystopian world they are creating.
Mandates, rules and laws, pushing Climate Alarmism policies, all introduced by ‘elected’ representatives of the people. That electoral procedure, is nothing but a veneer of propriety. Unfortunately, being elected clearly does not prevent undue unelected influence being advanced and then adopted by legislators. Bribery, corruption or plain old ‘lobbying’ is more powerful than the ballot box in modern politics. .
Lobbying is the acceptable collective word in Western politics, for bribery and corruption.
We are living in increasingly troubling and less democratic times.

Willem post
Reply to  mal
April 2, 2022 5:31 am

The corn produced on these poor, highly fertilized acres is unfit for human consumption.
Most of these acres were non productive, until the highly subsidized ethanol from corn program was started. It is a welfare program for farmers with marginal lands.

Reply to  Willem post
April 4, 2022 5:59 pm

It has to go to fuel because the greens demand that we de-cow the planet to save it – Stop Corn Fed Beef!

Ron Long
April 1, 2022 10:28 am

Wait a minute, UN, it looks like Europe is about to make a big step toward Net Zero. We should thank the Russians?

Rud Istvan
April 1, 2022 10:32 am

Ukraine grain is mainly wheat. Ukraine is 8th largest wheat grower and 6th largest exporter after Russia, Canada, and US. Comprises 8.5% of global wheat exports.
There will be a hunger problem in Ukraine for sure. Not so sure about the world.

Separately, the up to 10% ethanol blend wall is often misstated here. Even at max 10% (set by LA in summer) the mpg reduction is only about 3%. In return, more usable gasoline is produced from every barrel of crude because ethanol is an octane enhancer replacing former ground water polluting MBTE.

And the ethanol food impact is also often misstated. True, in US about 42% by dry weight (actually 7% by weight water) corn goes to ethanol production. But 27% by dry weight is returned as distillers grain, an ideal ruminant food supplement to alfalfa. On my dairy farm, that means we plant less alfalfa and more corn. All good.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2022 11:24 am

People are talking about a wheat shortage. So, you’d think Canadian farmers would change their planting decisions to take advantage of that. I haven’t heard a murmur about that. It’s like they aren’t expecting a shortage that would push up the price of wheat. What’s going on?

Matt Kiro
Reply to  commieBob
April 1, 2022 12:33 pm

I’d think most farmers have already decided what to grow this year. They have bought their seed and proper fertilizer and made preparations for when they need to do everything.
Next year might be different but that’s when most of the shortages will happen too with lack of next year’s fertilizer

Willem post
Reply to  Matt Kiro
April 2, 2022 5:37 am

The winter wheat was planted last year, will ripen in the spring, harvested early summer. Ukraine brouhaha started feb 24 this year

Reply to  Willem post
April 2, 2022 1:27 pm

Indeed. That’s why I referred to Canadian farmers. For instance, Saskatchewan grows almost no winter wheat. link

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2022 11:29 am

“All good”, but regardless of the virtues, it was a pork barrel, green biofuel initiative, republican best I remember, maybe not important. Remember gasohol, 10-23% ethanol. It also caused problems with small engines, maybe even from all the liquids used to supposedly cure the problem. A new Exxon just opened not too far away, advertised non-ethanol gasoline, even has a separate pump with warnings that it is not Exxon guaranteed. Only time I looked it was ~90 cents/gallon more expensive. I tease my engineer friends about they being the problem by being too good in solving problems which were(n’t?) a problem in the first place.

Jeffery P
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
April 1, 2022 12:00 pm

Around these here parts, only premium gas can be sold ethanol free.

Now that’s not completely accurate. Marine gas is ethanol free but it’s as expensive as premium on land. The marinas also sell premium marine gas and I don’t know how much more it is than regular marine gas.

I just wish the state would do away with the ethanol mandates and allow any gas, be it regular, premium or midrange to be sold as ethanol free.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2022 12:07 pm

Thank you Rud. Level headed and informative post.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2022 1:47 pm

The latest study on corn ethanol done at the U. Of Wisconsin (Tyler Lark) shows that the reduction of CO2 from burning ethanol takes decades to offset the CO2 pulse emitted by the land use changes needed for growing the additional corn. “Engineering Explained” has a nice video on YouTube explaining why corn ethanol is a mistake and other sources (like switchgrass) would be much better.

As an aside, the fuel gauge in my BMW motorcycle used to fail every 2 to 3 years costing $300. every time to have it replaced. BMW didn’t see these failures in many other countries – the failures turned out to be caused by the ethanol in US gasoline. BMW wouldn’t redesign the gauge (until they were forced to recall all the affected motorcycles).

Corn-based ethanol is, most definitely, NOT all good.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 1, 2022 2:05 pm

‘Separately, the up to 10% ethanol blend wall is often misstated here. Even at max 10% (set by LA in summer) the mpg reduction is only about 3%. In return, more usable gasoline is produced from every barrel of crude because ethanol is an octane enhancer replacing former ground water polluting MBTE.’

A few issues:

First, if EtOH is so benign and economic, why the mandate, and why not, say, just set a maximum limit of 10%, or whatever level is safe for engines, and allow the market to work?

Second, the EtOH volume to be blended isn’t set at some fixed percentage of the amount of gasoline the public actually demands, but rather by whatever volume of EtOH the EPA thinks should be blended.

And third, the regulatory obligation to comply with the mandate, in the form of ‘RIN’ tracking, falls on refiners, rather than the actual blenders. This means that refiners that lack distribution assets, and, therefore, are short the RINs they need to comply with the regulations, are perpetually ‘squeezed’ by the distributors who capture the RINs at the loading rack.

Gregory Woods
April 1, 2022 10:34 am

The solution is obvious.

Yes – stop eating…

Reply to  Gregory Woods
April 1, 2022 11:22 am

Another, and better, solution is to stop funding that group of unelected anti-growth, anti-capitalism, and anti-American bureaucrats called the United Nations.


Shoki Kaneda
April 1, 2022 10:39 am

Millions of people will have adequate food supplies because of increasing the precious, life-giving, beneficial trace gas, CO2.

April 1, 2022 10:52 am

Remember, when you are fighting climate change for 30 years and losing, its best to double down on your failed tactics.

The IPCC uses the wrong method when measuring CO2 in the atmosphere. They should only measure human CO2 emissions and not total emissions. As stated in their charter thats all they are concerned with anyway, so then the fight will look much better.

Reply to  Doonman
April 1, 2022 12:21 pm

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and human CO2 emissions are not the same thing. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is directly measured in air samples and human emissions are estimated from total global hydrocarbon combustion for energy, transport, industry plus cement production plus land use emissions (sometimes not counted).

April 1, 2022 11:13 am

High-Level Expert – Canada’s Climate Barbie. What say you, Canadians?

Full list of reprobates:

Expert Group List of Members and Biographies_PDF (un.org)

François Riverin
Reply to  Charlie
April 1, 2022 12:34 pm

We are done. It’s a green fanatic. And our government just release a diabolic plan to kill our oil industry.

Coeur de Lion
April 1, 2022 11:18 am

I’ve a nasty feeling that human emissions don’t really have much/any effect on global CO2 numbers.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
April 1, 2022 11:42 am

I’ve a good feeling that human emissions don’t really have much/any effect on global CO2 numbers 🙂

April 1, 2022 11:18 am

“All time high” seems totally at odds with the NASA and others claims of reduction in anthropogenic emissions due to COVID travel and transportation restrictions and the immense Western rise in fuel prices.
Aren’t those fertilizers produced from natural gas and petroleum?
Can it be that Northern Hemisphere Seasonal temperature changes cause a change in natural CO2 emissions, or can an appointed politician to a ceremonial position be totally unaware of reality? Could it be both?

Reply to  dk_
April 1, 2022 12:31 pm

It’s not at odds. The covid reduction in anthropogenic emissions was in 2020 (around 5-6% reduction annually). In 2021 emissions rebounded and are estimated to be slightly higher than before the ‘pandemic’.
comment image

Reply to  Edim
April 1, 2022 12:47 pm

Interestingly, there was no drop in China and India, only in US, EU and all others.
comment image

Willem post
Reply to  Edim
April 2, 2022 5:44 am

China and India, etc., are not mentally infected with global warming, so their CO2 emissions increase, whereas those who are infected, have decreasing CO2 emissions.
The more infection, the greater the decrease

Reply to  Edim
April 1, 2022 12:50 pm

Great, so all we need is another global disaster that affects all human kind to lower our emissions. Is that what the UN and the greenies are trying to do?

Reply to  Greg61
April 1, 2022 1:09 pm

UN and the greenies are only paying lip service and profiterring from the narrative.
I’m rooting for increasing human CO2 emissions to test the CO2GW hypothesis.

Reply to  Edim
April 1, 2022 2:17 pm

And yet even with a significant, well documented decrease in human caused emissions, the CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa did not register the slightest change in pattern. This should absolutely end all debate about the human impact of atmospheric CO2 levels. Unfortunately it is more like a religious belief than a scientific debate now.

Reply to  Mike
April 1, 2022 3:13 pm

First, I agree that the significant part of the change in atmospheric CO2 since our measurements began (~1960) is not caused by human emissions. How much exactly I don’t know. The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 follows the temperatures too closely and therefore the temperature itself or something affected by it must have some substantial influence on the CO2 rate of change.
comment image
On the other hand, I disagree that the covid drop in human emissions should be seen in the MLO CO2 record. As you can see in the above plots, the year-to-year variability in the CO2 rate of change is much bigger than the drop (~6%) caused by the ‘pandemic’.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Mike
April 2, 2022 6:40 am

The Mauna Loa data set is the constant proof that human input to the atmospheric CO2 level, is within the planets normal range of CO2 variation.
The seasonal CO2 change is roughly 10 PPM the human contribution to the annual CO2 rising trend, is considered to be between 2% and 4%. The uptrend is roughly 3 PPM/year so our contribution to that change in annual rise is around 0.01 PPM. I don’t consider that to be something to worry about. 🙂

Smart Rock
April 1, 2022 11:33 am

The UN’s new “expert” group to promote accelerated net-zero (as if China and India are listening) is being chaired by Catherine McKenna, formerly Environment Minister of Canada. She didn’t enjoy politics because people kept shouting insults at her in the street.

Any joy Canadians might feel on hearing that she’s going international and we won’t see so much of her at home, has to be tempered by the fact that our new Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is Steven Guilbeault. He’s a deep green, Greta-worshipping true believer, and the one behind the Trudeau government’s new, improved, damn-the-torpedos race to “net zero”, and unlike his predecessor, he’s not even photogenic.

Reply to  Smart Rock
April 1, 2022 12:00 pm

It appears that Steven Guilbeault is a very bad guy. He is not competent in speech or thought, so he may not develop the power needed to do true harm unless aligned with other evil doers.

It doesn’t take much time listening to him speak to see that he is not someone that can be trusted in any way at all.

Reply to  Smart Rock
April 1, 2022 12:51 pm

He’s an avowed communist. I suspect his environmentalism is simple a means to an end.

Reply to  Smart Rock
April 1, 2022 1:45 pm

What make Catherine McKenna a climate expert? I do not know of any scientific training or education.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
Reply to  Cam_S
April 1, 2022 5:30 pm

I think you just answered your question.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Cam_S
April 1, 2022 11:42 pm

She must be very old for having 80+ scientifiky degrees, as I understand that is the approximate number of different scientific degrees that go into studying the Earth’s climate, with each degree being 4 years long, allowing for a highly unlikely overlap of 3.5 years per degree, say 6 months additional study per degree, she could start working by her early 60s & retire within 5 years, great career span, shame engineering isn’t as easy as climate science!!!

April 1, 2022 12:02 pm

Wars are quite CO2 intensive. Just sayin,…

Steve Case
April 1, 2022 12:05 pm

 “the latest science shows that climate disruption is causing havoc in every region already.


CO2 is plant fertiliser. Even NASA admits the world has greened, thanks to anthropogenic CO2.

CO2 is way more than mere fertilizer, it is a necessary component of the photosynthetic process:

H20 + CO2 and Sunshine = Oxygen and simple sugar.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Steve Case
April 1, 2022 12:31 pm

It used to be an increase of 2 degrees Celsius was the threshold we couldn”r cross this century or we were doomed. The Alarmists conveniently dropped it down to 1.5 C when it became clear that the 2 C threshold would not be breeched this century. The measured temp is from the start of the industrial revolution, 1850, until now. The planet was coming out of the little ice age which lasted from the 1600’s to around 1850. Anyone with common sense would expect the planet to warm after the LIA. What the Alarmists can’t measure is how much of the increase in temp is due to a rebound from the LIA and how much is caused by man.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
April 1, 2022 1:09 pm


Alan the Brit
Reply to  Steve Case
April 1, 2022 11:44 pm

“H20 + CO2 and Sunshine = Oxygen and simple sugar.” = Life on Earth!!!

Steve Case
Reply to  Alan the Brit
April 5, 2022 5:46 am

Thanks for that, I’m adding it to my file of Quotes Factoids etc.

April 1, 2022 12:08 pm

The Climate Industrial Complex is growing again. I hope the refugees find shelter and the hungry find food.

April 1, 2022 12:17 pm

So what exactly happens at +1.51 degrees?

Reply to  Steve
April 1, 2022 12:29 pm

It means all the beach-side lots and luxury condos will be taken by the takers and their Swiss/Bahamas bank accounts.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Steve
April 1, 2022 1:29 pm

The world comes to an end. Pull the plug on human civilization and call it quits…/sarc

J. R.
Reply to  Steve
April 1, 2022 1:58 pm

A) The atmosphere bursts into flame, burning everything on Earth and giving alarmists a brief chance to say “I told you so.”

B) Nothing, giving skeptics endless opportunities to say “I told you so” and hopefully leading to the dissolution of the IPCC and all worldwide efforts to “save the planet” from global warming and climate change.

C) Nothing, giving skeptics endless opportunities to say “I told you so” but seeing alarmists change their story and continue being alarmists.

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  J. R.
April 1, 2022 6:33 pm

I would put my money on C.

Jeff Labute
April 1, 2022 12:39 pm

Woe come the day we run out of means to make CO2.

April 1, 2022 12:41 pm

Good that CO2 emissions keep increasing or at least remain at the high level (>~36 Gt/year without land use emissions). This will make a very good experiment to test how they effect atmospheric CO2, global temperature and other climatic indices (sea ice, sea level, glaciers…). I predict Arctic sea ice will turn around and start increasing first followed by other indices. Interesting times, the next few decades.

Bob Hunter
April 1, 2022 12:44 pm

btw Canada’s carbon tax increased today. Canada with 1.5% of world CO2 emissions. Minerals oils by a wide margin is Canada’s biggest net exporting industry. Fossil fuels have subsidized Canada’s health/social programs, capital projects & federal govt grants across the country for the last 60 yrs. BUT the CDN Prime Minister is shutting down Canada’s fossil fuel industries. AND it is not a coincidence 90% of CDN fossil fuels are on the CDN prairies with Trudeau’s base outside the prairies

Reply to  Bob Hunter
April 1, 2022 1:28 pm

Trudeau’s not alone.

Along with the majority of the Canadian population he is quite convinced we can change the clouds and fix the climate. And for this he will get the necessary votes to win the next election.

Go figure…our academic, media and corporate elites all share this irrational conviction and support the climate crisis narrative.

Base load to the grid is critical, too many share this appalling delusion we can drive our economy with weather dependent renewables.

What a mess…we need pipelines…now!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Bob Hunter
April 1, 2022 6:09 pm

Easily explained by the fact Justin is mentally retarded.

And those who voted for him?

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 2, 2022 12:34 pm

Sorry, I don’t believe people are retarded. But I believe people are self centered. People are quick to stand on false moral high ground if they are not personally affected. But their principles go out the window if their lifestyle will be adversely changed. The latest example. Europe still buying Russian Fossil Fuels.

April 1, 2022 12:45 pm

The reality is – the war in Ukraine was enabled by the green movement keeping Putin flush in oil money to fund what he mistakenly thought was an effective military. The UN and the green movement is responsible for more deaths from this war, plus the ensuing crisis in food soon to occur, than even their worst scenarios for climate change.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Greg61
April 1, 2022 1:12 pm

The war was enabled by Washington’s efforts to push NATO eastwards to the Russian border….

Reply to  Gregory Woods
April 1, 2022 8:47 pm

Now if they pushed them over the border you might have a case. The west is never going to invade Russia when they could just push their culture in with no casualties. It’s not clear if Putin is too stupid to realize that or just likes to play the West is going to invade card to keep control of Russian people. Whatever the case the ordinary Russians are going to pay the price.

Tom Abbott
April 1, 2022 12:53 pm

From the article: ““Despite growing pledges of climate action, global emissions are at an all-time high,” Mr. Guterres warned. And they continue to rise, he said, adding that “the latest science shows that climate disruption is causing havoc in every region already.”

There’s no evidence human-caused climate change is real or that it is causing havoc anywhere, much less in every region. Guterres is flat-out lying. This is what the alarmists are reduced to.

Guterres is fighting a losing battle. CO2 emissions will exceed the UN targets no matter what he does. It’s just a matter of time.

April 1, 2022 1:39 pm

“[CO2] Emissions are at an All Time High”
And yet CO2 in the atmosphere is unconcerned…

Paul B
April 1, 2022 1:59 pm

I’m about 500′ above sea level in Massachusetts. The way I look at it is that every foot rise of sea level knocks out another 100,000 commies. Can’t be bad.

April 1, 2022 2:06 pm

The UN and many western governments have their heads in the sand and cannot see that there is a much bigger problem than a very small increase in world temperature .
The problem that the UN and most western governments are ignoring is food production because of tight supplies of nitrogen fertilizer worldwide and the war in Ukraine .
The Haber Bosch method of producing nitrogen fertilizer using natural gas has been responsible for feeding the rapid global increase in world population .
Urea (46% nitrogen ) and other nitrogenous fertilizer are in very short supply around the world and world prices have increased 400% in the last 12 months .
Factor that into food production .
The Northern Hemisphere are planting now and with rationed fertilizer applications crop yields will be lower .
No one can predict what the outcome will be in the Ukraine ,whether some or no wheat will be planted .
It would not be much fun having your tractor shot up by a Russian fighter jet .
Ukraine supplies 7% of the worlds wheat exports which might not sound very much but if that amount was not available and the main exporting countries have lower yields due to tight fertilizer supplies flour will be in very short supply around the world .
The Haber Bosch process feeds millions around the world but many governments are restricting gas exploration and fracking to produce more gas and are relying on Russia and China to supply them with nitrogenous fertilizer .

Gordon A. Dressler
April 1, 2022 2:22 pm

To the UN, I would simple ask: What race to reduce global temperature rise?

Just four weeks ago, Christopher Monckton posted an article on WUWT with the title The Pause Lengthens Again: No Global Warming for 7 Years 5 Months
(see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/04/the-pause-lengthens-again-no-global-warming-for-7-years-5-months/ ). In this article, he referenced the best scientific measurements for determining global atmospheric temperatures, UAH data reduction from orbiting satellites, to show that lower troposphere average temperatures have been statistically flat for more than seven years. Moreover, Lord Monckton has this very apropos statement:
“The entire UAH record since December 1978 shows warming at 0.134 K decade–1, near-identical to the 0.138 K decade–1 since 1990, indicating very little of the acceleration that would occur if the ever-increasing global CO2 concentration and consequent anthropogenic forcing were exercising more than a small, harmless and net-beneficial effect.”

So, the UN admits that global atmospheric CO2 concentrations keep increasing year-after-year despite all their shouting to the world and their showcasing (CMIP-ing*, that is) how their twenty-five-plus, separate, multi-million dollar climate models don’t even reasonably agree with each other, let alone demonstrating in ensemble a history of failing to predict global warming just 5 years into the future.

To be as clear as I can about this: NONE of the IPCC-supported climate models predicted the 7+ year pause in global warming that Earth has been experiencing.

So, when the hard data says there has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming for more than 7 years despite those seven years of ever-increasing CO2 emissions from humans over that time, there is an obvious conclusion (even several) that can be reached . . . but, obviously, don’t expect such to be forthcoming from the UN/IPCC.

As to Mr. Guterres’s statement: “the latest science shows that climate disruption is causing havoc in every region already” . . . Pfffthhpt!

*If you want see how bad the IPCC-supported climate modeling has become, here is the link for you: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/11/climate-model-democracy/

April 1, 2022 2:24 pm

Assuming he serves two full terms Guterres will retire in 2027, three years before the end of the decade. So he will be well out of it when we get to the end of 2030 and the sky has not fallen in. He won’t be around to have to explain why the sky has not fallen in.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Alba
April 1, 2022 6:05 pm

Not to worry, no one will bother to ask him about it.
Bad form.

April 1, 2022 2:36 pm

Excess CO2 emissions are potentially such an advantage

When is more CO2 an excess? Plants thrived when CO2 was recorded in percent not ppm. Current level are little more than twice the survival level of most plant life.

Reply to  RickWill
April 1, 2022 6:51 pm

Plants have already evolved to use over 1000ppm CO2 in photosynthesis and are still able to do so today.

It’s not a secret. So there is no excess CO2 in the atmosphere in all of human existence, in fact it’s quite the opposite.

That’s why people who claim CO2 is a pollutant in the atmosphere are nuts. It simply isn’t the case. Let’s call it what it really is. Purposely limiting CO2 in the atmosphere is bio-racism.

Rud Istvan
April 1, 2022 2:45 pm

Separate comment concerning fertilizer and the Russian ‘exports freeze’ response to Western sanctions. Don’t think it is as big a deal as made out, after doing some basic research. Russian exports to ROW provide 23% of ammonia, 14% of urea (both N), 10% of phosphate (P), and 21% of potash (K). NPK is most fertilizer.
A dent, not a disaster.
And Russia’s two biggest NPK customers are Brazil and China (collectively about half of Russian exports), neither of whom has joined in Russian sanctions. So not even a big dent. Maybe a problem in EU, but not in Asia or US. More like an over-reaction to general inflation exacerbated by Russia specifically in NPK during the NH planting season about to begin.

April 1, 2022 2:50 pm

This is the order of wheat exporters for 2020:

  1. Russia: US$7.9 billion (17.6% of total wheat exports)
  2. United States: $6.32 billion (14.1%)
  3. Canada: $6.3 billion (14%)
  4. France: $4.5 billion (10.1%)
  5. Ukraine: $3.6 billion (8%)
  6. Australia: $2.7 billion (6%)
  7. Argentina: $2.12 billion (4.7%)
  8. Germany: $2.1 billion (4.7%)
  9. Kazakhstan: $1.1 billion (2.5%)
  10. Poland: $1 billion (2.3%)
  11. Romania: $948.8 million (2.1%)
  12. Lithuania: $910.7 million (2%)
  13. Bulgaria: $699.2 million (1.6%)
  14. Latvia: $649.2 million (1.4%)
  15. Hungary: $630.6 million (1.4%)

Who will be buying Russian wheat? Will Vlad demand payment in Roubles?

2020 was a poor year for Australian wheat. Australia is forecasting record wheat production and can certainly fill some of any gap that might eventuate.

Reply to  RickWill
April 1, 2022 8:56 pm

If it goes high enough Brazil could clear some more Amazon rain forest and make the greentards heads explode.

Martin Pinder
April 1, 2022 2:56 pm

I clicked the link to ‘UN News’ in the article. It’s all forecasts of doom & gloom, IN THE FUTURE (i.e. predicted by models) & not now, though they do have a go at trying to convince the reader that normal extreme weather in the present is being produced by ‘climate change’. Their evidence? ‘Scientists say’. What exactly DO the scientists really say?
You know I’m really glad they’re losing at convincing us we’re all going to die if we don’t accept their crap, though unfortunately this may be an indicator of a new & more sinister plan from them.

Chris Nisbet
April 1, 2022 3:11 pm

How much money has the world spent (wasted) so far on trying to reduce CO2 emissions, and how much (little) impact has all that money had on them? The graphs I’ve seen of CO2 levels would suggest that the impact to date is negligible.
More importantly (if we thought we were trying to fix the climate), how much impact has all that money had on the climate? Would we even be able to tell, or would we need a model to ‘show’ us (/s)? All I ever hear on NZ state propaganda TV is that we expect things to get (even) worse, so I guess that means our efforts to date have achieved little.

April 1, 2022 3:14 pm

These days, the UN is making the old League of Nations look like a highly relevant organisation.

John Shotsky
April 1, 2022 3:15 pm

So, what if all human CO2 emissions were stopped? Zero. Would the plants notice?
He said the carbon dioxide released by plants every year was now estimated to be about 10 to 11 times the emissions from human activities, rather than the previous estimate of five to eight times.”
Plants release more carbon dioxide into atmosphere than expected – ANU
Now that is just plants and human activities, not the myriad other sources.

Reply to  John Shotsky
April 1, 2022 7:01 pm

Termites emit more than 10 times the Co2 that humans do. This has been known for decades.

The 1982 observational study of global CO2 termite emissions is here. Science 05 Nov 1982: Vol. 218, Issue 4572, pp. 563-565 DOI: 10.1126/science.218.4572.563

John Shotsky
Reply to  Doonman
April 1, 2022 7:18 pm

I think that one has been walked back. Termites emit a lot of methane, but their CO2 contribution has since been deemed to be less than those 50 year old estimates stated. Or, they changed the rules to make human emissions look more significant. No way to tell.
But the fact remains that plants dwarf humans in CO2 emissions. So, if we emitted NONE, nothing would change.

April 1, 2022 5:09 pm

“The world has greened”

Only we denihilists could possibly think this is a good thing. The Green side of the debate is deeply anti-plant. Capnophobes are, after all, chlorophobes.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Brad Keyes
April 1, 2022 6:20 pm

Glad to see you back here. Hope all is well. Greetings from up over to down under. Alinsky rule 7: ridicule rules. Go for it.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Brad Keyes
April 1, 2022 8:44 pm

Thank goodness you are back

April 1, 2022 6:20 pm

And there is still no effect on climate as we are now at the 30 year average temperature!!!

Here is one line of evidence that man’s CO2 has no effect on climate:
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warn period  
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.               
Then 1000 years later, came our current warm period. You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.

The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and ALL claims of unusual climate are based on claims of excess warmth caused by man’s CO2.


Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  JimK
April 1, 2022 7:15 pm

I think I have to disagree.

There is a straightforward reason for at least the Egyptian warming that you mentioned. I have it on good rumor that there are hidden, as-yet-undiscovered chambers inside all the major Egyptian pyramids, that in turn house Khufu-brand SUVs.

It is believed these, plus tankers of gasoline, were given to all the high nobility of ancient Egypt by extraterrestrials that visited Earth back then. It was considered high blasphemy at the time, punishable by death, to make any records of the nobility driving around in those “iron-chariots-not-needing-horses” (I apologize for not remembering the Hieratic-Demotic spoken phrase of this translation), hence there are no scrolls or tablets documenting such.

But trust me . . . it happened. After all, what else do you think was used to tow all those massive stone blocks into place in order build the pyramids in the first place???

I suspect, but cannot prove, that something similar happened predating the peak of Minoan civilization. And, of course, the Roman period was famous for having all those pitch-burning torches that were used for indoor and outdoor lighting, so they produced massive amounts of CO2 without me having to argue that they also used cars or SUVs, which is not supportable by historical records.

And my apologies, right now I cannot speak with authority about the ancient Aztec, Maya, Teotihuacan and Toltec civilizations that built pyramids throughout Mesoamerica, but there are good reasons to believe they had similar “ancient auto” assistance from ETs. After all, the paleoclimatology data dating back to these times shows the simultaneous increases in both CO2 and lower troposphere temperatures were a worldwide phenomena.

I should have a peer-reviewed paper describing all the evidence for the above coming out very soon, and it will neatly tie all of this together in a grand unified theory.

Have a good 040122!

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2022 7:06 pm

Exactly! And how do you think they moved those massive blocks to build the pyramids? Slaves? Yeah, right! We can’t even replicate it today. And as for raising the monolithic obelisks without them cracking due to bending moments, forget it.
Clearly, they passed that carbon-based high tech onto the Mesoamericans as well.

Reply to  JimK
April 3, 2022 1:49 pm

You are right on the money JimK.
I have challenged the believers of man made climate change to explain these former warming’s We have organized public debates with scientists on both sides about mans role in global warming .
The believers cannot answer the question of what caused these historical warmings and now refuse to attend any debates as they claim that the science is settled .
No one has explained these former warm periods and what caused the little ice age .
They cannot explain the missing tropical hotspot which has never been found but the hot spot is integral to the theory of man made global warming .

April 1, 2022 7:08 pm

“the latest science shows that climate disruption is causing havoc in every region already.

Hmm. I look and I look but I don’t find any havoc in my region. What am I missing??

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Mike
April 1, 2022 7:25 pm

. . . Did you look under the rug in your bedroom?

Reply to  Mike
April 1, 2022 8:58 pm

You need special greentard glasses … ask Ghal or Griff if you can borrow them.

April 1, 2022 7:26 pm

It’s time for the green zealots to face reality. Net Zero just isn’t going to happen by 2050, or even 2100 for that matter. Solar panels and wind turbines simply can’t make and store enough energy to power the earth, and the earth’s population isn’t going to give up being comfortable. That’s simply the way it is.

So what should they do? Note that I said ‘they’ not ‘we’. I plan to oppose any spending on worthless plans. Even if global warming and sea level rise continue at the current pace, I don’t believe it will be catastrophic, and likely will improve the lives of most of the world’s population. I note that Two of the greatest CAGW worriers, Obama and Gates, still own their ocean front mansions.

So, what should the rest of the CAGW worriers do?

  1. Stop wasting their money on modelling, forecasting, carbon sequestration and “Net Zero.”
  2. Invest more heavily in research on scalable nuclear electricity production, both fission and fusion.
  3. continue BASIC research in batteries, hydrogen, and carbon-to-liquid fuel conversion.
  4. Build dikes. The Dutch figured out to do that centuries ago.
  5. Buy vacation property in Manitoba, and ocean front property on Hudson Bay, but also buy enough bear spray.
April 2, 2022 12:35 am

Wait a moment. ‘Anthropogenic’ CO2 increasing? After so much of the world has been prevented from travelling during the SARS/COV-2 pandemic? Made to stay in their homes, not drive their vehicles so much over the last two years?

That makes sense. Not.

Verified by MonsterInsights