According to UN Special Rapporteur on climate change Elisa Morgera, “Some states are not acting in good faith” on climate change.
World’s climate fight needs fundamental reform, UN expert says: ‘Some states are not acting in good faith’
Special rapporteur Elisa Morgera criticizes ‘ineffective’ status quo and says focus must be on ‘deep, systemic inequalities’
Nina Lakhani, climate justice reporterTue 7 Jan 2025 22.00 AEDT
Special rapporteur Elisa Morgera criticizes ‘ineffective’ status quo and says focus must be on ‘deep, systemic inequalities’
The international effort to avert climate catastrophe has become mired by misinformation and bad faith actors, and must be fundamentally reformed, according to a leading UN climate expert.
…
“The current climate regime was built in a way, maybe unconsciously, that locked in an ineffective approach that is blind to the disproportionate harms of climate change – and increasingly climate solutions – and the disproportionate benefits that the current situation is accruing to very few states and very few individuals,” said Morgera, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.
“We can observe that some states are not acting in good faith in very clear ways, which is the basis of any international regime. There is widespread disregard for the rule of international law, and also a very clear pushback on the science, and shrinking of civil spaces at all levels. Basically, the truth is out of the conversation. That is the problem – there is no space at Cop for the truth,” said Morgera.
“Fundamental reform is possible, if there is a willingness by the states and the secretariat, but it’s hard to see that at the moment.”
…
She said: “The dominating assumption in the current process assumes that mass behavioral change is the solution, that this is as much a consumer issue as a production issue – which is a misrepresentation of the causes and the solutions. We’re still not looking at deep, systemic inequalities as the root causes, while also entrenching inequities and worsening negative human rights impacts of climate change – and climate solutions.”
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2025/jan/07/climate-change-reform-elisa-morgera
…
I think Elisa probably wants to help, but she’s going to have to practice her communication skills to get any traction.
When I first tried to read this article last night, very little of what Elisa said made sense. So I decided to try to clarify that last paragraph “The dominating assumption…” by translating it into Welsh :-
Mae’r dybiaeth amlycaf yn y broses bresennol yn rhagdybio mai newid ymddygiad torfol yw’r ateb, bod hwn yn gymaint o broblem defnyddwyr â mater cynhyrchu – sef camliwio’r achosion a’r atebion. Nid ydym yn dal i edrych ar anghydraddoldebau systemig dwfn fel yr achosion sylfaenol, tra hefyd yn ymwreiddio anghydraddoldebau ac yn gwaethygu effeithiau negyddol newid hinsawdd ar hawliau dynol – ac atebion hinsawdd.
Then I translated it back to English :-
The most obvious assumption in the current process assumes that mass behavior change is the answer, that this is as much a consumer problem as a production issue – which is to misrepresent the causes and the solutions. We are still not looking at deep systemic inequalities as the root causes, while also entrenching inequalities and exacerbating the negative impacts of climate change on human rights – and climate solutions.
The double translated paragraph is definitely more readable – now we know the correct translation for the UN Gobbledegook word “dominating” is “most obvious”.
If you are wondering why I tried Welsh, I’m not picking on the Welsh. I lived in Wales once, fond memories – people were kind to the Aussie. I tried a few other languages but Welsh worked the best. Welsh is clearly a language which goes straight to the heart of the matter being discussed.
The whole article is worth a read, a bit like doing a cryptic crossword puzzle – though I recommend tackling it after a good sleep and a strong coffee. Remember, if any of the academic UN word salad gets too challenging, you can always try translating it into Welsh.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“mired by misinformation and bad faith actors”
Look in the mirror, dearie……. You will see the UN staring right back at you.
Rug up walk or cycle and turn off the heat pump to save the planet-
Face mask mandates make a comeback in US amid fears of quad-demic
I don’t see a problem with wearing masks around people with infectious respiratory diseases, and especially making them wear masks.
Heck, people might even consider washing their hands occasionally, too!
The common cold is an infectious (contagious) respiratory disease (virus) but I wouldn’t bother masking up for one, especially when coughing up phlegm or sneezing with a runny nose. Kleenex is a far better choice.
Enjoy contagion!
Yes, that is why we are still here on our virus dominated planet..
Engagement is the only method we have of handling the constantly changing rearmament strategy, the planet’s dominant virus organisms use, to try to remove us.
It is also strange and we have to accept, There are more none human cells living in us and on us than there are our own human cells!
Basically humans are simply mobile carriers of none human organisms.
The next time you see an attractive walking transporter, the chance of love at first sight is baked into the virus DNA he/she is carrying… 🙂
Rod Evans wrote, “It is also strange and we have to accept, There are more none [sic] human cells living in us and on us than there are our own human cells!
I don’t think that is true.
The adult human body is estimated to contain about 30 trillion (3×1013) human cells, with the number varying between 20 and 100 trillion depending on factors such as sex, age, and weight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_cell_types
Show us your source for the number of non-human cells living in us and on us.
Maybe that old movie about “pod people”? 😎
If you took all biota living on or in a single human body and enlarged them to human size, the miniscule of a single body would overpopulate the world.
“If you took all the cells that make up a human body and enlarged them to human size, the miniscule (I think you meant the “miniscule biota”) of a single body would overpopulate the world.”
An interesting idea but I’d like to see some numbers. Oh! here are some …
The number of bacterial cells in the human body is estimated to be around 38 trillion, while the estimate for human cells is around 30 trillion.
The current world population is estimated to have exceeded eight billion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
So current global population of Human Biota is about 400 billion-trillion
Enjoy meaningless platitudes!
You have 2 choices when dealing with slowly mutating infectious respiratory diseases,
“3.” Get an annual flu shot.
Certainly does more than an annual Covid shot
Dr Fauci has had every Covid shot/variant booster and has still had Covid 3 times
I’ve had the flu shot every year for 20+ years and had the flu once in that time.
Flu shots work
Covid vaccines fail
I didn’t get a flu shot for about 50 years and only had flu once.
I used to get the flu shot..
Then I got a whopper of a bad influenza infection that just happened to NOT be one of the strains included that year’s vaccine.
Since the flu shot failed to protect me during a virulent influenza year, I don’t believe in their forecasting what strains might be shared a year from their prediction.
Plus, the various pharma companies want to replace the tedious to prepare traditional flu shot from whatever they infect nowadays with their chopped mRNA vaccines.
I don’t trust them.
Does the vaccine protect against current COVID-19 variants?
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-does-it-mean-that-the-coronavirus-is-mutating
No vaccine is perfect. Some are less perfect than others. Some are more perfect.
What do they consider “protection”?
The Pfizer people are making a lot of money off the vaccine and can travel to exotic locales for extended vacations and are less likely to get COVID-19.
“the KP.2 vaccines were produced, the COVID-19 vaccine still offers protection”
Not only has that been disproven, Fauci, Birx and pharma executives have admitted that it is a false assumption.
Instead, they did prove that the more boosters people received, the greater their chances to catch COVID.
Masks do not stop virusses most of which come in aerosols. They have a better chance w bacteria which are bigger. That is why they use surgical masks.
It also gives a false sense of security by thinking people are protected or not being harmful. Thing is, inhaling and exhaling the same air for a period of time negates that. Therefor, ventilation is the key. Masks will cause more harm than do good..
I had no idea that anti-maskers were a thing. Ho hum.
I still prefer not to breathe air around people who are spreading airborne viruses around, coughing and sneezing. I prefer it if they wear masks, and wash hands.
You do you.
None of the masks people are wearing were designed to prevent the spread of viruses. They were designed to prevent spit from speaking from getting into open wounds during surgery.
Do the masks you wear have any gaps at all? Do you have a beard? even less effective.
“I don’t see a problem with wearing masks around people with infectious respiratory diseases, and especially making them wear masks.”
and
“You do you.”
from the same writer. Pick a side ZZW.
You misquoted.
“You do you.” was ZZW January 8, 2025 2:09 am
“I don’t see a problem with wearing masks around people with infectious respiratory diseases, and especially making them wear masks.” was ZZW January 7, 2025 7:38 pm
I checked 1st with ctrl-F
We knew all that before the Covid-19 debacle … but our glorious leaders & the morons they put in charge ignored the virologists & killed millions more than would have occurred naturally.
Nonsense.
The function of the surgical mask is to prevent spittle, phlegm or droplets from infecting the patient.
Protecting the doctor was never the reason. Nor is the mask supposed to filter out particulate matter, instead it is not supposed to inhibit free breathing.
The top masks are N95 level of protection.
That rating comes from the mask capturing particulate matter larger than 2 microns, that is comprised of mostly 10 micron and larger particulates.
N95 masks were designed for wood and metal workers and the particles spread by their cutters, grinders and sanders.
The 95 represent capturing 95% by weight of particulate matter larger than 2.5 microns. Masks able to catch smaller particulate matter greatly inhibit breathing.
PM2.6 micron and smaller particulates easily pass through the N95 masks, unless they are already clogged.
COVID-19 viruses measure out at 0.3 microns.
An apt comparison is that N95 masks stopping viruses is akin to spreading chicken fence to block mosquitos.
3M makes the N95 masks and one can find most of this information on their site.
N.B. One should keep in mind that the Biden Administration forced 3M to change their descriptions to hide the most damning information.
3M used to have graphs and PM counts listed.
Surgical/medical masks do not/cannot prevent transmission of airborne, viral aerosols. They are not designed to do so and those sold to the public say so on the labelling (at least they do in the UK) – the usual don’t sue us measure, because we told you.
And since masks collect bacteria such as strep and staph (present in the airways of about 80% of the population) and provide a lovely, warm, moist incubator for breeding purposes, masks are a dangerous source of cross-infection.
Again, wearing a mask to stop the minute disease particles is like trying to stop mosquitoes with chicken wire.
Almost all the players have other agendas than “climate change”, if one buys into the GHGs are the thermostat IPCC orthodoxy. Much of Europe is more into “renewable energy” than actually reducing GHGs, given the antinuclear movement. India and China are probably snickering at the silly fanatics, and doing what they were going to do anyway.
China will have likely generated 35% of global emissions in 2024 and India, which was at 6.5% in 2022 increasing to 7.6% in 2023, could top 8.5% for 2024 and might be closer to 10% than 7.6%.
The 5 countries that create the Acronym BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, S. Africa) are wholly responsible for >50% of total global emissions in 2024
If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshite.
Talk for hours and say nothing. If you want to climb the ladder, you have to be good at it. That’s why they need thousands of pages for new laws so they can hide what is really important behind a unreadable wall of words.
Sounds like the perfect Manntra.(sic)
According to Wikipedia every program in which she has engaged has turned to dross. UN Raporteur would seem to be her niche – word salads are important in the UN.
That’s how you get to the top in the UN.
What makes her a “Special Rapporteur” Aren’t regular reporters good enough for the UN?
Why did I read it as “racketeer” ?
She’s probably more of a “raconteur”.
Her witty repartee?
A Rapporteur must have a witty repartee!
Most likely the fetid rank of her redolence.
Something required by the UN anyway
She gets to her job by riding the “Special Bus”?
I could not agree more. Just not in the way they mean….
And
At last! Someone has figured it out!
I could keep on. It’s all a parody of itself, and perfectly correct if you only view it from a position of sanity where ‘Climate Solutions’ ™ are adversely impacting poor people all over the world, whatever their supposed ethnicity, gender or whatever. Even trans prostitutes in Thailand are negatively affected!
The only “climate solution” is to admit that there’s no climate problem.
The main issue there however: That doesn’t bring in any money…
Let ‘s clarify: it does not bring any money in the pockets of climate change crooks who advocate unproductive labor. Otherwise, it does bring more money by switching human activities to productive labor.
The UN special rapporteur on climate change ought to read chapter 11 of her employer’s IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2022) where observed trends in extremes like heavy precipitation, floods, droughts and extreme storms are ‘not statistically significant’ or there is ‘insufficient data’ or ‘low confidence’ or ‘more intense’ in some locations but ‘less frequent less intense or shorter’ in others and mostly post-1950 only.
Then to determine attribution ‘an observed change is attributed to a specific causal factor (CO2) if the observations can be shown to be consistent with results from a process-based model that includes the causal factor (CO2) in question and inconsistent with an alternate otherwise identical model that excludes this factor’ in other words they compare their low confidence observations with an entirely invented counterfactual without the assumed causal factor (CO2) and hey presto: 100% human causation, aka circular reasoning.
Unverified, unvalidated “process-basedmodel”.
Ah.. those silly anti-science attribution studies, where the put a pair of unvalidated, conjecture-ridden, fake models against each other…
… and pretend it means something. !
Just dumb !!
Endless intellectual wanking.
” one of the most resilient people in the world“Say who?
What climate change.
I think I have a glass of wine, go to bed, and hope this is clarified by morning.
Apparently the UN is calling their Special Rapporteur” a climate expert?? A Rapporteur is a journalist, a reporter hired to report what they are told to report. Where is the expertise other than in writing word salads?
the disproportionate benefits that the current situation is accruing to very few states and very few individuals,”
…
We can observe that some states are not acting in good faith in very clear ways, which is the basis of any international regime.
Hey, Special Rapporteur, didn’t they tell you – you can’t talk about China and India like that!
“some states”… never named
“…which is the basis of any international regime.”
Who made the UN a “regime”?
Who wants the UN to be a “regime”?
Who wants an international ruling body?
The UN was supposed to be a place for sovereign nations to talk to each before they fight each other.
When national leaders make verbal commitments to move towards net zero, many commentators think that this means we are making progress. Often the only evidence of progress is the statements themselves.
Not everyone is convinced that we need to be alarmed about CO2 emissions and that is a topic for another note. This note is about the difference between the alarm that is expressed and the actions, or lack of actions, that follow.
In contrast, Australia has tried to do the right thing We should get some credit for doubling or tripling the price of power, trashing the property rights of farmers, bringing the grid to the point of collapse and funding a myriad of new government and quasi-government agencies dedicated to the task of increasing the cost of doing business.
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/renewables/21-14-the-false-claims-about-net-zero-progress-overseas
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/list-of-briefing-notes
Thanks for the post. I have to say the paragraph you translated made more sense to me in Welsh than in English – and I don’t know Welsh.
If you really want a frank cleanup of the gobbledygook, try Dutch. Just saying.
Based on your last name, I think you may be biased. 😉
do it twice.. you end up with double-dutch ! 🙂
When I was at school this sentence
“The dominating assumption in the current process assumes that”
Would not have been accepted because of the double use of assume. I would have had to write it like this
The dominating conclusion in the current process guesses that
Rapporteur? Is that French for Rapper?
What do you expect from these people? Answer: the call for a form of green Fascism, covered up in ‘nice’ words.
Obviously the solution to the UN’s hopeless ability to understand reality and the incapability of its ‘reporting ‘staff (special or otherwise) to convey facts to the wider public is, only put out communications in Welsh.
In fact we could go a stage further.
The UN could be moved to its natural Welsh speaking homeland for easy access to communication staff. That would be somewhere in Patagonia Argentina Chubut Province. There they would find plenty of willing reporters who would also welcome the employment opportunities.
The other plus would be the release of valuable real estate in NY and the lower cost of setting the UN up somewhere it can do some good….
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/welsh-language-in-patagonia-and-wales#:~:text=Y%20Wladfa%20is%20a%20unique,my%20life%20has%20developed%20trilingually.
Another person whose livelihood depends on making sure the climate warming scam continues. There is one solution: cancel all government funds to climate alarmist organisations and so-called climate research institutions, and let free market economy do the rest. Cutting
funding for the UN’s power and money craving people would be the next best thing to do.
Well, maybe to all “climate science” institutions, but some research into climate is possibly beneficial, given the politics and money laundering are removed.
Understanding how this chaotic, coupled, thermal energy engine works could be useful.
I wonder when market pressure to get decent 10-day forecasts will drive the programmers of the weather ap on my iphone to surpass “climate science” institutions.
Has it already happened?
Back in 1850, yes, and every day since then. Well, weathermen pre-PC.
“… that this is as much a consumer issue as a production issue – which is a misrepresentation of the causes and the solutions.”
If the consumer ain’t buying it, you don’t have a business, pseudo-psychological drivel won’t change that.
Who knew ‘Rapporteur’ began with a ‘C’?
From the article: “Nina Lakhani, climate justice reporter
Tue 7 Jan 2025 22.00 AEDT
Special rapporteur Elisa Morgera criticizes ‘ineffective’ status quo and says focus must be on ‘deep, systemic inequalities’
The international effort to avert climate catastrophe has become mired by misinformation and bad faith actors, and must be fundamentally reformed, according to a leading UN climate expert.”
There’s that word “catastrophe” (CAGW) again.
What’s a “climate justice” reporter?
“‘deep, systemic inequalities’”. I can see Elisa is “ate up with it”.
I can see K.H. envy playing in.
Who is one of the most resilient population?
Curious minds want to know.
If they are so resilient, why can’t they cope?
Curious minds want to know.