For those who have been living on Mars during the last few years, COPs, officially titled Conference of the Parties, are the annual UN-run climate jamborees, intended to forge global agreements to fight climate change. Since the first was held in 1995 in Berlin, the world’s emissions of CO2 have steadily grown by 60%, despite a small reduction in richer countries.
You might therefore have thought that the UN would have taken the hint by now and stopped having COPs. But then the great and the good would not have an opportunity to show the rest of us how important they are, as they fly in on their private jets.
As is the norm, COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan did not actually address the issue of cutting emissions. It was agreed long ago that developing countries would be under no obligation whatsoever to make any such cuts. Strangely, countries like China, India and the Middle East oil states are all still classified as “developing”, and they have long made it clear they have no intention of following the lemmings over the cliff.
Instead, COP29 was all about the money. For years, poorer countries have been demanding more money to “fight climate change” and “reduce emissions”. Their latest demand is for $1.3 trillion a year.
Currently, the West hands over around $100 billion, but most of this is in the form of repayable loans, which isn’t very attractive to poor African countries who think the money should just be given to them, no strings attached.
In Baku, the richer countries upped their offer to $300 billion a year, but not before a number of poor nations walked out of the conference in disgust. Eventually, developing countries agreed to take the offer, no doubt worried they might not get a penny if they didn’t.
However, the agreement was widely slammed by both environmental charities and many poorer nations. This is all academic, because the recipients of the West’s largesse are unlikely to see much of that $300 billion, particularly if Trump pulls the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
To put the money into perspective, if £300 billion is averaged out according to GDP, without the U.S. contribution, the U.K. would end up paying $36 billion a year, which is nearly three times the overseas aid budget. Even Rachel from Accounts would have difficulty magicking this out of thin air!
Needless to say, developing countries will not be obliged to cut emissions in return for their Danegeld. Back in the heady days of 2009, the naive Barack Obama believed that throwing dollar bills around would magically lower the world’s emissions. We now know the reality!
Nor is there any obligation for China, India, or the Middle Eastern oil states, all still classified as “developing”, to cough up a penny.
And more fundamentally, COP29 never even addressed the issue of emission reductions. No new pledges were made, no NDCs updated. Not even a timetable for discussing them in future.
Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the Conference was the first day agreement on carbon markets.
As the BBC explained, a poor country with lots of trees can sell carbon credits to richer nations, so they can continue to burn fossil fuels.
Apparently, carbon emissions are alright, so long as you pay a penance!
It is time to dump these annual jamborees. Western countries need to make it clear that they will not make any further emission cuts until the rest of the world starts doing so as well.
And they also need to refuse to give in to any further blackmail.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The only anti lockdown candidate standing that I am aware of is Laurence Fox and he will lose his deposit
He won’t if people vote for him. I know this is controversial to some but what have you to lose? A Labour or Conservative MP will have exactly the same pro-WEF, pro-Climate change, pro 15 minute cities, pro-lockdown policies, so why not vote for someone else?
Exactly.
Oh I totally agree
Just find it immensely sad and frustrating that support for mainstream parties on both sides of the political spectrum remains so high despite their obvious disregard for the support base they pretend to represent
The implication of the article is that support for the ULEZ will damage them at the expense of the Tories. While this may be true, I don’t see it as an especially good thing. Journalists from the political right need to come and and tell people they shouldn’t vote Conservative
As will the Lib Dems and Greens were they to win.
Exactly. There is nothing to gain whatsoever by voting for establishment parties- quite the reverse those voting for establishment parties are delusional fools who encourage the scoundrels to double down on their evil agendas.
UKIP wanted to talk about a strategy for all centre right challengers to come together but Reclaim and Reform UK are so far up their own backsides they refused to engage.
Aren’t all political parties a fair way up their own backsides? I’m suspicious of any party that didn’t firmly oppose lockdowns and fake vaccines from the start.
I think that Piers Corbyn is standing too….
I don’t know much about what his economic policies would be, but he was a star during covid.
He’s continuing to be a star in speaking out about the agenda – has a raft of unpaid ULEZ fines which he continues to refuse to pay.
Good to hear. I think I’d vote for him just for that.
You still think a by-election matters? Where have you been for the last three years? The entire political class of the Western world is moving in lockstep and gets its orders not from the party or the people but from the WEF at Davos.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy FACT.
MP’s don’t need orders, just a keen sense of self-preservation, some proclivities that make them suggestible, or an ideological mindset that aligns with Other Interests. Less likely to generate incriminating documentation.
Then why do they go to Davos and why can’t you know what they are talking about with the global elite? Why is every major political party rep in every country saying they same things? I grew up wathing the politics of the 1970s, MPs had al the things you stated but completely differing views of even members of their own parties. Now you could most MPs in any rosette and they’d be fine with party policy.
Wake up my friend, time is getting short.
It was an observation that we’d be lucky to find any document making this explicitly clear. People can easily prove to themselves whether their MP will represent them. I have and he doesn’t.
Why is a candidate considered mofe favourably because they are/were:
born in Hillingdon Hospital
educated at a local comprehensive
raised by a single-mother
in South Ruislip and Ruislip Manor
the first person in his family to go to university
a former charity worker
I can think of several much more important qualities in a candidate.
As a comprehensive schooled pupil myself I would think that (and several other of those traits) would make them less suited in fact.
“A policy that was introduced to create cleaner air in the city centre”
No, it wasn’t. It was introduced to force the closure of shops, convert them to housing and create a 15 minute neighbourhood in which there would be few or zero cars. Read “Absolute Zero” by UK FIRES, page 5, for further details.
https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/
Correct.
Absolutely, Allmouth.
Air “pollution” is at all-time record LOW levels. So the premise for this scheme is weapons grade bolix.
But we have “Conservatives” who conserve nothing, “Labour” who don’t care a fiddler’s fart about working people and “Liberal Democrats” who are absolutely illiberal and actively anti-democratic. Ony Gang”Green” stand out as having an appropriate name – albeit most of their policies are actually environmentally damaging.
Vote for ANYONE other than the LibLabCon artists. Or spoil the ballot.
A more emphatic response to the whole charade would be the best choice, but won’t happen.
Down with the Tories… but hold on, no… down with Labour even more! Let’s side with the underdogs… Vote REFORM!!! Oh, shucks, they’re pro-vaccination, where are we going to go from here? C’mon Nige, we need you to form another party, or Richard Tice to form a coalition with the Conservative party, yes that would be nice. But we’ve got to get rid of that pro-vax dogma somehow. You gotta be anti-lockdown, you gotta be pro-choice, you gotta be pro-personal freedom. Perhaps, just perchance, Westminster politics isn’t the best arena to satisfy all the above criteria. Maybe the punks of the 1960s were right all along, and maybe the hippies and beatniks to boot. It doesn’t matter which way you vote, you get the same greenwashed slime either way. I suspect Joseph Goebbels is turning in his grave as we speak, smugly and posthumously acknowledging the current establishment’s inability to match up to the best of 1940’s National Socialist Propagandists.
The woke, greenwashed left, as satirized and caricatured by Kier “What Is A Woman?” Starmer, was always doomed to face such a dilemma as this, as it has unthinkingly placed itself between a “rock” (the ULEZ scheme, part of the unchallenged Net Zero Sense agenda) and a “hard place” (the Labour Party’s supposed allegiance to those whom it represents – the struggling working class majority).
I’m not sure there is a shovel, nay, a JCB digger, large and powerful enough for Mr Starmer to dig himself out of the chasm he has dug himself by not challenging the ruling party and the prevailing agenda over the past three years.
The “Green Agenda”—- Central planning with the planet as the excuse.———– You can be sure that the fence sitter in chief (Starmer) who waits to see which way the wind is blowing before deciding if men are women or if children are foxes will squirm like the social justice pretend to save the planet parasite he is on this issue as on all others. ——-Starmer needs to be viewed through a microscope like all other parasites in the hope we can one day find a cure.
Dangerous Men