C02 emissions spike after after every C02 party like COP28

[Thiel]

The ministers from 196 countries, their entourages of staff, UN bureaucrats, and corporate executives flew to Dubai in private jets and on first-class tickets. They stayed in 5-star hotels, ate beef in the finest restaurants, and were chauffeured in expensive C02 belching luxury limousines to and from the talkfest at taxpayers' expense. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be wasted on this extravagant display of corrupt excess. And don't forget their massive greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. Never forget that.

[Thiel]

The COPs have been a total failure as the rate of greenhouse gas emissions continuously increases. The international agreements are worthless as the targets are not being met.

They are a giant ostentatious virtue-signalling waste of C02 emissions and taxpayer money.

[Thiel]

The total emissions from COP26 in Glasgow was estimated at 102,500 tonnes. That figure does not include the emissions of flights related to companies, observers,and activists. King Charles massive carbon footprint at COP 28 will not be counted.

About 60% of the summit emissions are estimated to have come from international flights, while other large contributors included accommodations for delegates and participants, policing and security for the event, transportation to and from venues, and local energy, water, and waste management.

[Thiel]

At COP27, around 315 private jet journeys took place.

[Thiel]

We don't have the final C02 emissions tally for COP 28, but we know it will be the biggest carbon emitting event ever. And its tallied carbon footprint will not include the emissions of flights related to companies, observers, activists, and others participating in the climate fair-like space known as the "green zone."

It is little wonder countries never abide by these agreements. They have no credibility by attending them in the first place.

[Herman]

The ministers from 196 countries, their entourages of staff, UN bureaucrats, and corporate executives flew to Dubai in private jets and on first-class tickets. They stayed in 5-star hotels, ate beef in the finest restaurants, and were chauffeured in expensive C02 belching luxury limousines to and from the talkfest at taxpayers' expense. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be wasted on this extravagant display of corrupt excess. And don't forget their massive greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. Never forget that.

Yep, it's all bullshit. Any agreement they reach aint legally binding. China, India, and other developing countries ignore it while goofy countries like Canada pretend the world will burn in less than ten years if we don't reach our targets come hell or high water.

[Herman]

Justine and Steven Guilbeault went to Dubai in private jets promising to slit Canadians throats.

https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/business-leaders-blast-ottawas-unnecessary-and-unacceptable-oil-and-gas-emissions-cap/?fbclid=IwAR1OPTMXCWN3EX6u-awgwYjraR6OB9VMqEFTDGo7-87A7N-S2y1ZcjfjZA4
On the world's current trajectory, oil and gas will still account for 46 per cent of world energy needs in 2050, down only moderately from 51 per cent in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency. 

Industry leaders argue that Canada's oil and gas producers are already on the path to net zero emissions without the need for the cap.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada's latest report to the United Nations, emissions from so-called "conventional" (non-oil sands) production declined to 26 megatonnes in 2021, from 34 megatonnes in 2019.     

Producers in Alberta have already reduced total methane emissions by 45 per cent compared to 2014, hitting the target three years ahead of schedule. 

Oil sands emissions did not increase last year despite production growth, and total emissions are expected to start going down before 2025, according to S&P Global. 

"Imposing an emissions cap on Canada's oil and gas producers, who are already achieving significant emissions reductions as shown in the federal government's own data, is unnecessary and unacceptable," the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada said in a statement. 

A cap on Indigenous opportunity

The Indigenous Resource Network (IRN) – which advocates for Indigenous participation in resource projects – said the cap would be "devastating" for Indigenous communities. 

"A pathway to self-determination is being achieved through the ownership of oil and gas projects and involvement in the sector," said IRN executive director John Desjarlais. 

"This would result in a cap on Indigenous opportunity in the oil and gas sector."

Desjarlais said the IRN is seeking an exemption from the cap for Indigenous communities who are engaged in oil and gas development. 

He said the proposed cap directly contradicts the government's promises on reconciliation and its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. 

[Herman]

I saw this recently too.

Usually at this time of year, we can expect to see the compliant news media reporting on alarming Christmas temperature increases. Often, it is reported that recent Christmases or New Years were the warmest in hundreds or thousands of years.



In order to arm you with the facts concerning Christmas temperatures, I asked our Science and Research Associate, Byron Soepyan, to look into what the data tell us about this. He accessed the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and looked at maximum temperatures for the Lower 48 states in the U.S. and compared that to atmospheric CO2 levels.


What we found surprised us. The maximum temperatures on this date vary quite widely, but there is no discernible trend either increasing or decreasing.

Sleep well... there is no Christmas Climate Crisis.

[Lokmar]

Basically, most world leaders should be literally crucified. CO2 isnt a pollutant, period. If you believe it is, you should be executed publicly.

[Oerdin]

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is right.  Change my mind.

[Thiel]

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is right.  Change my mind.

He's a denier. Did that change your mind? If it didn't, I give up.

[Oerdin]

He is not a denier.  Not even remotely.  He has repeatedly said he believes climate change is real and happening and that man is definitely contributing to it but that the world won't "end in ten years" the way the cultists claim.  What he has done is logically argue about what is the best course of action to adapt to climate change and reduce the impacts of climate change.

In fact, he wrote a whole book about it.  Maybe try to look it up and see what he has to say because it makes a lot of sense on how best to deal with a changing climate.

[Thiel]

He is not a denier.  Not even remotely.  He has repeatedly said he believes climate change is real and happening and that man is definitely contributing to it but that the world won't "end in ten years" the way the cultists claim.  What he has done is logically argue about what is the best course of action to adapt to climate change and reduce the impacts of climate change.

In fact, he wrote a whole book about it.  Maybe try to look it up and see what he has to say because it makes a lot of sense on how best to deal with a changing climate.

I know that. I was being facetious.

[Thiel]

A climate advocate after Bjorn Lomborg's heart.


Takeaways from the UN Climate Conference
The summit revealed a growing realization that market-based solutions to climate change need to have a seat at the table.

As a climate advocate who believes in market competition, I can tell you that exporting US innovation, instead of succumbing to pushes for massive wealth transfers, is how we catalyze economic prosperity while reducing worldwide emissions. Many of the solutions at COP28, to be sure, focused on having the United States and other developed nations subsidize the world's energy consumption or prematurely divest from fossil fuels. There was even a panel on "responsible yachting," which is especially out-of-touch.

Yet, there was also a silver lining that we haven't seen at previous COPs. This was the first summit at which nuclear energy truly played a central role. In Dubai, 22 countries, totaling more than 50 percent of global gross domestic product, pledged to triple their nuclear power production by 2050. In a similar vein, the nuclear industry had a much larger seat at the table than usual.

Though the usual climate activists criticized the industry having a larger seat, the fact that they were there shows a growing realization that tackling climate change is impossible without energy industry players at the table. Although several of my fellow conference attendees wanted to permanently excommunicate the energy industry from the conversation, the industry, fortunately, had a prominent voice at COP28.

We must realize that blindly throwing money at climate change, banning things, and picking winning and losing technologies will deliver the worst outcomes at the highest cost. Market forces are much better than central planning for lowering emissions—without destroying the economy—in developing countries that are the fastest-growing sources of emissions. Further innovation in the nuclear field, for instance, to drive down costs and increase efficiency would be a climate game-changer on the world stage.

Encouraging innovation is the best path toward rapidly and affordably cutting emissions, and the United States has been paving the way. It was encouraging, despite the conference's flaws, to see this on display at COP28. I was able to watch sessions on the importance of carbon capture technology and private sector leadership—areas we don't always hear about in the mainstream climate discourse.

The United States has led the world in reducing emissions because of innovation, specifically fracking and horizontal drilling that created a glut of cheap natural gas. Switching from coal to natural gas cuts carbon emissions. Building nuclear plants produces abundant clean electricity. The United States has led before, and we can do so again.

That's why calls to stunt US economic growth by paying ever-greater sums to foreign countries are wrong. The answer is helping US innovators develop and deploy the cheapest and cleanest energy technologies so that they can be exported around the world. We shouldn't predetermine what those technologies are. To reduce emissions, we'll need carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, next-generation nuclear and geothermal energy, and possibly even technologies that haven't been invented yet.

The way we facilitate this innovation isn't by distorting the market with subsidies, regulations, or mandates. The way we facilitate this innovation is by getting the government out of its own way. That means permitting reform to make it easier to build energy projects, transmission reform to get more clean energy on the grid, and reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that the United States can take nuclear energy leadership back from autocracies like China and Russia.

Ultimately, we need an approach that lets the market pick the cheapest and cleanest alternatives that the United States can export around the world. That's a win for our economy and the environment. It's also the only serious approach to tackling the emissions problem.
https://humanprogress.org/takeaways-from-the-un-climate-conference/

[Brent]

At COP27, around 315 private jet journeys took place.

How the hell can progtards condone this blatant hypocrisy every year.