With so much information out there, only those who don’t want to think, feel and learn would agree with the climate alarmism campaign led by the United Nations and the large corporations, the two groups with the most to gain in terms of power and wealth accumulation.
You could not expect more than what has come out of the UN Climate Summit that has ended more than a day and a half late this Sunday in Madrid, simply because science does not support the alarmist agenda.
Negotiators have only been able to agree on a weak call on countries to make more ambitious efforts against climate change. They have had to postpone the development of the Paris Agreement article referring to the CO2 markets again due to the ambition of a few to continue to get rich on the backs of technological transformation for the developing world.
Virtually all delegates who have taken the floor in the final plenary of the summit have recognized the “disappointment” for being unable to negotiate.
Multilateralism breaks down wherever you look on the planet and these summits, where almost 200 countries negotiate, are precisely the greatest example of multilateralism and a recognition that such a system does not work. What works, as recent history shows us, is bilateralism.
Although the failure was foreseeable due to the lack of solid science supporting the initiative to deindustrialize the planet, the poor result enlarges the disconnection that exists now between the governments of the world and science regarding the fictitious climate crisis.
When the final texts of the COP25 are read – the 25th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – it seems that governments and leaders have been placed in a soundproofed room during this summit.
Some scientists used the COP25 to present their climate reports sounding more alarmism as they claim that 2019 was the hottest year in record, a claim that goes in line with what they say has happened throughout this decade.
Climate marketers also pointed out during this summit that carbon dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas, will once again mark a new historical maximum.
The representatives of the youth movements have also passed through the summit in Madrid, with Swedish puppet, Greta Thunberg at the head, to reproach the leaders that the efforts they have planned to fight against climate change are not up to par.
Thunberg and her cohorts believe that, due to climate change, the planet has about a decade of life, and that inaction at the level requested by the UN will mean certain death.
This complicated summit, which was held in Madrid after Chile did not meet the conditions last month, drove two main points: one more political and one more technical.
The political refers to the need for the signatory countries of the Paris Agreement to present tougher plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions because those that exist now are not enough. The same was demanded in earlier meetings. The goal post is moved continuously and new emissions objectives are set so countries reduce their move towards development.
But at this summit, only 84 countries have been committed to submit tougher plans in 2020, as the UN has repeatedly requested. The list includes Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
The problem is those who are not: the US, China, India, and Russia, which together account for around 55% of global greenhouse emissions, have not agreed to be more ambitious. The United States had already abandoned the Paris Agreement at the request of President Donald Trump.
All signatories of the Paris Agreement must submit emission cut plans that, together, must ensure that global warming remains within manageable limits, but the sum of the plans is not enough. Did scientists and bureaucrats miss something? Not really, they have just been using fake science to tighten a tighter noose around global development.
The UN has warned that expected global efforts should be multiplied by five if the temperature increase is expected to remain below 1.5 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels. This number was picked out of a hat by the UN, and no one knows why it has to be 1.5 and not 3.0 or 5.0.
The UN also proposes that the number goes from 1.5 to 3.0 if increases are kept below 2 degrees, the other goal set in the Paris Agreement.
One of the toughest discussions during this conference has been precisely how to call on countries to present tougher plans.
Faced with a traffic jam in this matter, the presidency of COP25, which was in the hands of Chile, turned to Spain in the final tranche of the negotiations.
Where it has been impossible to close any agreement has been in the development of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, the one referring to the carbon dioxide markets.
The development of these mechanisms for the exchange of emission rights that allow countries and companies to compensate for the greenhouse gases they expel was already stuck a year ago at the Climate Summit held in Katowice, Poland, and it was decided that it would be resolved at this year’s COP25 meeting.
But the differences between the countries in this negotiation have been so great that, again, it has not been possible to reach a pact in Madrid. The COP25 Presidency has admitted that the texts presented did not have the “sufficient consensus” for approval and has proposed that it be closed at the next Glasgow summit.
Finally, in the COP25 statements approved by the plenary, countries are “encouraged” to “seize the opportunity in 2020” to show the highest ambition for “the urgency of addressing climate change”.
The “serious concern” for the “urgent need” to solve the “gap” that exists between the plans presented by the countries and the cuts needed to meet the Paris objective is highlighted. However, in the final declarations, there is no explicit call on countries to present tougher measures in 2020 due to the resistance of large emitting countries, who represent the interests of large corporations.
In any case, the Ministry for Ecological Transition has interpreted that the agreement “lays the groundwork” so that next year “the countries present more ambitious emission reduction commitments.” This is the same conclusion that was reached in the previous meetings as countries stand their ground in terms of what they are going to propose and do in terms of their own economic and productive activities.