Posted on 12/10/2023 7:39:53 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
DUBAI — For 30 years, with temperatures and sea levels rising, global negotiators have managed to discuss the health of the planet without addressing the root cause of the problem. In meeting after meeting, document after document, even in the landmark 2015 Paris agreement, one phrase has been conspicuously absent: any mention of fossil fuels.
“This is really difficult stuff. We are talking about the future of humanity, the future of economic structures and geopolitics,” said Hana AlHashimi, the lead negotiator for the United Arab Emirates.
U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry has said that Washington supports language “requiring the phaseout of unabated fossil fuels, and we will continue to support that language.”
Many climate experts say a long-range target for a fossil fuel phasedown — say, mid-century — won’t be as meaningful as a pledge to wean off dirty fuel more quickly. Climate science shows that the next several years are crucial.
Continued use of fossil fuels — paired with carbon capture and storage, or CCS — is probably necessary for those industries to operate, but that is not a panacea, said officials including Wopke Hoekstra, the European commissioner for climate action.
“The reality we need to face and actually embrace is that we have to phase out fossil fuels, period. And that we do our utmost, that we come up with very ambitious language at this COP,” Hoekstra said at a news conference on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Let’s say we’ll “phase” it out around 2100.
It says “read more at msn”. No thanks. If I’m going to read fiction I’d at least like it to be entertaining not raving lunacy from climate fanatics who combine the worst aspects of willful ignorance and stupidity.
Ocean rising, temperature rising, aha. panic mode!, not
So say Chico and Puko. LOL.
How about we just hold back the panic until Obama's Vineyard mansion gets a bit of flooding.
There’s no such a thing as a fossil fuel.
“with temperatures and sea levels rising”
There was a guy who asked students why, if ocean levels are rising, are banks giving 30 year mortgages for beachfront condominiums?
Since they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders why would they lend money for properties that will soon be underwater (literally and figuratively)?
Why would Obama buy a house beside the water? Shouldn’t he be in Colorado, safe from the impending doom?
I’m assuming this is all via videoconferencing, right? Don’t want any carbon emissions from all those jets or ground transportation, right?
It’s not about the future of humanity.
It’s about the future of government.
They are lying about everything. There is no “Climate Crisis”.
They are systematically eliminating every source of energy except Green Energy, which they will control. It will give government absolute power over every person in the world. If you don’t comply, you will be coerced.
They don’t care how much it costs, what damage they do to the economy, or how many people will suffer or perish. The end result is worth all the suffering they cause people all over the globe.
Power is always what these left wing nuts are after, and if they get away with this, the world will become a gigantic prison.
Anyone want to take a guess as to the kind of lifestyle EU Klimafuhrer Hoekstra leads.
+101
Ping a ling.
the real danger is the government solution
Of course by “unabated” they mean there will still be a supply for them to fill up their private jets and yachts on the tax payer dollars.
wood fired steam engines are the future. use pre-fossil fuel. fresh cut wood is green energy.
No such thing as a “fossil fuel.” Petroleum, yes.
Maybe rather around year 21,000?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.