Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

U.N. Looks to Biden for ‘Global Action’ on Climate Change

U.N. Looks to Biden for ‘Global Action’ on Climate Change

UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa: “The U.S. played a very important role in getting the Paris Agreement together. So we certainly are hoping that we will see this kind of leadership coming back.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7wRbUbkWHw&t

The United Nations looks to the incoming Joe Biden administration for ‘global action’ on climate change — much like under President Barack Obama’s reign, a top U.N. official declared.

“The U.S. played a very important role in getting the Paris Agreement together. So we certainly are hoping that we will see this kind of leadership coming back,” said Patricia Espinosa, who heads the U.N climate office.

Reuters reported the U.N. climate chief’s expectations from the Biden-Harris administration:

A swift resurgence of U.S. leadership under President-elect Joe Biden and wealthy nations fulfilling a promise of cash for poorer countries could galvanise action on climate change this year, the United Nations climate chief said on Tuesday.

In November in Glasgow, Scotland, the U.N. will stage its most important climate summit since the 2015 event that yielded the Paris Agreement, when nearly 200 countries committed to halt rising global temperatures quickly enough to avoid catastrophic change.

The November summit, which was delayed by a year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, serves as a deadline for countries to commit to make deeper emissions cuts to deliver the Paris treaty’s aim.

“The U.S. played a very important role in getting the Paris Agreement together. So we certainly are hoping that we will see this kind of leadership coming back,” Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, told the Reuters Next conference.

With only 10 months until the summit, President-elect Joe Biden must reboot that leadership “very fast”, Espinosa said.

The hopes at the U.N. are high after Joe Biden recently tapped former Secretary of State, John Kerry, to head the White House climate change office.

“John Kerry is looking to resume climate diplomacy that was disrupted under President Trump,” the public broadcaster NPR remarked.

In 2017, Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the accord, citing its adverse effect on the U.S. job growth and economy. Joe Biden, on the other hand, wants the U.S. to reenter the Obama-era international agreement.

Kerry, who engineered the 2015 nuclear deal, which handed out billions of dollars to the terror-sponsoring Iranian regime, now plans to revive the old climate policies by bringing in a host of Obama staffers Biden-Harris White House.

“The contours of John Kerry’s White House climate change office are beginning to emerge, with the former Secretary of State drawing heavily on Obama administration alumni,” Politico confirmed Tuesday.

Biden has promised to reenter the Paris agreement “on day one” of taking office.

“The United States will rejoin the Paris Agreement on day one of my presidency,” Biden declared on December 12.

Biden’s move will come at a heavy price for the U.S. working class and manufacturing sector. The globalist agreement penalizes the U.S., a world leader in clean energies, while rewarding the big polluters like India, Russia, and China.

Sticking with the Obama-backed Paris agreement for the next two decades will cost the U.S. economy “close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income,” the Trump White House said in June 2017 while pulling out of the agreement.

While President Trump stood up to the globalist forces and defended the U.S. interests, Biden has announced plans to undo his legacy. Besides rejoining the Paris accord “on day one,” he has promised to hold a global climate summit within his “first 100 days in office” to align the U.S. policy to the ones being pursued by the European Union, Canada, and others.

Trump: “I will not sacrifice tens of millions of jobs, thousands and thousands of companies, because of the Paris accords.” (October presidential debate)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

JusticeDelivered | January 13, 2021 at 11:10 am

Last time they were pedaling this crap, it was about America paying for carbon credits to shit hole countries. In other words it was another wealth redistribution scheme.

    No it was a means of incentivising carbon reduction, Its a cost benifit thing. The more you emit the more carbon credits you have to pay therefore that should translate into a business case for reducing emissions. Clearly not a perfect system but it has had some benifits both as an incentive and as a means of capturing data on carbon footprints at a more granular level.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 11:54 am

      no, it was about forcing America to pay shit hole countries for carbon credits and would have resulted in a huge capital outflow.

        It would only force the US to pay if it didn’t significantly reduce emissions. Carbon credits only forced a payout on the basis of offsetting emissions hence being an incentive. If the US did fuck all then yeah sure it would have to pay out. That’s the whole point to ensure that the economy decarbonises. Which is entirely necessary given the trends in global warming.

      f2000 in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 12:13 pm

      “Its a cost[-]ben[e]fit thing”

      Cost: America
      Benefit: China

      Paul in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 1:12 pm

      Except the greatest carbon emitting countries (China and India) were not obligated to do shit under the farcical Paris Accord.

      One must truly be a progressive moron to look at that “deal” and see it as anything other than a massive wealth redistribution scheme.

        mark311 in reply to Paul. | January 13, 2021 at 2:55 pm

        Nope thats not true they were obliged to cut emissions by a fixed percentage. This means they had to invest heavily in order to achieve that.

          Paul in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 7:46 pm

          Once again you lie, troll. That stupid fucking agreement would cripple the US economy while the commies didn’t agree to do anything they didn’t already have underway.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 14, 2021 at 2:42 am

          @Paul

          I’ve not lied Paul, that’s part of the Paris agreement. Fundamentally climate change is a challenge that will affect us all one way or another

      DaniBenGolani in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 7:15 pm

      “Cost benefit thing “,
      as in the US taxpayer pays hundreds of billions for Europes defense. And gets anti Americanism in return.

      Here in Germany we now have “energy poverty”, in one of the worlds wealthiest societies because of implemented Green policies. Electricity has become so expensive that people can lo longer pay their bills. Church charities are offering energy poverty counseling so peoples lights are not turned off.

      Large energy consumers like founderies are cut off from the electricity grid with 15 minutes notice if the days overall electricity quota is reached. Needless to say this is not good for any business.

      Meanwhile China is building one coal fired power station after another and is making steel like its gold. Like Critical Race Theory the entire green energy policy complex is just wrong.

        That’s a specific policy issue, the overarching goal remains fully justified. I would suggest that the energy poverty situation is likely a result of lack of nuclear.

        You can’t deny the importance of climate change it’s just too well founded in the science. The issue is how you resolve it, doing nothing like the US at federal level is not an option.

          Of course that’s an option, and one clearly favored here. But you keep frantically typing away. It’s funny.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 15, 2021 at 1:57 am

          @ fuzzy slippers

          I’ll be more specific it’s not a justified option.

          According to whom? Who decides what a “justified option” is? Take a look at the Constitution if you’re stumped by that one.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 15, 2021 at 2:50 am

          @fuzzy slippers

          This isn’t a legal discussion this is about the justification for doing nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence that global warming and the consequences that brings. The answer to that is no. Sticking your head in the sand is not a valid position.

      alaskabob in reply to mark311. | January 14, 2021 at 11:18 am

      The accords lean heavily on reduction of waste of energy but also really heavily on power generation which is very inefficient considering total cost of creation. To power the USA with wind and solar would require 25% of land mass dedicated to power production. The accords also do not reflect one major source of power Nuclear. Germany..to green itself has shut three nuke plants. The accords are political wrapped in “science”. Remember the ozone hole…closed by “law” although major countries such as India and China didn’t contribute to dectease. Efficiency credits not shifting footprint credits are better… It’s now just a money redistribution racket.

        mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | January 14, 2021 at 1:38 pm

        I think that’s a bit of a simplification. Renewables are a relatively new technology so no one is expecting them to suddenly be a massive part of the energy picture. They will also continue to improve and help offset more carbon intensive forms of power generation. There are also other means of clean energy such as off shore wind power , small plant nuclear , hydro electric and so on. The other side of the coin is power efficiency, US needs to invest in tech to reduce power consumption on a granular level ie the average consumer should be encourage to have energy efficient appliances etc. Im also not clear where you got those stats from I’d be interested in reading further on that source if you could provide it.

        mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | January 14, 2021 at 1:42 pm

        The nuclear debate is an interesting one, I’m not familiar with the German arguements for and against. In the UK it’s the overall cost per KW that’s the issue. From that perspective nuclear is actually quite expensive compared to other power generation means. Although clearly consistent and large scale power generation from a single plant has its benefits for energy security.

    Yet another global summit to discuss solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist.Sadly the majority of the world’s young people are being taught this crap as the gospel truth.

      sheldonkatz in reply to 3manped. | January 13, 2021 at 11:44 am

      3manped. It is the big lie, maybe the biggest and most consequential in history. And it’s working.

      mark311 in reply to 3manped. | January 13, 2021 at 2:56 pm

      The science is overwhelmingly supportive of global warming and climate change. The young as you call them are being taught the science which demonstrably illustrates the issues, consequences and cost that climate change has.

        ConradCA in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 9:48 pm

        So when is GW going to significantly effect the climate? What is the climate going to be in 2021? If you can’t accurately predict what the climate will be in the current/next year then you certainly can’t predict further into the future!

        Al Gore claimed that Florida and NYC were going to be under water 10 years ago. Every prediction the “climate scientists” make is far enough in the future that no one calls then on their failures.

          mark311 in reply to ConradCA. | January 14, 2021 at 2:41 am

          The climate change models have predicted a trend line for temperature rises. So far the year on year rises have complied to that trend line. So yes you can predict based on various fa tors within the modelling what will happen over a longer period of time.

          As for the effects we are already seeing the impact, more intense heat waves, reduced polar ice, increased acidity in the oceans.

          https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

          So you are wrong

    Absolutely! UN Climate officials admit it themselves. Look up Edenhofer and Christina Fuguerres. AOC’s former chief of staff, Chakrabarti, admitted the same about the Green New Deal.
    They will use Climate and Covid to usher in the globalist power grab, “The Great Reset” (where “you will own nothing and be happy”).
    NWO/one world government.
    Horrifying!

      mark311 in reply to lc. | January 14, 2021 at 3:35 am

      You are going to have to be specific about what you are saying. Stating some individual isn’t enough.as far as I can tell they are involved in climate science and policy, nothing strikes as an argument again my position.

      As for your’global power grab’ none of the climate change policies indicate that. I’m not sure how a policy platform reducing carbon emissions and tackling the various climate related issues make any sense in the context you are suggesting.

“Biden’s move will come at a heavy price for the U.S. working class and manufacturing sector. The globalist agreement penalizes the U.S., a world leader in clean energies, while rewarding the big polluters like India, Russia, and China.

Sticking with the Obama-backed Paris agreement for the next two decades will cost the U.S. economy “close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income,” the Trump White House said in June 2017 while pulling out of the agreement.”

Trumps speech refers to a NERA report, badly mischarachterised it. There were a number of scenarios in that report over a long time frame. Trump merely refers to one.

https://www.nera.com/news-events/press-releases/2017/nera-economic-consultings-study-of-us-emissions-reduction-polici.html

There is actually a strong case for investment in climate change policies. Overall its cheaper to act now and develop technologies and solutions as waiting will be more expensive.

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-economists-stern-review-20827

    JusticeDelivered in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 12:46 pm

    The UN wants to allow developing countries to have a zero cost commodity called carbon credits, and developed countries to pay them to use those credits, no matter how you look at this, it is just more welfare at the expense of those who are productive to those who are not.

    If we want to incentivize business to be more efficient, then do so in ways that keeps money in America.

    I look at our inner cities and all the money we have poured into them, and look at developing countries, and I see the problems, you cannot fix stupid.

      And like all historical efforts at “helping” these under-developed countries, whenever the UN or international community pours money on them, it always goes into the pockets of corrupt regimes, only serving to further entrench corrupt, non-democratic regimes. This does nothing to help the people of these countries. It merely helps despots and global-government shills.

      Well the evidence suggests that at least to some extent carbon credits have worked. If you’ve got a better mechanism please do suggest it. As for investment in America that should be something that happens anyway. To some extent it is, green economy jobs have reason at the expense of older carbon intensive industries such as coal. Again companies like Tesla are indicative of the potential growth opportunities from the green economy. If the United States had invested more heavily in green tech then it would be more competitive with China which has invested in green tech.

    Joe-dallas in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 12:59 pm

    As you are certainly aware, ClimateCentral is a seriously hard left agenda driven organization.

    In summary, any analysis from ClimateCentral should be addressed with appropriate skeptisism

      mark311 in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 13, 2021 at 3:04 pm

      Every article should be treated on its merits, and is well supported by other reports hence the second link. The stern report back in 2006 provided a holistic picture of costs it was evident that delay causes cost and that’s logical. It’s cheaper to fix a slate on a roof than wait for the water to get in and rot the timbers underneath.

    ConradCA in reply to mark311. | January 13, 2021 at 10:03 pm

    The goal of fighting GW has nothing to do the environment or warming. Its true purpose is to give government control of every aspect of society ie communism/socialism.

They don’t want our leadership, they want our money. Period.

    healthguyfsu in reply to aka Hoss. | January 13, 2021 at 11:26 am

    This X 1000. What a bunch of grifter assholes. They have never looked to the US for “leadership” because they always want to call the shots. They look to the US as a piggy bank to lead around by the nose.

The Great Climate Change Hoax…… what a scam….. can’t wait for the politicians to shrink the oceans, rebuild the polar ice caps, and save humanity from itself.

Comanche Voter | January 13, 2021 at 12:03 pm

Slow Joe is just dumb enough to heed the call. OTOH the UN better hurry with this because Joe will soon be non compos mentos.

Gee, we were nearly free of this..
Now it’s going to come back double.

The Paris agreement is a Treaty that requires 2/3 approval in the senate.

You would think that a former constitutional scholar would know that.

You would think a former senator that sat on the Senate Judiciary committee for 20+ years would know that.

Global Action on Climate Change ????

IF…these people were being honest…they’d call it what it is.

THE NEXT BIG PAYDAY FOR THE “BACK 2 BUSINESS AS USUAL” CLUB!!!

Dhimmi-crat threat assessment — Iran and China are good; let’s let them have their way, causing untold mischief all over the world. Climate chance is the urgent threat.

All of this not even one year after China has intentionally released a plague causing trillions of dollars in economic damage, and, killing over one million people. But, let’s not talk about holding China accountable and imposing steep penalties — let’s talk about “climate change.”

Does Gretas hair smell good? This could be a big factor in Biden’s commitment to global climate change.

Tell us about kids playing with the blond hairs on your legs, Joe. Or tell us some more fairy stories and assorted fiction. I bet the UN would LOVE to hear that!

To cut down on the trolls, anyone who now signs up should have to pledge allegiance to Donald John Trump as a first post.
Then once they start with the lies and trolling, we can regularly quote their post.

    mark311 in reply to 4fun. | January 14, 2021 at 5:59 am

    Since when was a cult of personality a good idea. A loyalty test is not really in keeping with a democratic Republic is it.

Let the “scientists” who are saying GW is real and a threat to us predict the climate for the next 10 years. Then if they are wrong they can spend 10 years in prison and pay back the money wasted on fighting GW.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend