Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Professor Pigworth

COP26: Fossil Fuel Industry Has Largest Delegation at Climate Summit

Recommended Posts

This is absolutely insane.

By the way, which major coal-burning countries have not signed up for a commitment to phase out coal?  Well, selfish, live-for-the-moment countries like China and India and, yes, the United States. These also happen to be the three biggest coal burners.

Meanwhile, the earth is burning.

.

 

There are more delegates at COP26 associated with the fossil fuel industry than from any single country, analysis shared with the BBC shows.

Campaigners led by Global Witness assessed the participant list published by the UN at the start of this meeting.

They found that 503 people with links to fossil fuel interests had been accredited for the climate summit.

These delegates are said to lobby for oil and gas industries, and campaigners say they should be banned.

"The fossil fuel industry has spent decades denying and delaying real action on the climate crisis, which is why this is such a huge problem," says Murray Worthy from Global Witness.

"Their influence is one of the biggest reasons why 25 years of UN climate talks have not led to real cuts in global emissions."

About 40,000 people are attending the COP. Brazil has the biggest official team of negotiators according to UN data, with 479 delegates.

spacer.png

 

So what counts as a fossil fuel lobbyist?

Global Witness, Corporate Accountability and others who have carried out the analysis define a fossil fuel lobbyist as someone who is part of a delegation of a trade association or is a member of a group that represents the interests of oil and gas companies.

Overall, they identified 503 people employed by or associated with these interests at the summit.

They also found that:

  • Fossil fuel lobbyists are members of 27 country delegations, including Canada and Russia
  • The fossil fuel lobby at COP is larger than the combined total of the eight delegations from the countries worst affected by climate change in the past 20 years
  • More than 100 fossil fuel companies are represented at COP, with 30 trade associations and membership organisations also present
  • Fossil fuel lobbyists dwarf the UNFCCC's official indigenous constituency by about two to one

One of the biggest groups they identified was the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) with 103 delegates in attendance, including three people from the oil and gas company BP.

According to Global Witness, IETA is backed by many major oil companies who promote offsetting and carbon trading as a way of allowing them to continue extracting oil and gas.

"This is an association that has an enormous number of fossil fuel company as its members. Its agenda is driven by fossil fuel companies and serves the interests of fossil fuel companies," Mr Worthy said.

 

"What we seeing is the putting forward of false solutions that appear to be climate action but actually preserve the status quo, and prevent us from taking the clear, simple actions to keep fossil fuels in the ground that we know are the real solutions to climate crisis."

The IETA says it exists to find the most efficient market-based means of driving down emissions. Members include fossil fuel companies but also a range of other businesses.

"We have law firms; we have project developers -- the guys who are putting clean technology on the ground around the world; they're also members of our association as well," says Alessandro Vitelli, an IETA spokesman.

"We're not coming to a shuddering halt today and tomorrow, and suddenly there's going to be no emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels."

"There is a process to transition that's under way, and carbon markets are the best way to make sure that transition takes place."

Campaign groups argue that the World Health Organization didn't get serious about banning tobacco until all the lobbyists for the industry were banned from WHO meetings. They want the same treatment for oil and gas companies at COP.

"The likes of Shell and BP are inside these talks despite openly admitting to upping their production of fossil gas," said Pascoe Sabido of the Corporate Europe Observatory, who were also involved in the analysis.

"If we're serious about raising ambition, then fossil fuel lobbyists should be shut out of the talks."

The BBC asked the UN body responsible for accrediting delegates about its procedures, but has not received a reply.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59199484

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait... I thought President Brandon was going to fix all of this?

  • Haha 1

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Wait... I thought President Brandon was going to fix all of this?

Nope, thats a garbage report......................oh wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Very Wide Right said:

Nope, thats a garbage report......................oh wait

 

Biden I Lied.jpg

  • Haha 2

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Wait... I thought President Brandon was going to fix all of this?

Apparently Obama is.  He was at the COP flexing his globohomo muscles.  :niterider:

skynews-cop26-barack-obama_5576613.jpg?2

  • Haha 1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a 'fossil' fuel.  Oil is produced naturally in the earth's mantle.

GEOLOGY!!  Which is a science, BTW. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Woody said:

Apparently Obama is.  He was at the COP flexing his globohomo muscles.  :niterider:

skynews-cop26-barack-obama_5576613.jpg?2

Will this mother fucking former AWFUL president please just go the fuck away?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Professor Pigworth said:

Oh, dear.  I put up an article and write a short non-political comment to start a discussion on a serious topic relevant to us all, and what happens?  Frustrated, unhappy MAGA types with tribalistic, hyper-partisan views rush in to make fools of themselves.  

Uh, nothing of the sort.  You seek to perpetuate a scam.  Fuck that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LIBills said:

Will this mother fucking former AWFUL president please just go the fuck away?

Nope.  Obama is a rockstar amongst the Davos crowd.  He will be a pain in our sides for decades to come.  :niterider:

 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LIBills said:

It doesn’t take a “MAGAT” to know know all this climate change, global warming crap is just that…… CRAP.

What is your argument?

Is it that green house games have no effect on the earth's ability to regulate temperature?

Are you saying it can't be proven that humans are accelerating global climate change at all?

Are you saying we don't know the extent to which humans have cause climate change?

What are you talking about?

 

 


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

What is your argument?

Is it that green house games have no effect on the earth's ability to regulate temperature?

Are you saying it can't be proven that humans are accelerating global climate change at all?

Are you saying we don't know the extent to which humans have cause climate change?

No, he's saying that it's all just CRAP. And any arguments that you or I or the most eminent scientists in the world could make can already be dismissed as CRAP. Because it's all CRAP, you know.  It just is.  He knows it and we all should know it.  And it's not worth even discussing, because even the subject itself is definitively and certifiably CRAP.  

Sometimes I think that people like myself who hold contrary views on issues like this should just listen carefully to what MAGAs have to say. There's certainly a lot to be learned from them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Professor Pigworth said:

No, he's saying that it's all just CRAP. And any arguments that you or I or the most eminent scientists in the world could make can already be dismissed as CRAP. Because it's all CRAP, you know.  It just is.  He knows it and we all should know it.  And it's not worth even discussing, because even the subject itself is definitively and certifiably CRAP.  

Sometimes I think that people like myself who hold contrary views on issues like this should just listen carefully to what MAGAs have to say. There's certainly a lot to be learned from them. 

Yep.  Bingo.  Crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Professor Pigworth said:

No, he's saying that it's all just CRAP. And any arguments that you or I or the most eminent scientists in the world could make can already be dismissed as CRAP. Because it's all CRAP, you know.  It just is.  He knows it and we all should know it.  And it's not worth even discussing, because even the subject itself is definitively and certifiably CRAP.  

Sometimes I think that people like myself who hold contrary views on issues like this should just listen carefully to what MAGAs have to say. There's certainly a lot to be learned from them. 

Clearly the decades of research done by climate scientists is just CRAP.

You know what else is CRAP? Exxon suppressing the data their own scientists revealed about the effects their product would have on the global temperatures decades ago.

  • Thanks 1

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Clearly the decades of research done by climate scientists is just CRAP.

You know what else is CRAP? Exxon suppressing the data their own scientists revealed about the effects their product would have on the global temperatures decades ago.

I'm going to take the liberty of answering this for LIBills and all the other mature, enlightened, articulate climate-change deniers here, who would respond by saying that the accusation of Exxon suppressing data is itself CRAP and never happened.  Case closed. End of debate. Yawn. I'm suddenly feeling really sleepy and bored now. Funny how that happens. Phew, talking about serious stuff takes effort, you know, which is for losers. Now let me get back to looking at my 401K because I've got nothing whatever to feel guilty or worried about. The future is all roses and sunshine.

  • Like 1
  • Gay 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LIBills said:

It doesn’t take a “MAGAT” to know know all this climate change, global warming crap is just that…… CRAP.

All they have now is that pathetic canned response 

I'd tell them do better, but we all know that they can't 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.

This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.

TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.” 

Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.

Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993.  Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.

Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development. 

It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:

Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.

Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”

A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.

This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.

Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.

Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.

Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.

 

 

SCAM that sheep have bought into since the 70's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Clearly the decades of research done by climate scientists is just CRAP.

You know what else is CRAP? Exxon suppressing the data their own scientists revealed about the effects their product would have on the global temperatures decades ago.

I'm not concerned about any of this leftist BULLSHIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Woody said:

Nope.  Obama is a rockstar amongst the Davos crowd.  He will be a pain in our sides for decades to come.  :niterider:

Fuck Obongo and the horse he rode in on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Philly'sFinest said:

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.

This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.

TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.” 

Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.

Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993.  Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.

Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development. 

It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:

Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.

Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”

A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.

This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.

Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.

Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.

Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.

SCAM that sheep have bought into since the 70's

GAME-SET-MATCH.  Fantastic post.  Discussion over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

What is your argument?

Is it that green house games have no effect on the earth's ability to regulate temperature?

Are you saying it can't be proven that humans are accelerating global climate change at all?

Are you saying we don't know the extent to which humans have cause climate change?

What are you talking about?

The world has been using fossil fuels for about 140 years.Study the climactic change the earth has seen over millions of years without the burning of fossil fuels and it should be quite clear that this man made climate change is laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Very Wide Right said:

The world has been using fossil fuels for about 140 years.Study the climactic change the earth has seen over millions of years without the burning of fossil fuels and it should be quite clear that this man made climate change is laughable. 

These tools simply don't understand that the Earth has changed itself since the beginning and humans have ZERO influence over what Mother Nature does or what she wants to do.

It's one of the dumbest arguments ever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...