Having been relegated to the number-two spot on the global crisis list for most of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, climate alarmists are eager to get back to the top of that fright index. At a December 12 summit addressing progress toward the climate goals set by the 2015 Paris Agreement, held in London, UN Secretary-General António Guterres (shown) called on all countries of the world to immediately declare a “climate emergency.”
“Five years after the Paris [accord] we are still not going in the right direction,” Guterres said.
“There is a promise to limit temperature rises to as close [to] 1.5 degrees [as] possible but the commitments made in Paris were far from enough to get there and even those commitments are not being met,” Guterres complained.
“If we don’t change course, we may be heading for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than 3 degrees by the end of the century. Can anybody still deny that we are still facing a dramatic emergency?” asked the socialist former Portuguese prime minister.
“That is why today, I call on all leaders worldwide to declare a State of Climate Emergency in their countries until carbon neutrality is reached.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The UN, the U.K., and France co-hosted the Climate Ambition Summit, which brought together — mainly by video, owing to coronavirus concerns — speakers from all over the world to discuss progress and make new commitments on climate issues in advance of COP26 next November in Glasgow, Scotland.
Among the other speakers at the event were Pope Francis, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and European Union leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel. Although the United States is not technically a part of the Paris Agreement, it was represented by governors Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts.
Guterres had harsh criticism for all the national leaders for their lack of action on so-called green energy, particularly those who are members of the G20 forum of nations.
“So far the members of the G20 are spending 50 percent more in their stimulus and rescue packages on sectors linked to fossil fuel production and consumption than on low carbon energy. This is unacceptable,” Guterres scolded.
“This is a moral test. We cannot use these resources to lock in policies that burden future generations with a mountain of debt or a broken planet,” the secretary general concluded.
While Guterres and the others are well known for their dire climate rhetoric, one of the more impassioned speeches was made by the prime minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley. Mottley suggested that the major emitters of carbon dioxide — a gas which is necessary for life to continue on Earth — might be guilty of genocide if they don’t change their ways.
“Frankly, at the global level we need to move from placatory rhetoric to real effective action or numerous nations across the world will be robbed of their future,” Mottley said.
“I would like to believe that major emitters are not capable of what would, in essence, be close to climate genocide. I’d like to believe that we are visible and indispensable for them.”
As for those major emitters, their speeches left observers disappointed. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised no new climate commitments and Chinese President Xi only offered modest changes to the country’s current commitment to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 65 percent by the end of the decade, up only slightly from 60 percent. Xi also pledged to make non-fossil fuels account for 25 percent of China’s energy by 2030, up slightly from his previous promise of 20 percent.
China did pledge to become carbon-neutral by the year 2060, but has shown no signs of lessening its current dependence on coal or ceasing to build new coal-powered energy plants, which climate alarmists point to as a major source of carbon emissions.
India and China’s lack of urgency on this issue showcases the absurdity of the Paris Climate Agreement and any new agreements going forward. The agreements can’t be effective since none of the promises of the nations involved are in any way binding.
The charged rhetoric of Guterres and Mottley is troubling in that it gives a potential President Joe Biden cover to actually declare a “climate emergency” — whatever that is — in the United States. What exactly would such a thing look like? How many of our freedoms would be lost in such a nebulous and untraceable “emergency”?
