That all these world leaders took long fossil fueled trips to England, other than Boris Johnson, the head of the UK, is not mentioned. Why couldn’t China Joe have given Canada’s Justin Trudeau a ride? They had big fossil fueled retinues to get to the meeting. Why couldn’t they have done a Zoom or some other teleconference?
G7 leaders share a bold vision for a net zero future. But the devil is in the lack of detail
Climate change is rarely a main talking point at the G7 leaders’ summit, but as US President Joe Biden proclaimed that “America is back at the table” on the final day of this year’s meeting, by extension, so too was climate change.
Past summits with Donald Trump representing the United States struggled to culminate in cohesive group statements between its members — the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada, plus the European Union. But in the English county of Cornwall over the weekend, leaders appeared to agree that this is the crucial decade that will determine the world’s future, even its very existence.
There was concrete progress earlier in the summit from G7 ministers, and a vision laid out by leaders for a net zero world (where all greenhouse gases emitted are removed from the atmosphere) that would take a green approach to everything, from the economic recovery from the pandemic to the way new infrastructure is built in the developing world.
They can have all the vision they want: they need to approval of the Citizens. Or, are they good with authoritarianism? Will they take a “green approach” in their own lives? Considering Biden jumped back in his jumbo jet and flew to Brussels after the G7, that would be a big “no.”
What was lacking in the final communiqué, however, was the detail that climate change experts were hoping for.
G7 meetings are notorious for making bold promises only to break them. Often world leaders’ vision just isn’t backed by lawmakers at home.
This year, there were some ambitious collective targets, to halve emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels, for example, but no individual country increased its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and goals were set with no firm deadlines or measurables. In cases where they were, they were largely underwhelming.
Yeah, well, the People have the power to make the decision, and this stuff is popular in theory, not in practice
The leaders said, for example, that they would aim to reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. That’s about 20 years too late, according to Catherine Pettengell, interim head of the UK’s branch of Climate Action Network, which represents more than 1,500 civil society organizations in over 130 countries.
“We were really expecting to see the G7 step up and send a strong signal ahead of COP26 that they’ve really done their homework and were ready to act,” she told CNN, referring to international climate change talks planned in Glasgow later this year.
If this stuff is so important why do so few Warmists practice what they preach?
William Teach: the People have the power to make the decision
If you mean the people collectively, then sure. The G7 represents powerful democratic countries. If you mean people individually, then largely no. People have little control over the source of their electricity, for instance. Nor should people be allowed to dump their wastes on others.
The baffled Joe Biden proclaimed that “America is back at the table.” That’s just it: a whole lot of conservatives believe that America has given up too much when we come to the table, and that, a lot of times, we would have been better off not going to the table.
The United States, under Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, has committed our country to go to war with Russia if Russia invades Latvia. Latvia! A small country, long part of Russia and the USSR before.
NATO made some sense in the 1950s and 1960s, when there was a real threat from the USSR toward the major democracies, but with the fall of the USSR, it has been expanded unreasonably. Think how many government leaders were wiping their brows with relief that Ukraine declined NATO membership when Vladimir Vladimirovich sent the tanks rolling into eastern Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. No one wanted to go to war over a country in which we were in no position at all to defend.
Through NATO, we have maintained a significant military presence in Germany, where we feared the Soviet invasion through the Fulda Gap. The ‘Warsaw Pact’ had forces right up to the border between West and East Germany, so we were at least prepared.
But Poland? Poland is a huge, flat country, with few military obstacles, easily bridgeable rivers, and no natural defenses. Defending Poland would be difficult, especially since we don’t have the forces prepositioned. The Baltic States are completely beyond our defensive capabilities, as are Ukraine and Byelorussia, thankfully not NATO members but countries considered for NATO membership. Maybe, just maybe, our past presidents ought to have asked themselves, are the American people really willing to risk nuclear war over Estonia?
By that reasoning, US involvement in WWII Europe was folly, as was the Vietnam debacle.
Our involvement in both were fairly stupid. Note, Democrats drug us into both conflicts.
The kick backs bribery and corrption just isnt the same without America paying the bills.
Checkmate!
http://www.thedailygouge.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/balls3.jpg
#10%ToTheBigGuy
Bwaha! Lolgf
Ah theater…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/13/climate-woke-g7-agrees-to-eliminate-coal-jobs/
#TrustUs
Bwaha! Lolgf