UN IPCC Has Five Ideas To Save The Planet From Trace Amounts Of CO2

The Cult high poobahs always have ideas, most of which never involve them changing their own behavior, just stuff that affects you

Climate change: IPCC scientists report five ways to save the planet

The dangers of climate change have been well reported for years. But what’s had less attention is how the world could effectively tackle the issue.

Huh? These yahoos have been printing ways the government can make you act for years

Yesterday, UN scientists laid out a plan that they believe could help people avoid the worst impacts of rising temperatures.

The report, by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), essentially calls for a revolution in how we produce energy and power our world.

To avoid very dangerous warming, carbon emissions need to peak within three years, and fall rapidly after that.

Make the UN IPCC Conference On The Parties meeting virtual, to start, reducing the huge number of people who take long, fossil fueled flights, including in private jets. Anyhow, coal is on their hit list, as are all fossil fuels

“I think that’s a very strong message, no new coal power plants. Otherwise, you’re really risking 1.5C,” said Prof Jan Christoph Minx, from the University of Leeds, and an IPCC co-ordinating lead author.

“I think the big message coming from here is we need to end the age of fossil fuel. And we don’t only need to end it, but we need to end it very quickly.”

Notice that jumps from coal all fossil fuels quickly. Strange that no reporter ever asks “say, have you given up your own use of fossil fuels?” Then we get some pie in the sky ideas, things that do not exist, perhaps some unicorns. Oh, and your life

3 – Curbing demand is a secret weapon

One of the big differences with this report from previous releases is that social science features heavily.

This is mainly focussed on the ideas of reducing people’s demand for energy in the areas of shelter, mobility and nutrition.

This covers a multitude of areas – including low carbon diets, food waste, how we build our cities, and how we shift people to more carbon friendly transport options.

In other words, government forcing you to act. And turning you into a pariah, a heretic, if you won’t. Much like we’ve seen with COVID. The BBC article even has the gall to say this is a “fairly painless way to really make an impact.” If it’s so painless, why do so few Warmists do it voluntarily in their own lives?

There’s also the notion of throwing massive amounts of cash at the problem, which means higher taxes and fees for you. And lots and lots of redistribution. Followed by The Rich

That may well be the case, but some IPCC authors believe the rich have other roles to play in helping the world towards net-zero.

“Wealthy individuals contribute disproportionately to higher emissions but they have a high potential for emissions reductions, whilst maintaining high levels of well-being and a decent living standard,” said Prof Patrick Devine-Wright, an IPCC lead author from the University of Exeter.

“I think there are individuals with high socioeconomic status who are capable of reducing their emissions by becoming role models of low carbon lifestyles, by choosing to invest in low carbon businesses and opportunities, and by lobbying for stringent climate policies.”

So, how does that happen? They’ll just do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Most haven’t up to now. Many talk a good game about the dangers of ‘climate change’ doom, advocate for carbon taxes and such, but, they aren’t giving up their big carbon footprints, much like members of the IPCC refuse to practice what they preach. It’s all about government force.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “UN IPCC Has Five Ideas To Save The Planet From Trace Amounts Of CO2”

  1. Down on the Corner says:

    The infamous 1.5C!

    Oh the horror.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      “I think the big message coming from here is we need to end the age of fossil fuel. And we don’t only need to end it, but we need to end it very quickly.”

      Jeez, one would think they’d have to first prove that the planet is in any real danger before offering their um… “solutions”.

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

        It would also be nice if they had a viable and plentiful inexpensive and reliable replacement to generate electricity that can be utilized in all climates 24/7/365 day or night. They don’t. In fact the USA will run out of reliable electricity long before any of those stupid and childish goals are ever reached. The lesson will be hard and as usual ignored by the left.

        FJB and his sad followers.

  2. captainfish says:

    So, their answer to something “physical” impacting us is to enact more non-physical Marxism? Marxism, which is theoretical because it has yet to succeed anywhere it has been enacted. Well, it has succeeded in killing millions of people.

    No one has as yet shown why the rise of 1.5C from some vague past timeframe is bad, or if it goes over that “limit” it is even worse? Temperatures have been MUCH higher than that in recent history. Are we going to stop the earth from producing GHG’s?

    How will this be forced upon China and India and other non-western nations who are refusing to kill their economies like this?

    Note that Biden has been trying to reduce the amount of petroleum that USA produces, but then goes crying to countries all over the world to IMPORT more than ever before. I call that psychotic.

  3. Jl says:

    How about proof the planet needs to be “saved”, first? Gotta love these “arguments” always seeming to start with false premises….
    it makes it so much easier, though, not to have to mess around with all that evidence stuff…

  4. UnkleC says:

    Reading this, an old discussion popped into my head, let’s see if anyone else remembers this.
    Back when ‘Global Cooling’ was losing it’s pizazz, ‘Global Warming’ was the new cult mantra. Along with Global Warming, CO2 was tagged as a cause since it was a minor atmospheric component and a lifecycle element which could not be eliminated, and that research had shown varied over history making CO2 the perfect patsy for the cult. My remembrance of the details are lost in the past 50 or so years as have been my notes and clippings from the era.
    Anyone else remember this short lived discussion?

Pirate's Cove