And, yet, most Warmists don’t practice what they preach
The UN climate process needs ambition – the law demands it
The host government of last year’s COP30 summit, Brazil, argued that it should be an “implementation COP”. And if you talk regularly to influential participants in the UN process, you’d be surprised how many will tell you that in the current political climate, it’s all about implementing the pledges and targets governments have already made, rather than aiming to raise them.
This interpretation of ‘implementation’ is dangerously wrong. You can see that it is wrong by simply going back to the Paris Agreement. Article 4 states that Parties (countries) “shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and that each new NDC “will represent a progression” beyond the Party’s previous one and “reflect its highest possible ambition”.
In other words, regularly increasing ambition is a central element of implementing the Paris Agreement. Governments pledged to increase ambition regularly, and the community of people who care about climate change needs to hold them to that pledge. (snip)
Last year, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that 1.5°C is the primary limit of the Paris Agreement and constitutes a legally binding target. It clarified that states have obligations, not only under the UN climate convention, but under customary international law, human rights law and the Law of the Sea.
It also reaffirmed that governments’ NDCs must reflect their highest possible ambition. Last month, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution endorsing the ICJ ruling, with governments voting 141 for, and only eight against.
They can vote all they want, until their governments pass any of this into law it is not law. And, let’s remember, the Paris Climate Agreement was set up to be non-binding, because Obama knew there was zero change of it passing the US Senate. But, hey, Warmists, keep trotting this out there, and we can keep highlight how you refuse to give up your own use of fossil fuels.
Teach has no problem in others voting !
Excellent.
Trump withdrew from this accord in 2026.hisvvonyribuyion to reduced carbon emissions was to attack Iran and close Homuz.well done Mr Trump you have Teaches approval in carbon pollution reduction
Johnny-who said Trump’s alleged motive was to reduce carbon pollution?
The last time you asked me a question “what images ”
I answered I said I was talking about the 118000 images plus full hard drives of videos removed from Epstein’s safe in NYC in June of 2019 by the FBI
Epstein videoed everyone going into his house and while inside
Even though Congress passed a bill and Trump signed it into law that has never been released
Teach is practicing what warmests preach. He may not like it but he is forced to be using energy saving lighting. He is using an energy savings car mandated by warmists.
Only 2 more days of school!
Finals today and tomorrow!
Then 3 months slacking