Discreet Dolls

COP29 2024 was a disaster and a failure

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
1,681
1,214
113
Branded a "disaster," the COP29 climate conference ended in chaos and anger in the early hours of Sunday morning, as wealthy countries delivered a deal on finance that was roundly rejected by key developing nations.

In the final text of an agreement hashed out at the conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, wealthy nations agreed to deliver $300 billion in climate aid for developing countries by 2035 "from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources." But poorer nations, which have done the least to cause climate change but suffer the most from its consequences, had called on their rich counterparts to deliver at least $1.3 trillion in no-strings-attached grants to help them to deal with climate impacts.

In a stunning, historical blow for the UN's key climate event, India rejected the deal, with representative Chandni Raina stating it had been gavelled through without the country's approval. "This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document," Raina said.

 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
1,681
1,214
113
The developing countries are correct.
They are not going to deprioritize their development for the developed world's climate agenda.
This shows we still need fossil fuels and they will continue to remain the major driver of growth in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyhy

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
1,681
1,214
113
:ROFLMAO:

throwing money at climate change is a best scam of all times

robbing hard working citizens of their money
I mean if you want people to move away from fossil fuels, you have to help them move to renewable sources.
That costs money.
No one is going to prioritize climate over putting food on the table lol.
These guys are clueless. lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JuanGoodman

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,439
2,039
113
Ghawar
The developing countries are correct.
Is climate denial correct? Those who don't advocate
climate change would risk being labelled climate deniers
by the left.

They are not going to deprioritize their development for the developed world's climate agenda.
This shows we still need fossil fuels and they will continue to remain the major driver of growth in the world.
Trudeau and Guilbeault would be disappointed if developing
countries don't want to be beneficiaries of funds we offer to
them to fight climate change.

 

JuanGoodman

Goldmember
Jun 29, 2019
4,254
3,495
113
I think $300 billion is more than enough to line the pockets of these politicians.
Honestly, we all know that's where it will end up.
they have been "fighting" climate change for almost 50 years

without any positive outcome

they are either totally incompetent or simply lying
 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
1,681
1,214
113
Is climate denial correct? Those who don't advocate
climate change would risk being labelled climate deniers
by the left.



Trudeau and Guilbeault would be disappointed if developing
countries don't want to be beneficiaries of funds we offer to
them to fight climate change.

Call it what you want.
But if you want to do anything about climate change, it costs money.
People dont care about the climate as much as they care about their economies.
If you cannot pay up, then atleast shut up lol.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,439
2,039
113
Ghawar
Call it what you want.
But if you want to do anything about climate change, it costs money.
People dont care about the climate as much as they care about their economies.
If you cannot pay up, then atleast shut up lol.
Having no money or simply spending less money is more
effective in fighting climate change or more correctly for
carbon emission reduction. If you have little money to spend
you very likely will drive less or sell you car and switch to
public transport. Imagine what it is like if the government
and individuals all reduce their spending by half; you would
see carbon emission cut by nearly as much.

Most people, climate sheeple, climate skeptics and climate
deniers alike, don't want to compromise a lifestyle contingent
on gasoline gluttony. The only realistic way to meaningful carbon
emission reduction is for all individuals in society to come to
realize there is no alternative to austerity.
 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
1,681
1,214
113
Having no money or simply spending less money is more
effective in fighting climate change or more correctly for
carbon emission reduction. If you have little money to spend
you very likely will drive less or sell you car and switch to
public transport. Imagine what it is like if the government
and individuals all reduce their spending by half; you would
see carbon emission cut by nearly as much.

Most people, climate sheeple, climate skeptics and climate
deniers alike, don't want to compromise a lifestyle contingent
on gasoline gluttony. The only realistic way to meaningful carbon
emission reduction is for all individuals in society to come to
realize there is no alternative to austerity.
Sure, reducing consumption can help.
But yeah the problem with the climate movement is to keep consumption high for developed countries, while expecting developing countries to bear the burden.
So the developing countries said fuck you this time lol.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,084
2,835
113
Branded a "disaster," the COP29 climate conference ended in chaos and anger in the early hours of Sunday morning, as wealthy countries delivered a deal on finance that was roundly rejected by key developing nations.

In the final text of an agreement hashed out at the conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, wealthy nations agreed to deliver $300 billion in climate aid for developing countries by 2035 "from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources." But poorer nations, which have done the least to cause climate change but suffer the most from its consequences, had called on their rich counterparts to deliver at least $1.3 trillion in no-strings-attached grants to help them to deal with climate impacts.

In a stunning, historical blow for the UN's key climate event, India rejected the deal, with representative Chandni Raina stating it had been gavelled through without the country's approval. "This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document," Raina said.

"This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. is not a a big enough bag of money Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document," , we want more money, Raina said.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,982
2,900
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,084
2,835
113
I mean if you want people to move away from fossil fuels, you have to help them move to renewable sources.
who is you?
in your statement

such a switch is physically impossible in the developed world. let alone in the developing world

That costs money.
you could literally spend ALL the money and not accomplish this idiotic objective

No one is going to prioritize climate over putting food on the table lol.
wrong again

When Sri Lanka Banned Synthetic Fertilizers, the Country Imploded

Sri Lanka banned all synthetic fertilizers.

Oops.

Suddenly, the same farms produced much less food. Food prices rose 80 percent.


These guys are clueless. lol.
No they are far worse than that
 
  • Like
Reactions: JuanGoodman

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,084
2,835
113
Call it what you want.
An unachievable pipedream supported by propaganda and a perversion of science.

But if you want to do anything about climate change, it costs money.
Pretending man-kind can control the planets climate is idiotic on face value
This idiocy is now tied to a perpetual loonie left ideal of mass wealth distribution.

That is what costs money

People dont care about the climate as much as they care about their economies.
pure virtue signalling bullshit

The majority of the developing world are more concerned with how they are going to survive the next month, week and sometimes the next day.
It has been shown that if income rises above approx. $5,000 US then people start caring about social issues such as their environment.
let them develop via fossil fuels. insisting they go green is dooming them to perpetual poverty


these Cop29 clowns are flying to exotic locations for climate conferences half way around the world
This latest one was held in a conference building located between two pumping oil fields and the conference cafeteria served meat and diary.
There was two vegan offerings, ....................with no line ups
Most people do care about the environment, but tune out lunatic hypocrites

If you cannot pay up, then atleast shut up lol.
no.
i certainly do want to pay up & I am not going to be quite about it either
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JuanGoodman

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,263
7,918
113
Room 112
Pales in comparison to the disaster that's happened to western civilization with all the money we have squandered trying to fight the climate bogeyman. Trillions upon trillions of wealth squandered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bazokajoe

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,084
2,835
113
Pales in comparison to the disaster that's happened to western civilization with all the money we have squandered trying to fight the climate bogeyman. Trillions upon trillions of wealth squandered.
wealth squandered or redistributed ?
i.e. the liberal green energy slush fund, steven guilbeault >> Cycle Capital
Al Gore made a fortune investing in green companies
David Suzuki has 5 homes

it looks like peddling Climate Alarmism has been quite lucrative
 
  • Like
Reactions: JuanGoodman

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,439
2,039
113
Ghawar
Before he entered politics Steven Guilbeault was society's
parasite. His stunt of climbing up CN Tower to hang a banner
reading: 'Canada and Bush Climate Killers' cost the CN Tower
corporation $50,000. Guilbeault would have lived an unproductive
and miserable life if not for the opportunity to get on Trudeau's
gravy train. Now the criminal convict who would still boast of
him not owning a car is privledged to fly and chauffeured around
at tax payers' expense so he can implement Trudeau's bogus
climate policy without actually having to bring down carbon
emission before Trudeau's demise. Appointment of Guilbeault
to the cabinet is a farce and a disgrace to the nation.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bazokajoe

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,084
2,835
113
Before he entered politics Steven Guilbeault was society's
parasite. His stunt of climbing up CN Tower to hang a banner
reading: 'Canada and Bush Climate Killers' cost the CN Tower
corporation $50,000. Guilbeault would have lived an unproductive
and miserable life if not for the opportunity to get on Trudeau's
gravy train. Now the criminal convict who would still boast of
him not owning a car is privledged to fly and chauffeured around
at tax payers' expense so he can implement Trudeau's bogus
climate policy without actually having to bring down carbon
emission before Trudeau's demise. Appointment of Guilbeault
to the cabinet is a farce and a disgrace to the nation.


parliament is shut down because the liberals refuse to hand over thousands of unredacted papers related to their green energy slush fund
parliament issued a specific order for the unredacted papers, the liberals refuse, in defiance of parliament

one company Cycle Capital has received hundreds of millions from the green energy slush fund

Steven Guilbeault use to lobby for Cycle Capital and has an ownership position.

what is in the redacted pages I wonder?
Steven Guilbeault perhaps
Randy Boissonnault maybe
Gerald Butts ????
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts