China, the world’s largest polluter, has called for less ambitious climate change goals aiming to keep warming to 2C – in opposition to the aims of the Cop26 climate summit.
Xie Zhenhua, Beijing’s climate negotiator, said a 2C target should be the aim and suggested achieving 1.5C was too difficult for many nations.
He warned: “If we only focus on 1.5C, we are destroying consensus and many countries would demand a reopening of the negotiations.”
The Paris agreement, signed in 2015, commits more than 190 countries to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and “preferably” limiting it to 1.5C.
The UK, EU, US, and others have signed up to the goal of 1.5C, with the UK Government making the aim of COP26 to “keep 1.5C alive”.
But the summit has not secured the necessary commitments from big polluters such as China or funding from major economies such as the US – leaving warming on track for 2.7C.
British Cop26 officials have expressed frustration at a “lack of leadership” from Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, who declined to attend the summit and instead sent a written statement.
Mr. Xie said China had “already been making our biggest possible effort to address climate change”, adding: “So regarding the fact that China is the current largest emitter, it’s because China is at a special development stage.”
He has also been critical of the failure of developed countries to deliver on a pledge of $100 billion in annual climate financing until at least 2024, three years after its deadline.
Read rest at The Telegraph
Yes, David, they are intent on hobbling democracy and capitalism.
I have a pet peeve, and that is the tactic of drawing a line (border) around millions of people and ranking their carbon dioxide output . The one metric that matters most, to me, is per capita consumption and waste. Efficiency. Who does it best? I’m guessing Scandinavians.
They stand to benefit the most from an increase in temperature. Canada will benefit too if the temperature climbs. Yet these countries are blinkered by UN socialist dogma. The end game is wealth redistribution and parasitic politicians collect royalties.
Yes, efficiency is the desirable goal, not the energy reduction that results from mandating the so-called renewables. And improving efficiency usually, if not always, results in reducing pollution — the real kind, not carbon dioxide. But very many educated, intelligent people seem resolutely blind to the deceptions perpetrated by the most dogmatic among them.
Originally 2.0 degrees was the goal of the COP meetings. I watched as this was changed to 1.5 degrees. There were no studies. It was pure politics. In fact, the 2.0 degrees limit was also pure politics with no studies. An economic study showed that the optimum warming would be 3.5 degrees.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/global-warming-target-of-1-5c-based-on-shaky-scientific-analysis/
The reason for the 1.5 degree limits is to impact the greatest harm on western economies.