Left Livid at Failure of Climate Talks


(UNITED NATIONS) — Activists are upset over the failure of recent negotiations on “global warming” that closed this week in Lima, Peru.

Governments met yet again aiming to hammer out an agreement that would limit the greenhouse gases the left insists cause global temperatures to rise, ice caps to melt, and wild weather to ensue.

Roughly 190 governments met for two weeks in what was the 20th conference of states parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change, one of three documents adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The purpose of the convention is “preventing ‘dangerous’ human interference with the climate system.”

The Convention spawned the Kyoto Protocol, signed by only 83 countries, which was meant to put teeth to the Convention and only binds developed countries.

Ratifying countries to the Convention have met yearly and tend to argue over the perennial question of who pays and who gets the money. Poor countries want rich ones to fork over the cash, rich countries are resistant to making changes to energy use that could have negative effects on economic growth, and each of these meetings tend to grind down to a weak statement issued at the end.

Keith Peterman of York College writes, “The agreement falls short of actions needed to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a warmer world.”

The left-wing pressure group 350 listed five, mostly bad, outcomes of the document.

The group, which includes former senior Obama adviser and admitted communist Van Jones, says the new agreement “does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis.” The document offers “no measures to ensure implementation.” Poor countries were “left out in the cold,” the group adds, though it almost certainly meant left out in the “warm.”

Also, 350 complained that the document does not deal with divestment from fossil fuels even though, “Everyone from Leonardo DiCaprio to a global group of Catholic bishops were talking about a global energy shift.”

The World Wild Life Federation adds, “Political expediency won over scientific urgency.” ACT Alliance, a coalition of religious groups, called the negotiations “fruitless” and complained that governments were not serious about “steering clear of irreversible damage from climate change.”

From their point of view, climate alarmists are right to be upset. The Lima Call for Climate Action is thin soup indeed.

Two of the top accomplishments listed in the UN press release include that pledges made to the new “Green Climate Fund” edged past a paltry $10 billion, not even remotely enough to have even a minute effect on the climate agenda.

Additionally, the release said governments decided that “National Adaptation Plans” will now be made more visible via the UNFCCC website.” Governments also “made progress on coordinating the delivery of climate finance and of the various existing funds.”

Paltry donations, a marginally better website, and “progress on coordinating” dispersal of funds, seem to be the accomplishments of the just concluded talks.

The scene shifts to the next meeting of States Parties to the Convention taking place next year in Paris.