CLIMATE CHANGE. The tool they designed to bring in the New World Order. It is custom made and updated frequently so it is always fresh and before you face. Our schools are full of it’s profits are children cut their teeth on it. Bombarded every where by the preachers of this NEW Religion. A generation that grew up without FAITH in GOD was ripe for the pickings. They are leading the crusade with a militant fervor.
But it is ALL a lie. The Agenda is to bring the WORLD into Submission. To take the wealth and the rights FROM ALL PEOPLE.
The so called “developing nations” think that they are going to profit, but it is a lie. The Millennials, think they are creating a better world for their offspring, the foolish Z generation think they are saving the WORLD, and the Alpha Generation will find themselves in a different world altogether.
Here we are back to the FEAR FACTOR. The ones behind the AGENDA are whipping the people into a frenzy. Creating a mob filled with terror, convinced that the WORLD is going to die if we don’t all give up everything and put all our money in the NEW WORLD ORDER till.
Fear is known as the “Great Motivator”.
I would hardly call it ‘Great”. Though in the best of cases it can motivate us to action that saves our lives or the lives of others, FEAR can very often motivate us to say and do things that we will regret.
I find it so amusing that the The ELITE, call TRUTHERS like myself “FEAR MONGERS” and call us criminals for putting fear in people. Though, that is not what we are about at all. We just believe that everyone has a right to ALL information, and more importantly to the TRUTH. We generally offer hope and encouragement and sometimes even practical things that can be done to resolve some of the issues we face. Meanwhile, they are constantly working hard to scare the public into submission, through FEAR.
I just wanted to share some information with you all that might shed some light on the Climate Change issue.
Author and editorialist Alan Weisman has reviewed Bill McKibben’s most recent book on the environment, “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?” McKibben, an author-turned-activist, has been leading the campaign at 350.org to combat the resistance of oil companies to addressing the issue of climate change. In his review, Weisman cites this remark by McKibben concerning the fossil fuel industry: “There should be a word for when you commit treason against an entire planet.”
Here is today’s 3D definition:
An act of betrayal against one’s homeland and its government, which, during a period of history dominated by individual nation-states that define themselves as the unique source of political and moral authority, excludes both the planet and humanity from consideration when they are being shamelessly betrayed
Having reviewed Exxon’s internal documentation dating back to 1982, McKibben observes that “the company’s scientists concluded that heading off global warming would ‘require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion’ or risk ‘potentially catastrophic events.’” In other words, Exxon’s managers were faced with a choice between betraying the vocation of a powerful commercial company and the expectations of its shareholders and their presumed loyalty to the human race, to which they belong, and the integrity of the planet which they inhabit.
What did they choose? This might be the obvious question to ask, but it makes sense only if there is a choice to be made. But there is none for Exxon’s executives other than resolving to change jobs. They are paid to obey the supreme law under which humanity now lives and labors: a law that requires, under pain of exclusion, to promote growth, expansion and profit. Any director who dared to choose against those interests would immediately be replaced by someone willing to comply with the law.
But surely governments will be able to get something done and the experts have plenty of suggestions they could turn into policy. McKibben cleverly suggests that the West could imitate African countries that are successfully managing with mobile technology to compensate for their underdeveloped telecommunications infrastructure. Inspired by their example, the West could choose to banish the omnipresent and invasive “wires tethering us to an energy sector that’s killing us.” That would also seriously improve our urban and rural landscapes.
McKibben criticizes many of the technological solutions presented as silver bullets, but he still believes humanity has the power to change things. “Every day,” Weisman writes, “some trending new gizmo or beguiling advance distracts us from the climate disaster by promising to make our lives easier, even as our future grows shorter.”
McKibben aptly “argues that neither artificial intelligence nor genetic engineering will improve our odds for survival,” but sees a possible solution by “acting together to do remarkable things.” That is the essential condition of any viable solution since the scale of the challenge is global. But achieving it will require making it feasible to “act together.” In the current historical context, that may turn out to be an exceedingly tall order.
History has played a perverse game against the interest of humanity over the past 500 years. It has provided the means for rapid and constantly accelerating technological progress and the creation of material wealth on an obscene scale, but in so doing it has paralyzed humanity’s ability to manage the progress and equitably share the wealth.
Whereas throughout human history different groups of people have been able to organize themselves into communities — occasionally even growing into empires by connecting people and regions economically and politically for limited periods of time — the political authorities of past cultures and empires lacked the technology to control and seriously modify anything beyond local environments. They also lacked what might be somewhat abusively called today’s “scientific” focus on productivity (and profit) that has brought about economic concentration and led to the ever-riskier specialization of industrial and agricultural production, a phenomenon ultimately responsible for diminishing or destroying the capacity of localities and regions to balance the nature of their economic activities as a response to the needs of their populations.
For millennia, political empires rose and declined, giving way to a more local distribution of political power. The pattern changed, however, when the model of the European nation-state began to emerge, most clearly in 16th-century Europe. A series of political transformations led to the eventual acceptance across the globe of an idealized model of representative democracy. The abstraction of the search for profit replaced the dynastic ambition to control and tax to define the goal of empire.
The nation-state came to represent the highest level of political authority, replacing religion and neutralizing the looser but very real force of moral philosophy. In a very real sense, Ayn Rand replaced Aristotle to create the modern world. As Bill McKibben, who holds Ayn Rand responsible for much of what’s wrong with the world today, remarks in an interview: “People who have made a whole lot of money and don’t want to be bothered in any way find her enormously appealing.” This isn’t just a change of philosophical style; it’s the banishment of moral consciousness and the well-financed triumph of the will.
In the 19th century, European governments completed their effort of subduing regional authorities, cultures and languages to arrive at a state of solid territorial control within fixed boundaries. The feudal notion of allegiance — which during the Middle Ages implied a possible choice or even sudden shift of fealty — now applied to the nation-state morphed into a simple requirement of all citizens to respect and obey the government of a nation whose boundaries stretched far beyond any citizen’s region. Americans even today formally “pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands,” but not because they might — like some feudal lord — choose another authority to obey. Instead, it serves as a reminder that they have no choice. The “indivisible” nation-state doesn’t readily admit divided loyalties.
That is how nearly all governments now teach their people to think. At the same time, their very status as nation-states functioning in a global marketplace built on capital investment has created a culture of competition appropriate to capitalism, which means that the natural inclination of every nation is to suspect the intentions of any other authority — including supranational authority — and to some degree deny its reality. This applies to global authorities, such as the United Nations or the International Criminal Court but also, as Brexit so aptly demonstrates, to regional alliances or more formal political structures such as the European Union.
Another significant historical factor contributes to the obstacle to solving the climate problem constituted by the nation-state. Let’s call it the prevailing financial culture, the same one that prevents oil companies from changing course and that underlies Ayn Rand’s thinking. Modern representative democracies constitute their authority through elections that require heavy financing, meaning that deep pockets, especially in the corporate world, have the most impact not just on the outcomes of elections, but also on the culture of “allegiance” of most of the elected officials who handle the reins of power.
The inevitable corruption of such a system derives less from direct transfers of funds than from the deep-seated belief that the corporations with the most clout can be counted on to supply not just money for electoral campaigns, but also jobs to political constituencies. Wall Street lives by Gordon Gekko’s credo: “greed is good.” Main Street has been lulled to sleep by the politicians’ conviction that jobs are good. This often means, not just that it doesn’t matter who creates the jobs and to what purpose, but also that the most wasteful, socially unproductive and environmentally destructive sources of jobs — those dedicated to military-related industries — are the ones politicians will typically favor, principally because they can be funded by the government. Call it military-industrial socialism. The oil industry is closely connected to it. Together their power over political decision-making is overwhelming.
That is how the rich nations of the world work today. They need to protect the largely invisible flow of money through a political economy always heavily focused on energy. In such a society, McKibben’s hope that the world may one day soon “act together” will require somehow instilling a notion of allegiance that goes beyond the current global capitalist system governed, at the highest level of authority, by the competing interests of nation-states. Only when that happens can the idea of treason against the planet become a viable — and enforceable — concept.
*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]
Primordial religions have always been about avoiding the calamities of climate: drought, fire, disease, war… But religion has also always been more that an individual alleviation of insecurity and guilt. It has been a stabilizing force of society’s dominance hierarchies.
Monarchs have always had symbiotic relations with organized religion, and that is no accident. Rulers gain perceived legitimacy, while the church-maintenance class gains high relative social status and privilege. In recent history, one might even argue that the downfall of the USSR was facilitated by a suppressed church.
(One of the main reasons why Organized religion should be avoided. Power corrupts even the Church.)
Clearly, if a system can combine individual-identity-creating beliefs with the impression that the state is vital in defending those beliefs against outside threats, then one has a powerful entity that is directed and centralized, as long as it can all be maintained. A current example is Israel’s remarkable success (as a strong and influential entity), against the a priori odds.
What to do in a secular and multi-cultural empire, to prevent dissolution?
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
The empire needs a religion of choice for its large middle and managerial class, where money and materialism do not suffice, and are not sufficiently cemented to identity. And it must be a religion that the state and political class can be seen to champion and defend.
The state religion enterprise is vital to survival and is well financed, directly and indirectly, via the public purse, of course.
Climate “science” certainly fulfills the criteria for acceptance as the new state religion. There is no lack of public funding for climate researchers in all areas, from policy to economics to biology to medicine to even climatology, who devise ways for society to avoid “climate liability”. This army of protectors of humanity are the (now proverbial) “97%”, who don’t expressly denounce the climate change god.
The degree to which professional scientists find it difficult to resist wearing the certified climate-change glasses is easy to see for anyone who is looking. For example, my critical review of forest-fire science.3
The priests and vicars are the above-noted “scientists”. But the bishops and cardinals are the elite science-policy leaders and world-finance directors.
Developing-world nations who seek a reprise from all-out exploitation must pledge allegiance to the climate-change god.
As I have noted recently in response to the disclosure that “Soros paid Al Gore millions to push ‘aggressive US action’ on global warming”:4
Don’t worry CO2 activists, the global financiers and the dominant US hegemony want exactly the same thing you do. They want a multi-trillion dollar global carbon economy that they manipulate, and they want to use it to confine and tax the emerging competing economies (BRICS), enforceable by military intervention if needed ‘to save the planet’.
The finance-sector exploitation of “climate change” was highlighted in 2007 by the renowned late historian of science and technology David F. Noble, in his article “The Corporate Climate Coup”.5
Many free thinkers are deeply irked by this new state religion with global ambitions. We are irked by human stupidity, and we are irked at how easily the citizens of modern societies are corralled into the latest project to direct humanity for the benefit of a few manipulators.
One hopeful nucleus of resistance are the libertarian-minded entrepreneurs who have managed to claim a stake in fracking. Without them, I don’t know how much more insane this ride could be.
Against the religion of climate change, common sense and logic seem to have no weight whatsoever.
For example, nothing could be clearer than the following. As a general rule, given that some 87% or so of energy used is fossil fuel, then the true (no public subsidy) cost of any “alternative” is a fair proportional measure of the fossil-fuel expenditure needed to create and maintain the said “alternative”. This means that “alternatives” burn more fossil fuel than the fossil fuel technologies themselves. It ain’t rocket science. Logic beats bias. “Alternatives” burn more fossil fuel than conventional energy. But it does not matter, because of (climate) “religion”.
Furthermore, the fact that there can be public subsidies at all is largely due to the technological ability to harness mechanical work cheaply via fossil fuels, including the ability to militarily maintain global inequality.
Even the 2012 environmentalist’s nightmarish horror documentary film of Amy Miller, The Carbon Rush, has not slowed the advancing religion.6
Apr 26, 2021By IER.President Biden has announced a much stricter emissions target for the United States than former President Obama did when he committed the country to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Biden’s pledge is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels by the end of this decade. That pledge represents a near-doubling of the target that Barack Obama committed the nation to, when he vowed to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2025.
In 2019, the most recent year for which complete data are available, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 13 percent below 2005 levels, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 are projected to be down 21 percent from that 2005 baseline, due largely to a slowdown related to the coronavirus pandemic, which means that these emissions will likely increase as the U.S. economy improves. It is important to point out that carbon dioxide-creating fossil fuel sources currently provide 78 percent of total U.S. energy use.
Doubling the target of reductions from Obama’s aggressive targets is a big deal. To get a sense for the magnitude of Biden’s pledge, note that doubling the target by employing a tax would require more than doubling the tax rate on energy because people move away from purchasing highly taxed items. It would also more than quadruple the economic harm inflicted from Obama’s pledge and kill good-paying jobs. The Obama administration, with its regulatory strategy, was inflicting great economic damage in the pursuit of much smaller reductions than Biden’s.
(But, understand this is still Obama’s doing because he is the one in control of the Democratic Party and the puppeteer behind the fumbling, bumbling senile Biden. The voice his ear, literally)
How will the Biden administration pursue its goal? The actual plan has not yet been revealed, but with a target that ambitious, it will not matter what is in the American Rescue Plan, American Jobs Plan, American Family Plan, or any other American plan that Biden throws out there. The growth prospects of the American middle class will be determined and probably undermined by the implementation of his pledge, which will be scoped out and announced later this year. Given that the implementation plan has yet to be designed, it is surprising that Biden can believe such a pledge is even feasible. And further, to believe it is feasible in 9 short years.
In terms of policies to get there, investing in clean energy, resilient infrastructure, electric vehicles and a reliable electric grid are likely to be a few ways to spend taxpayers’ money on unneeded investments. Others will be limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas power plants and regulating methane emissions from oil and gas fields. However, it will likely take much more than these items to attain a 50-percent reduction. Many see it as a dramatic overhaul of American society.
Biden’s Virtual Summit Meeting Commitments
All 40 world leaders the president invited to the virtual summit attended, including those from China and India. The U.K. and European Union committed to slash emissions by 68 percent and 55 percent, respectively, by 2030.
China, the world’s biggest emitter, vowed to reach peak emissions by 2030 and be carbon neutral by 2060—pledges it has made before. The United States and China have agreed to cooperate on climate change despite division on issues like trade and human rights. However, the Chinese minister, Wang Yi, warned that Chinese cooperation would depend on how the United States responded to Beijing’s policies regarding Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Xinjiang. China’s greenhouse gas emissions come largely from burning coal. China is the world’s largest coal consumer, and it is building new coal plants at home and abroad, even as the United States and Europe are retiring their coal plants.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced an India-U.S. Climate and Clean Energy Agenda Partnership for 2030 and re-confirmed the nation’s vow to install 450 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030.
Canada vowed to reduce 2005 emission levels by 40 to 45 percent by 2030. Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro vowed to end deforestation in the country by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 if the Biden administration would provide $1 billion to pay for conservation efforts in the Amazon rainforest.
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said the country will pledge to curb emissions by 46 percent by 2030 compared with 2013 levels. South Korea President Moon Jae In said that Korea will end public financing of coal-fired power plants overseas and plans to unveil a stronger emissions reduction pledge.
Russia President Vladimir Putin broadly pledged to “significantly” reduce the country’s emissions in the next three decades and said Russia makes a big contribution in absorbing global carbon dioxide. According to Putin, Russia has nearly halved its emissions compared to 1990 and he called for a global reduction of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.
Note, however, that neither India nor Russia made any new pledges to reduce oil, natural gas, or coal. Neither did Australia, Indonesia, or Mexico. Some countries said that they were being asked for sacrifices even though they had contributed little to the problem, and that they needed money to cope.
It is easy to make a pledge. It is harder to implement it. It is also very hard to make others adhere to their pledges upon which your own good-faith pledge is made. China, for example, has made statements of concern about carbon dioxide before, yet continues to massively fund coal plants and will surpass the United States in refinery capacity this year. Words are one thing, but actions speak something else. Making pledges, especially ones that are this monumental, without knowing their feasibility nor their impact is not representative of leadership if it turns out other parties ignore their commitments.
If the U.S. enforces the Biden pledge, energy prices for consumers will increase and most likely be regressive as lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on energy than higher-income Americans
In the Bible, to swear is to make an oath and an oath is what someone swears. Consider these meanings: Oath, Swear: an oath is a solemn declaration, usually based on an appeal to God or to some revered person or object, that someone will do some particular thing–like speak the truth, perform a particular act, keep a promise, etc.
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment. Source
but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. Source
They speak mere words,
With worthless oaths they make covenants;
And judgment sprouts like poisonous weeds in the furrows of the field. Source
|So, we see that GOD does not condone swearing an oath of any kind. In fact He commands us NOT TO SWEAR or Pledge!|
President Obama is planning to promise a significant reduction in United States greenhouse gas emissions at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, despite lack of consensus over cap-and-trade legislation in Congress.
The president has yet to decide whether he will attend the conference, which runs from December 7 through 18, but according to The New York Times, an unidentified White House official confirmed that the United States will deliver an emissions reduction goal in line with legislation currently before Congress. Though the House agreed in June to a 17 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, the Senate has yet to vote on its version of the legislation.
The Times reports U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), sponsor of the current Senate bill, S. 1733, said Obama would be safe in agreeing to reductions of 17 to 20 percent based on current Senate committee negotiations. Kerry’s comments contradict another Times article published in October reporting a growing number of senators “unwilling to commit to voting for” cap-and-trade legislation.
The upcoming UN conference is important to environmentalists because deals struck in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012. International pressure is now on both China and the United States, which lead the world in greenhouse gas emissions. The Times article pointed out China is promising to reduce emissions by a “notable margin.” Now the world is waiting to hear a similar pledge from Obama. Though cap-and-trade proponents hope Copenhagen yields a legally binding treaty, the Senate would have to ratify any promises Obama makes before the agreement could be enforced. The president is stuck between guaranteeing more than the Senate will deliver (such was the fate of Kyoto) and estimating an embarrassingly small margin.
So the international heat is on. The BBC is scheduled to air a documentary Wednesday called “Can Obama Save the Planet?”, which promises to give Brits an inside look at what is keeping our president from leading the charge against global warming. The finger of blame, it seems, is directed at American citizens who “see Obama’s plans as an attack on their liberties.” According to the show teaser, “It’s not surprising that, in this divided America, the president’s push to limit greenhouse gas emission has become stuck in the mud of Washington politics.”
The BBC also reports England’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, is urging President Obama to attend the meeting. “We want to get as far as we can at Copenhagen. The substantive commitments that leaders make are what matters. If we have to lock the lawyers in a room for a few months afterwards to turn that into a legal agreement, that’s OK.”
More from their website:
On Thursday, the United Nations released a report urging developed countries to dramatically increase how much funding they offer developing countries to combat consequences of global warming — devastating outcomes like hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts and floods.
Wait, I thought the elite and their scientists were in CONTROL OF THE WEATHER. They claim to be be able to make and stop all of those weather events. There are companies selling weather control and governments bragging that they control the weather for their nations. Why don’t we just make those folks pay the bill?
Such climate aid is crucial because, as it stands, the poor continue to be ravaged by a crisis created and fostered by the rich.
In 2020, for instance, the US was deemed responsible for 4.7 billion tons of carbon emissions via fossil fuels. Pakistan emitted about one-twentieth that staggering figure.
Yet this year, it was in Pakistan where deadly floods killed nearly 1500 people and displaced more than 30 million — a tragedy scientists confirmed was driven by global warming. And it’s in Bangladesh where cyclones uproot coastal villages twice annually, and the finance minister puts $100 million of the country’s own money toward a dedicated climate budget.
(NOW that is rich. The same “scientists” that created the changes in our environment in hundreds ways or more, are blaming global warming and the world points its finger at the USA. Meanwhile, the US government and the Citizens of the USA are ALWAYS sending aid and support of every kind all over the world. And, not just in times of CRISIS! US citizens (Christians mostly) send all kinds of aid and support and personnel all over the world and have for centuries.)
“Adaptation needs in the developing world are set to skyrocket to as much as $340 billion a year by 2030. (According to WHOM? And based on WHAT?) Yet adaptation support today stands at less than one-tenth of that amount. The most vulnerable people and communities are paying the price,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres explained in a statement about the report. “This is unacceptable.”
By 2050, the UN’s new report pushes that quantity up to $565 billion per year. (Again, BASED ON WHAT?)
And though there have been attempts from richer countries to help vulnerable ones manage the problem exacerbated by the former, one big promise of climate reprieve has been broken time and again.
An unjust crisis and a failed pledge
In 2009, industrialized nations proposed an almost tear-worthy solution during COP15, a major climate conference held in Copenhagen.
Simply, they pledged to provide a collective $100 billion every year to aid developing nations, starting in 2020 and ending in 2025. That’s a total of $500 billion.
This pledge was formally documented with a report that printed guidelines such as “this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.”
Then, 11 years later, in 2020, it was ruled the $100 billion target was out of reach. Only about $83 billion was scraped together at the end of it all, which, for context, is about one-ninth of the US defense budget that same year and less than half of Elon Musk’s net worth.
Another $100 billion in 2021, which meant rich countries, at that point, owed poor countries $117 billion altogether. But 2021 came and went, and that $117 billion was not paid.
It’s now 2022.
Per the initial pledge, it’s time for another $100 billion to be delivered — plus whatever debt has been accumulated – and according to the UN’s latest report, an extra few hundred billion dollars because climate change has only gotten worse.
And climate change has gotten worse, again, through primarily industrial activities conducted in wealthy, developed nations.
“If the annual increase from 2019 persisted in the coming years, the US$100 billion target would not be met until 2025,” the new report states. “This calls for significant acceleration in adaptation finance, especially if doubling of 2019 finance flows by 2025 is to be met, as the Glasgow Climate Pact urges,” in reference to last year’s COP26 summit.
On Friday, India also brought the failed $100 billion pledge back into the limelight as the UN’s next annual climate conference, COP27, is set to begin next week in Egypt. Indian government officials requested that rich countries finally deliver what was promised more than a decade ago.
“Developed countries also need to realize that overall costs have gone up, so the pledge to provide $100 billion per year cannot be static. It needs to go up,” an Indian government source told Reuters.
Though India is the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gasses per Our World In Data — the country’s main energy source comes from coal — it’s much lower when we consider emissions per capita because all power generated is distributed among some 1.4 billion people.
India is also a developing country, meaning that even as renewable energy becomes more affordable, transitioning poses a financial hurdle.
With enough climate aid, such an evolution may be more manageable, allowing the country to continue to develop without risking the health and well being of its people as well as without contributing to the larger issue of global warming.
However, while countries with the means try to figure out fiscal allocation of the $100 billion — or simply who owes what — and reason through how long it’ll take to pay up, it’s important to realize countries without the means can’t just press pause.
They are still fighting a crisis they’re unequipped to fight.
“Adaptation must be treated with a seriousness that reflects the equal worth of all members of the human family,” Guterres said. “It’s time for a global climate adaptation overhaul that puts aside excuses and picks up the toolbox to fix the problems.”