Climate Diplomacy | A New Shade of Green | Sherry Listgarten | |

Local Blogs

A New Shade of Green

By Sherry Listgarten

E-mail Sherry Listgarten

About this blog: Climate change, despite its outsized impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept to many of us. That needs to change. My hope is that readers of this blog will develop a better understanding of how our climate is evolving a...  (More)

View all posts from Sherry Listgarten

Climate Diplomacy

Uploaded: Jan 5, 2020
It can be difficult to talk about climate change with friends, family, or co-workers, all of whom may have different perspectives. So imagine doing that at the country level, where you are also expected to cooperate to solve the problem. Can countries to work together to address our climate crisis?

After reading about the state of global discussions, I can only hope we are raising a new generation of crack negotiators -- we are going to need them. This is Model UN in real-life, complete with alliances, draft positions, and endless editing and re-editing of texts to gain buy-in. (As just one example, see here.)

I am going to very briefly summarize what’s going on at the global level, since I think it’s interesting and important. It makes me wonder: If the US were as committed a climate leader as Europe, how different would things be? I hope we can begin to answer that question in a year.

Brief backstory
The first “Conference of Parties” (COP1), the UN-sponsored convention on climate, was held in Berlin in 1995. The one held last month in Madrid was the 25th such conference, COP25.

Two years after COP1, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was hammered out with emissions agreements and a structure for trading emissions credits. But many countries did not participate (e.g., US, China, India), in part due to a legally binding structure that assessed penalties for missing emissions targets.

In 2009, the Copenhagen Accord resulted in the creation of a “Green Climate Fund” to help vulnerable and developing countries adapt to the changing climate. Initial commitments were made to the tune of about $10 billion by 2014.

In 2015, the Paris Agreement was hammered out, involving nearly all countries due to a much more flexible structure than Kyoto. Commitments to reduce emissions are voluntary and can take a variety of forms. But all parties agree on the severity of the problem, and agree to share data on emissions and to re-evaluate or at least re-communicate commitments every 5-10 years.

What are the Paris commitments?
To give you a sense of the flexibility provided, here are some of the pledges for Paris (all can be found here).

- US: By 2025, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% from 2005
- EU: By 2030, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990
- China: By 2030, hit peak emissions, and cut emissions per GDP by 60-65% from 2005
- India: By 2030, reduce greenhouse gas emissions per GDP by 33-35% from 2005

Note that India is not promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, just the intensity of its economic growth. Similarly, China is focused on growing GDP and limiting emissions within that context.

Are the Paris pledges enough?

Goals of the Madrid talks
No, the pledges are not enough, which is why a key aspect of the Paris agreement is to re-evaluate and hopefully ratchet up the pledges every 5-10 years.

The science is clear now that there is a big gap between what countries have pledged and what we need to stay below 1.5 C or even 2 C in warming. A recent UN report on the emissions gap states: “Dramatic strengthening of the NDCs (pledges) is needed in 2020. Countries must increase their NDC ambitions threefold to achieve the well below 2°C goal and more than fivefold to achieve the 1.5°C goal”. The current pledges, if all were met, get us to between 2.7 C and 3.7 C warming (an average of 5.8 F) by 2100. One of the primary goals of the December talks in Madrid was to encourage countries to increase their pledges.

Graphic from a budget visualization by the Global Carbon Project

In addition, some important but contentious details of the Paris agreement needed to be worked out in Madrid, particularly around how to exchange carbon credits between countries. Given that some countries have more resources, or more opportunities for reducing emissions than others, these trades can help wealthier countries achieve more reductions while providing funding to less wealthy countries to help them adapt to coming changes. But a poorly designed market can result in skewed incentives and relatively few real-world emissions reductions.

What do countries want?
Unfortunately, while all the countries agreed in principle that they should work to close the emissions gap and design a fair and effective carbon market, little was accomplished due to differing priorities. Here are some examples:

Vulnerable countries. These typically low-lying and poor countries are hardest hit by climate change and are asking for:
- More aggressive emissions reductions from all countries
- Financial assistance for “loss and damage” to their countries
- Carbon markets that do more to reduce real-world emissions, for example by cancelling a portion of all emissions that are exchanged.

Developing countries. These countries say they cannot increase the “ambition” of their pledges without more funding. China and India are among those in this group. These countries believe that those who benefited financially from burning fossil fuels are morally obligated to help others to reduce their emissions, and point to countries like the US, Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Australia.

US and Europe. These countries (especially the US) want financial contributions to be voluntary. They do not want legal liability for damages. The US also wants to avoid anything that may look like a tax on carbon exchanges, which would require Senate approval.

Australia. Australia wants to use leftover credits from the earlier Kyoto Protocol to meet its pledge. However, these credits are generally considered worthless, with little value in the Kyoto carbon market. Given that China, India, South Korea, and Brazil have amassed many similar credits from Kyoto, allowing their use would decrease the effect of overall pledges by around 25%.

Brazil. Brazil, as host of a huge potential source of carbon credits (the rain forest), has asked to double-count emissions reductions that are traded. That is, it wants credit for the emissions reductions even if it sells credits for those same reductions (e.g., for reducing deforestation) to other countries.

Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia wants compensation for reducing the supply of fossil fuels.

Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay. These cattle-heavy countries want methane emissions to count for just 4x carbon dioxide emissions, rather than the 21x - 28x that others prefer.

And so on.

Is there any hope for these talks?
It’s hard to get almost 200 countries to agree on resolutions, particularly when the playing ground is so uneven and the biggest and wealthiest historical emitter of them all (the US) is loathe to participate, causing other nations in similar situations to question their own more forthcoming stances.

The carbon market is vulnerable to lobbying. While there is general agreement that no trading is better than unfair trading, if Brazil and Australia and others end up drafting compromises and loopholes in the final rules, any results the markets achieve will be watered down.

Emissions reductions and more fundamentally national well-being are at risk due to a lack of adequate, equitable funding. The United States pledged $3B, but transferred only $1B before Trump halted further donations. Our donation is on the order of $3 per capita, much less than virtually every other developed nation. Sweden and Norway are donating $50-$60 per capita, the UK around $20, Canada and Australia around $8. Furthermore, many of those same countries followed up their initial pledges with even larger ones in 2019, as shown in the graphic below from Nature.

Graphic from Nature shows new pledges to the Green Climate Fund. None from the US.

There are several venues in 2020 where progress towards consensus on market design and stronger emissions reductions could be made. The G7 and G20 meetings this year, however, are unlikely to be productive, as they are hosted by countries hostile to the climate discussions (the US and Saudi Arabia, respectively). In fact, Trump has specifically banned climate from the G7 agenda. So what’s left? There will be some UN climate negotiations in June in Bonn, which precede the COP26 in November in Glasgow, where the UK has been a strong proponent of climate negotiations. But with so much left to iron out in a short time, it will be difficult.

How can we make progress?
With global talks going so slowly, how can more countries move more quickly to reduce emissions?

US change in leadership. The current administration is setting back emissions reductions and climate discussions at a critical time. The upcoming election will have a big impact on the outcome of global negotiations.

Unilateral and bilateral actions. The EU took a significant unilateral action at the end of 2019, offering to become carbon-neutral by 2050 and to add a tax on all imported goods from countries without similar pledges. In September they will be meeting with China in Leipzig, with an eye towards an agreement that increases China’s climate ambition.

Financial divestment. If enough large banks and other asset managers divest from fossil fuels, it can have a global impact on emissions that bypasses the slower international negotiations. Climate organizations are putting pressure here with some success.

Technical innovation. More options for reducing emissions would be welcome. It may be easier to share (or copy) technology than to share funding.

My take
I am appalled that the US is not showing more climate leadership and taking more responsibility, given our outsized role in warming and the degree to which we have benefited from fossil fuel use. While I understand our concerns around admitting legal liability and our desire to avoid commitments that require Senate approval, our abdication of our emissions targets and our paltry donations to the Green Climate Fund are embarrassing, not to mention morally remiss and extremely short-sighted.

I would like to see a well-designed carbon market, though I think it may come from a smaller venue than the COPs, such as the EU/China discussions, and grow from there. I also think the financial markets are much more clear-eyed than many of our national leaders, and hope that their evaluation of risks and costs will lead to a more rapid de-funding of fossil fuels than these unwieldy negotiations can manage. That said, I am grateful to all of those who are participating in the global climate discussions, and particularly grateful to the EU for leading in so many ways.

Notes and References

1. You can find a summary of the Paris pledges here, and a good overview of the Paris agreement (from NRDC) here.

2. The most comprehensive writeup of the Madrid talks that I found is here. It has lots of information about the main issues that arose, down to descriptions of text changes. Teens who participate in Model UN should take a look. Below are some quotes from this and other writeups.

Carbon Brief:
- COP26 President Claire O’Neill: “No deal is better than the bad deal proposed”
- UN secretary-general António Guterres: “Do we really want to be remembered as the generation that buried its head in the sand?”
- Harjeet Singh, climate lead from ActionAid: “We can’t just keep calling for ambition from developing countries without putting money on the table.”
- Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy at Union of Concerned Scientists: “I’ve been attending these climate negotiations since they first started in 1991. But never have I seen the almost total disconnect we’ve seen here at COP25 in Madrid between what the science requires and what the climate negotiations are delivering.”

New York Times: “China and India joined the United States in pushing back against more emphatic language that calls on countries to enhance their climate-action targets in 2020. The European Union joined many poor, vulnerable countries in calls to be more ambitious.”

Washington Post: “Fights also dragged on about how to provide funding to poorer nations already coping with rising seas, crippling droughts and other consequences of climate change.”

Politico, quoting Simon Stiell, the environment minister from Granada: “When we have what some may view as academic debates in the halls, it is people, it is people’s lives that are under direct threat.”

Carbon Brief writeup on carbon markets: “The CDM (Kyoto carbon market) is widely viewed as a failure. Rather than driving more ambitious targets, analysts think most of the emissions reductions under the CDM would have happened anyway, either because they made financial sense without credits or were required by law.”

3. The overall UN Climate Change web site is at The per-country pledge writeups (aka NDCs = Nationally Determined Contributions) can be found here. (The ones I scanned were in English and readable. It’s worth taking a look. India’s, for example, has a long explanation for why it continues to grow emissions.)

4. You can find some information about the Green Climate Fund at its site -- -- and a strongly worded op-ed about our refusal to participate here, written by an economist who worked on it. An interactive calculator shows contributions to date using various metrics.

5. Over thirty countries, led by Costa Rica, agreed on a set of principles for effective carbon markets. They include trades that strictly reduce emissions and avoid double-counting and use of worthless credits.

6. The US Climate Alliance organizes the US States that continue to participate in the Paris agreement. America’s Pledge On Climate organizes a broader set of public and private leaders (e.g., including cities and corporations).

Current Climate Data (November 2019)
The globe had the second warmest November on record.
Global impacts, US impacts, CO2 metric, Climate dashboard (updated annually)

Comment Guidelines
I hope that your contributions will be an important part of this blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines, or your comment may be moderated:
- Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
- Stay fact-based and refer to reputable sources.
- Stay on topic.
- In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for all readers.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by leadership, a resident of Greenmeadow,
on Jan 5, 2020 at 10:51 am

Good post, thanks.

> I am appalled that the US is not showing more climate leadership

Sadly, i have yo ask: is our government showing *any* leadership since 2017?

Posted by David Coale, a resident of Barron Park,
on Jan 5, 2020 at 8:04 pm

Hi Sherry,

Thanks for your great summery of where we are with climate change. I have found Greta Thunberg's latest speech to the COP25 conference one of her best, to the point and the most accessible: Web Link

Your take on this, summarizes the current administration and is actually, unfortunately, not a surprise. If we are really going to address climate change we need different "leadership". Please vote accordingly!

Posted by Casey C, a resident of another community,
on Jan 7, 2020 at 11:28 am

Casey C is a registered user.

Thank you, thank you! for your summary and in general for your timely, useful blog.

Posted by Mondoman, a resident of Green Acres,
on Jan 7, 2020 at 11:54 pm

I'm disappointed that the elephant in the room often goes unmentioned -- the fact that we still have almost no idea how much global temps will rise for a given increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The possible range of the "climate sensitivity" value hasn't been narrowed at all during the past 25 years, remaining so broad as to be useless for planning (and negotiating) purposes.

On the low end of possible values, we won't even see a 1.5C increase in temps over the next 80 years with business as usual ever-increasing global CO2 concentrations. On the high end of possible values, it was already too late to avoid a 3C increase based on CO2 concentrations a few decades ago. That is, based on current available science, maybe we don't have to worry at all, maybe it's way too late already, or maybe something in between.

Shouldn't we be focusing on doing research to narrow down the possible range of climate sensitivity values? This seems to be a low priority in both the climate science and climate activism communities - why? Ignoring such a seemingly key piece of information certainly causes me to doubt the sincerity of both groups.

Posted by Mondoman, a resident of Green Acres,
on Jan 8, 2020 at 12:30 am

Sorry,didn't include refs.
IPCC AR5 report (most recent), Working Group 1, Chapter 12, Box 12.2 has a compact discussion of the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) and TCR (transient climate response). In particular, "Even though this assessed range is similar to previous reports (Charney, 1979; IPCC, 2001),..."

Posted by leadership, a resident of Greenmeadow,
on Jan 8, 2020 at 9:32 am

> This seems to be a low priority in both the climate science and climate activism communities

"Seems" ?

Well, your claim "seems" to be false, by the very resource you attempted to attribute - - the IPCC.

This "certainly causes me to doubt the sincerity of" your claims. I'm curious - do you support Trump removing focus on climate change from various agencies' missions?

Are you "disappointed (with) that elephant in the room (going) unmentioned" in your post?

Posted by leadership, a resident of Greenmeadow,
on Jan 8, 2020 at 10:11 am

"I'm disappointed that" you misrepresented that entire section of the IPCC by cherry-picking (chapter 12, section 12.2, pages 1025-1044.)

You were referring to the single illustration?

Just curious: when did you accept humans causing climate change?

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a blogger,
on Jan 8, 2020 at 1:41 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Mondoman -- Thanks for the question. I’m not sure what it has to do with climate diplomacy specifically, but the point about uncertainty is a good one. There is uncertainty everywhere, which you’ll see indicated by confidence intervals on the data and terms like “likely” and “extremely unlikely” and “virtually certain” in the text of scientific reports. And that is appropriate, because our climate involves some very complex systems. You highlight one metric, but virtually all have some degree of uncertainty.

One thing to be aware of is that the IPCC reports are generally regarded, at least among scientists, as being conservative, as a result of the process that is used to produce them. That is, the observed metrics are typically “worse” than indicated by the IPCC reports. You can read more about that, including specific examples, here.

The science is never going to be as narrow as some people would like, or as perfect as some people would like. We don’t have time for that, and the nature of science is to be wrong sometimes. We are going to need to make (big) decisions in that context, which means we need to be comfortable with evaluating risks of different actions and inactions, as well as costs. The finance guys are particularly good at this, and they are beginning to realize that the risks and costs of not acting are much higher than the risks and costs of actively working to mitigate our emissions and adapt to the changing climate. As just one example, here is a writeup about Citigroup’s approach.

It is also the case that raising doubt and urging “Let’s study this some more” is a tactic used by parties that want to slow down action. Many, many people died of lung cancer as a result of those delaying tactics being deployed by the tobacco industry when the science was clear. The same is true for fossil fuel companies and climate change. Be aware of that. You can find more on that here.

Posted by leadership, a resident of Greenmeadow,
on Jan 8, 2020 at 2:00 pm

Ms. Listgarten: you are so much more tolerant and kinder than I.

Nice response.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a blogger,
on Jan 9, 2020 at 1:12 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

FWIW, it's mostly that I really want people to engage on this subject, to ask and to listen and to discuss and to learn. (That includes me -- I learn a lot from the discussions here.) So I try to encourage commenting styles that facilitate that. It can take longer to write, though, and I expect many hasty remarks are more a question of time than something like kindness. I just spend more time than most :)

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Jan 11, 2020 at 12:56 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The Terms and Conditions of the Paris Agreement are such that the US is the ATM card for the EU Organization who controls the bank and selection of countries getting funding. The US at this time is dealing with major results of climate - hurricane damage, flood damage, fire damage. The US is dealing with it's specific set of issues which require a huge amount of funding. Directing that funding to the EU organization at this time is not in the best interest of the US. The EU needs to address it's former colonies where it already has commercial interest and self fund those requirements.

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Jan 11, 2020 at 1:14 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The Paris Agreement has a historical backdrop. The major EU countries spent centuries colonizing anything they could get their hands on. All of Africa was colonized with exception of Ethiopia. Moving along through the time lines each country was released from the colonization so that each country has a unique identity in the UN. However the major EU countries still have economic control of much that goes on in those countries. The Agreement is set up so that the EU organization is the banker and control point for how projects are funded and controlled. The major polluters are China and India which are labeled as developing countries so they have no immediate goals. The United States is the ATM card for much of the activity which it has no control over.

The people that negotiated the PA did a bad job on the Terms and Conditions of selection and funding. The EU organization is short of funds - they like using other people's money.
the countries listed have massive internal problems between radical groups which would preclude effective use of those funds.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a blogger,
on Jan 11, 2020 at 3:46 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Res -- It would help if you included references, or at least more details, since the facts that I am aware of do not agree with what you say. Some examples below.

Which bank are you referring to (controlled by the EU)? It can't be the Green Climate Fund (just take a look at their website -- governance and projects -- or read this op-ed by an American who helped set it up). Is it some other bank?

"The major polluters are China and India" -- No.

The country that has caused by far the most global warming to date is the United States. (And we are still the second largest polluter.) The countries at most risk have generally contributed the least to global warming. The global community is asking those who have contributed the most to the problem, and benefited the most from it, to contribute to a fund to help those nations that are suffering. We are refusing to participate.

You refer to "the countries listed" as not being able to use funds effectively. Which countries listed where?

Posted by leadership, a resident of Greenmeadow,
on Jan 11, 2020 at 5:27 pm

A word salad without a single reference. Denial of fact as well as denial of the science community.

[portion removed]

NOAA: "Much of the planet sweltered in unprecedented heat in July, as temperatures soared to new heights in the hottest month ever recorded. The record warmth also shrank Arctic and Antarctic sea ice to historic lows." Web Link

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Jan 12, 2020 at 1:10 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

The Paris Accord is fully discussed in Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia in all of my opinion pieces as a start since they deal in the historical evolution and development of historical events. If you go to their sites they have the listings of the countries that have signed up, their percentage of greenhouse gases for ratification, and dates of signature.
China is the main polluter on their charts.
The Wall Street Journal 12.16.19 - U.N. Climate Talks Fail to Reach Accord shows China is the biggest polluter by far. They are using more coal-fired plants than the rest of the world combined. The EU organization of countries has the biggest emissions trading system. The evolution of the accord and agreements are continually evolving due to continual negotiations with various blocks of countries. The EU and it's member countries are a block of participants that operate as a unit.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a blogger,
on Jan 12, 2020 at 12:33 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Res. Great, thanks for the references, that helps!

Yes, China is the biggest polluter today, and they use way too much coal for sure. We still remain at number 2 even when (as you say) the EU countries are summed together. Historically, we are the largest polluter by a long shot, so we are the single country that has contributed the most to climate change (and benefited the most along the way). See the "bucket" diagram above.

Yes, the EU acts largely as a "union" in these discussions, and their emissions are generally aggregated as well.

You refer to the list of countries on the Wikipedia page: "the countries listed have massive internal problems between radical groups which would preclude effective use of those funds". Do you mean this list? You realize that is a list of nearly all of the countries in the world?

Anyway, it's great that you are interested in this, and Wikipedia can be a solid source of information. I'd urge you to read more about what the Green Climate Fund does and why it was set up and see if that alters your perspective on our participation at all. I suggest some reading in the footnotes but I'm sure there are other good sources.

Thanks for the comments!

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Jan 12, 2020 at 12:33 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Any time I see the words "diplomacy" I read the words of monetary funding to errant countries / organizations. In this case the EU is a solid block for voting purposes. The US has no authority over EU decisions concerning how it appropriates funds to it's member countries, or what specific actions they are to take to resolve their issues.

China and India were incorrectly labeled as "emerging markets" so that they had no immediate goals. The US has no control over China and India at the top level.
However former Gov Brown is a shareholder in the organization that was going to bring the coal trains to the Oakland Port for shipment to China. And China was going to then sell the coal to other Asian markets. This scheme was first projected that the coal would come down the Columbia River from Utah to ship out of the Portland area. That ended up in giant fight.

Our local fight now is no coal trains from Utah, and no oil trains going through San Jose to central CA to port out of a facility in that location.

We need to focus on the immediate problems we have which are either the results of climate issues or will promote further issues. We have our hands full with fires, flooding, hurricane damage, earthquake damage. What a downer that some participants will not get funding to go to big climate events in Europe. I am disappointed in Jerry Brown for participating in these events but putting CA in the middle of truly bad decisions.

Posted by leadership, a resident of Greenmeadow,
on Jan 12, 2020 at 1:30 pm

"The Paris Accord is fully discussed in Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia in all of my opinion pieces... "

"The Agreement is set up so that the EU organization is the banker and control point for how projects are funded and controlled."

"The United States is the ATM card for much of the activity which it has no control over."

I didn't see that on your referenced wiki page.

Again: why can't you substantiate your claims?

Lastly: what's your solution? (besides delay.)

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a blogger,
on Jan 12, 2020 at 5:20 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

So, hmm, I’ll try an allegory. Suppose there is a modest farming village in a small valley, maybe 200 homes or so. Some kids from a few of those homes are exploring the nearby hills and find an interesting rock. They are able to sell it in the next village for an incredible $20 (an unheard of sum in that village). They keep exploring in the same area, and over the next few months they keep digging up those special rocks, which they sell. The kids become rich. They give some money to their parents to expand their homes, dig new wells, buy new donkeys and sheep, etc. The kids themselves wear designer clothes, have all kinds of electronics, etc. Their discovery has made them rich beyond their wildest imagination. One day, an enormous gusher of water courses out of the mountainside where they have been digging. Unbeknownst to the kids, they have been digging up an underground dam that protected the village. All the village homes are flooded, most around 2-3 feet, but some are nearly under water. The villagers all hurry to repair the dam, but much damage has been done to their village. These kids are worried about their homes, new cars, and electronics, and start the work of drying out, repairing, or replacing their things. But homes of much poorer families are damaged and some are not even reparable; the families need to move. Would the kids’ parents be out of line asking them to contribute financially to help the other families in the village?

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Jan 12, 2020 at 10:02 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Each of the member countries has a history which you can read on Wikipedia. Most of the countries listed are former colonies of the major EU countries. If a major EU country colonized and exploited the smaller country then that EU country should be responsible for correcting and helping that country. Are the British helping South Africa? That is their job. It is called "accountability". The EU is the major block in the Accord regarding control of projects and funding for projects. They need to get their act together and finance those projects. Like wise we need to focus on the specific needs we have right now within our borders and help our fellow Americans who are besieged by fires, flooding, earthquakes, etc. We have our hands full right now.

Our University folks are participating in their areas of expertise and attending meetings so we are not short on participation by knowledgeable people.

Posted by leadership, a resident of Greenmeadow,
on Jan 13, 2020 at 9:31 am

@resident1AM [portion removed] deflects the thread to some odd tangent on colonialism (it's a climate thread!) He claims it's on the wiki page. It is NOT.

When given three specific examples to substantiate, he continues on his colonialism rant.

He cannot defend these three misrepresentations:

1. "The Paris Accord is fully discussed in Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia in all of my opinion pieces... "
2. "The Agreement is set up so that the EU organization is the banker and control point for how projects are funded and controlled."
3. "The United States is the ATM card for much of the activity which it has no control over."

Again: why can't you substantiate your claims?

Q: Lastly: what's your solution? (besides delay.)
A: "We have our hands full right now."

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 1 comment | 1,465 views

Reflecting on lives this Thanksgiving Day
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 918 views