UPDATE 15. November 2021: 5 takeaways from the Glasgow climate change conference

UPDATE 06.November 2021: Will Prince Charles Wage War On Mankind As King? + Prince Charles' cryptic COP29 Speech DECODED

UPDATE 05. November 2021: THE POISON-GREEN BANKSTERS - UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System + PRINCE CHARLES IS AN IDIOT

UPDATE 03. November 2021: China's explanation for skipping COP26

UPDATE 02. November 2021: Global Leaders Pledge to End Deforestation by 2030 + UN CLIMATE AGENDA IS NOTHING LESS THAN A GLOBAL DEPOPULATION PROGRAM

UPDATE 01. November 2021: Glasgow climate summit is an elite farce — innovation is the solution + World leaders slammed for taking private planes to UN climate summit + Watch Sir David Attenborough's powerful speech to leaders at COP26 + COP26: Climate action or climate hypocrisy? + COP26: World leaders back deal to end deforestation by 2030

ICYMI: Biden tours Rome with 85-vehicle motorcade ahead of ‘climate’ summit + Open letter: FSC is no longer fit for purpose and must urgently reform + South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record + SEA LEVELS GRIND TO A CRAWL

PROPLOGUE: (ja) Pledges are just words, not even enforceable promises. A similar pledge by these 'global leaders' in 2014, promising to half deforestation by 2020 has NOT been met at all. The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26 or 'Climate Summit') went for a low hanging fruit to start the show of the gathering on a positive note as part of their blindfolding public relations game. 'Global leaders' like still-President Bolzonaro of Brazil, who stands now officially accused in Brazil and at the ICC for crimes against humanity - especially for his environmental and genocidal crimes against Indigenous peoples in their forest territories - have been fooling those they pretend to lead and the world for decades, while the devastating business-as-usual by their corporate overlords just continues. Most countries have since over 50 years the legislation in place to rule out any wanton forest destruction, but the legal loopholes are as numerous as stars in the sky and the corrupt 'public-private partnership' vehicle pushed by the United Nations (UN) knows how to use them well. With this the UN and their lockstepped governments are actually in the driver's seat of worldwide deforestation and have to stop first and foremost in their their own destructive path. Just to demand 30% of all natural areas from each state, as Agenda 2030 precribes and Jeff Bezos underwrites with his pledges and funds that focus first and foremost on the food supply-chain where Amazon has a big stake, is only harming Indigenous peoples in their ancestral lands and violating their rights more.

Over 100 countries at COP26 pledge to end deforestation by 2030

The declaration on deforestation comes alongside £14 billion ($19.2 billion) of new funding to combat forest loss over five years

2E3TB2E Soy plantation in Amazon rainforest near Santarem - deforestation for the agribusiness - economic development creating environmental degradation - isolated Brazil nut trees sentenced to death. Opening of a road where before there was a forest.
A soy plantation in the Amazon rainforest Ricardo Beliel/BrazilPhotos/Alamy

By Adam Vaughan - 01. November 2021

Countries representing 85 per cent of the world’s forests have committed to ending deforestation within nine years, in a renewed effort to stem the CO2 emissions released by trees being cleared overwhelmingly for agriculture.

The ‘Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use’, to be issued on 2 November by 101 countries plus the European Union at the COP26 climate summit, comes alongside £14 billion of new funding to combat forest loss over five years. The money is being supplied by 12 countries including the UK, plus private organisations including the Bezos Earth Fund.

In a further initiative, 30 financial institutions managing $8.7 trillion in assets, including the UK-based insurers Aviva and Schroders, will announce on 2 November that they will no longer invest in activities linked to deforestation.

Experts welcomed the renewed focus on forests, and the new funding, but warned that the way deforestation is tackled will be key to whether the 2030 goal is met.

“We cannot reach climate goals if we don’t keep trees standing,” says Frances Seymour at the World Resources Institute, a US non-profit. She says it is good that trees are one of the UK government’s four priorities at COP26, along with climate finance, ending coal use and phasing out cars that use fossil fuels.

The 2030 goal is identical to one made seven years ago by a smaller group of countries, known as the New York Declaration on Forests. They also set an interim goal of halving deforestation by 2020, a target that was missed by a wide margin.

However, a key difference is the new plan is signed by several countries that were missing last time, including those with the worst levels of deforestation. Brazil, where deforestation rates have rocketed under president Jair Bolsonaro, is chief among those. “Having all the main players on it is significant, that is a big step,” says Stephanie Roe at the University of Virginia.

While £14 billion looks big, it is still not on a par with meeting the global warming targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement to tackle climate change. Meeting those goals would mean spending an estimated $45 billion to $460 billion a year to protect, restore and enhance forests. Nonetheless, Roe says the funding is a “very welcome and critically needed addition.”

So, is it realistic that deforestation could be halted by 2030? “Yes, I think it is feasible. It is difficult but it is feasible. The main constraint in most places is political will,” says Seymour.

She says there is precedent for action, citing the example of Brazil in the early 2000s, which successfully used policies to slow deforestation rates at the time. Other reasons for hope include a growing awareness among governments that trees are not just important for locking away carbon but shielding them from the impacts of extreme weather, such as preventing soil erosion. Modern satellite monitoring of forest loss also helps, she adds.

However, there is little detail in the new declaration on how the goal will be met – such as paying countries for preventing projected clearances – or how progress will be monitored. The goal is not binding. Seymour adds that this new funding will not help unless simultaneous efforts are also made to cut off the agricultural subsidies that are driving much logging.

Constance McDermott at the University of Oxford says we need to know measures will be used to stop forest loss: “It is not possible to comment on these very bold and flashy promises without seeing, in full view and detail, how they will be operationalised.” She says it is key that efforts benefit local and indigenous communities as well as biodiversity, rather than consolidating money and power in the hands of a few states and corporations.

An average 10 million hectares of forest were cleared globally on average between 2015 and 2010, with an analysis saying last year that deforestation rates must fall by a million hectares every year to end deforestation by 2030. Despite the huge challenge that presents, Roe says we should not be too cynical of the new initiative, because there would be rapid climate benefits if the world curbs deforestation: “If we change it around, then it’s immediate emissions savings.”

Read more: COP26 news: World leaders give dire warnings on the summit’s first day


Global Leaders Pledge to End Deforestation by 2030

Brazil, China and the United States are among the signatories to a declaration that seeks to preserve critical forests that can absorb carbon dioxide and slow the rise in global warming.

By Catrin Einhorn and Chris Buckley - 01.November 2021 - 

Leaders of more than 100 countries, including Brazil, China and the United States, vowed on Monday at climate talks in Glasgow to end deforestation by 2030, seeking to preserve critical forests that can absorb carbon dioxide and slow the rise in global warming.

Deforestation next to a palm oil plantation after fires in South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, in 2019. Land clearing is a major source of carbon dioxide, the main gas causing global warming.
Deforestation next to a palm oil plantation after fires in South Kalimantan Province, Indonesia, in 2019. Land clearing is a major source of carbon dioxide, the main gas causing global warming. Credit...Willy Kurniawan/Reuters

The pledge will demand “transformative further action,” the countries’ declaration said, and it was accompanied by a number of measures intended to help put it into effect. But some advocacy groups criticized the efforts as lacking teeth, saying they would allow deforestation to continue.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain was scheduled to announce the deforestation agreement at an event on Tuesday morning attended by President Biden and the president of Indonesia, Joko Widodo.

“These great teeming ecosystems — these cathedrals of nature — are the lungs of our planet,” Mr. Johnson is expected to say.

Many policy experts have praised the measures as representing an important step forward, while emphasizing that far more is needed.

“The financial announcements we’ve heard in Glasgow are welcome but remain small compared to the enormous private and public flows, often in the sense of subsidies, that drive deforestation,” said Frances Seymour of the World Resources Institute, a research group.

Climate Fwd  A new administration, an ongoing climate emergency — and a ton of news. Our newsletter will help you stay on top of it. 

The pledges come amid growing awareness of the role of nature in tackling the climate crisis, something Britain has sought to highlight at the climate summit, known as COP26. Intact forests and peatlands, for example, are natural storehouses of carbon, keeping it sealed away from the atmosphere. But when these areas are logged, burned or drained, the ecosystems switch to releasing greenhouse gases.

If tropical deforestation were a country, it would be the third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, according to the World Resources Institute, after China and the United States. Much of the world’s deforestation is driven by commodity agriculture as people fell trees to make room for cattle, soy, cocoa and palm oil. The value of healthy forests goes far beyond carbon. They filter water, cool the air and even make rain, supporting agriculture elsewhere. They are fundamental to sustaining biodiversity, which is suffering its own crisis as extinction rates climb.

Efforts to keep forests standing, nevertheless, have struggled. One program, recognized in the Paris climate accord, seeks to pay forested nations for reducing tree loss, but progress has been disappointingly slow.

Previous promises to end deforestation also have not succeeded. A United Nations plan announced in 2017 made similar commitments. An agreement in 2014 to end deforestation by 2030, the New York Declaration on Forests, set goals without a means to achieve them, and deforestation continued.

The same will happen this time, some environmentalists predicted.

“It allows another decade of forest destruction and isn’t binding,” said Carolina Pasquali, executive director of Greenpeace Brazil. “Meanwhile, the Amazon is already on the brink and can’t survive years more deforestation.”

But supporters point out that the new pledge expands the number of countries and comes with concrete steps to save forests.

“What we’re doing here is trying to change the economics on the ground to make forests worth more alive than dead,” said Eron Bloomgarden, whose group, Emergent, helps match public and private investors with forested countries and provinces looking to receive payments for reducing deforestation.

The participating governments promised “support for smallholders, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who depend on forests for their livelihoods and have a key role in their stewardship.”

Tuntiak Katan, the general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities and a member of the Shuar people in Amazonian Ecuador, praised the support for Indigenous and local communities but questioned throwing money at a system he sees as broken.

This year, scientists found that parts of the Amazon have begun emitting more carbon than they store.

China is one of the biggest signatories to the deforest declaration, but the country’s top leader, Xi Jinping, did not attend the climate negotiations in Glasgow. Over the past decades, China has suffered heavy forest losses as its population and industry have grown. But in recent decades, the country has pledged to regrow forests and to expand sustainable tree farming.

By China’s estimate, forests now cover about 23 percent of its landmass, up from 17 percent in 1990, according to the World Bank. Some research has questioned the scale and the quality of that expanded tree cover, but the Chinese government has made expanded reforestation a pillar of its climate policies, and many areas of the country are notably greener than they were a couple of decades ago.

Still, China’s participation in the new pledge may also test its dependence on timber imported from Russia, Southeast Asia and African countries, including large amounts of illegally felled trees.

In a written message to the Glasgow meeting, Mr. Xi “stressed the responsibility of developed countries in tackling climate change, saying that they should not only do more themselves, but should also provide support to help developing countries do better,” Xinhua news agency reported.



Catrin Einhorn

Catrin Einhorn reports on wildlife and extinction for the Climate desk. She has also worked on the Investigations desk, where she was part of the Times team that received the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for its reporting on sexual harassment. @catrineinhorn

Chris Buckley

Chris Buckley is chief China correspondent and has lived in China for most of the past 30 years after growing up in Sydney, Australia. Before joining The Times in 2012, he was a correspondent in Beijing for Reuters. @ChuBailiang



Leaders Warn of Climate ‘Doomsday’ as Old Rifts Divide Summit’s First Day

Nov. 1, 2021





By  - 21. November 2021

What the world needs to hear.

Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados

Breaking the Sound Barrier

By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan  Democracy Now!

“Wildly here without control,
Nature reigns and rules the whole…”

Scotland’s most famous poet, Robert Burns, wrote those lines in 1787. If only the delegates to COP26, the United Nations climate summit that wrapped up last Saturday in Glasgow, had heeded his words. The negotiations ended with a document dubbed the “Glasgow Climate Pact” which many climate activists called a failure. “We should call it the ‘Glasgow suicide pact’ for the poorest in the world,” Asad Rehman of the COP26 Coalition said on the Democracy Now! news hour. “It does not keep us below the 1.5 degree [Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit] guard rail. In fact, it heads us closer to 3 degrees [C, or 5.4 degrees F]…They’re ramming through so many loopholes that it makes a mockery of these climate negotiations.

”One draft of the climate pact included an historic first, calling for “the phasing out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels.” Polluting nations and armies of fossil fuel industry lobbyists managed to dilute that down to “the phase-out of unabated coal power and of inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels.” Thus, coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, can still be burned with the promise that the resulting pollution will be “abated” with carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology. And the same fossil fuel corporations that have profited for so long while sowing disinformation about the climate will continue to enjoy lavish subsidies at taxpayer expense.

“This summit was betrayal,” Mitzi Jonelle Tan, a climate justice activist from the Philippines, said on Democracy Now! “It is painful for me, knowing that the Philippines is such a vulnerable country for the climate crisis and that we know that we are hit year after year, month after month, with climate impacts.” The Philippines, described as the most storm-vulnerable nation on earth, has been hard hit by a succession of especially destructive, climate change-fueled typhoons over the past decade. “All countries,” she added, “should be phasing out the fossil fuel industry. That doesn’t just stop at coal, but also oil and gas, which the U.S. and the U.K. conveniently took out of the text.”

“There are 30 indigenous nations and 30 million hectares of intact forest that are at stake. We must protect this…The forest is calling on us.”

Indigenous land defenders from the Amazon were also in Glasgow for COP26. The world’s largest rainforest is called “the lungs of the planet” for the vital role it plays in absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. “We must first change our relationship to nature, change the way we think about the world, and really put at the center of our thinking our connection to life and our commitment to future generations,” Domingo Peas, an Achuar indigenous leader from the Ecuadorian Amazon, said on Democracy Now! “There are 30 indigenous nations and 30 million hectares of intact forest that are at stake. We must protect this…The forest is calling on us.

”The United States and European nations built their enormous wealth by burning coal with abandon for over a century and a half, a cheap but dirty way to achieve growth. The U.S. remains the single largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, with close to twice the total that China has emitted, based on 2017 data. China is now by far the largest emitter globally.

In recent years, the U.S., the U.K., and most European Union nations have been able to decrease their reliance on coal, shifting to oil, fracked gas, and renewable sources.

Poor, developing nations haven’t contributed significantly to the overall climate crisis, but are suffering disproportionately. To recover from disasters, to adapt to the changing climate, and to build their economies responsibly toward a zero carbon future, these countries need money. COP26 was supposed to deliver on long-promised financing for these needs, but failed to do so.

At COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, the U.S. and other developed countries pledged $100 billion per year to developing and climate-vulnerable nations from 2020 through 2025. Only a fraction of those funds have materialized, much of it as loans, not as climate aid. Meanwhile, a consortium of African nations recently estimated that the true cost for them to effectively respond to climate change would be closer to $1.3 trillion per year. Polluters should pay, and the United States should lead the way.

Robert Burns died in 1796, when the age of coal was in its infancy. The current National Poet of Scotland is Kathleen Jamie. Inspired by the River Clyde that flows through Glasgow, this week she penned “What the Clyde said, after COP26,” which ends,

“sure, I’m a river,
but I can take a side.
From this day, I’d rather keep afloat,
like wee folded paper boats,
the hopes of the young folk
chanting at my bank,
fear in their spring-bright eyes
so hear this: fail them, and I will rise.”

Listen Now  Download Audio ⤓

Glasgow Pact Slammed for Betraying the Global Poor Who Suffer Most from the Climate Emergency
The U.N. climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, ended Saturday with over 190 nations agreeing to the Glasgow… Read More →


5 takeaways from the Glasgow climate change conference

By David Knowles and Ben Adler - 15. November 2021

GLASGOW, Scotland — For the past two weeks, world leaders and their representatives, lamakers, dignitaries, scientists, protesters, activists and business leaders gathered at the 26th UN Climate Change Conference to solve the most daunting challenge facing humanity: how to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep temperatures from rising to even more dangerous levels.


While few at COP26, as it is known, disagreed on the seriousness of the problem, concrete solutions adequate to keep the world below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming — the conference’s goal — proved more elusive. The event’s organizers described the event as a qualified success, the ultimate outcome of which will be known only if countries keep their commitments made in Glasgow and then ramp up their ambition at future conferences in the years ahead.

“This is a fragile win,” said COP26 President Alok Sharma in his concluding statement. “We have kept 1.5 alive. That was our overarching objective when we set off on this journey two years ago, taking on the role of the COP presidency-designate. But I would still say that the pulse of 1.5 is weak.”

That isn’t to say that Glasgow did not produce its share of encouraging breakthroughs or signs that the world’s nations could yet come together to curb emissions enough to spare the planet the worst consequences of climate change. Yahoo News spent the last two weeks covering the conference and left with the following takeaways.

Overall temperature rise projections fall based on commitments made at COP26, but not as far as experts had hoped

The Glasgow Climate Pact is the successor to the Paris Agreement, hashed out at COP21 in 2015. In Paris, nations put forth the goal of “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels [3.6 Fahrenheit]” and “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C ” to stay below 1.5C. The science increasingly suggests that catastrophic effects of climate change will kick in at 1.5C, and the UN’s hope was that the Glasgow agreement would commit to a path to staying below 1.5C, but it didn’t quite get there.

The agreement instead “reaffirms” the goals set in Paris. And, as was the case in Paris, the actual commitments made by nations in Glasgow do not get the world to those goals.

But they come a lot closer. After Paris, the national pledges would have led to at least 2.7C of warming. Based on the national pledges made in Glasgow, the International Energy Agency projects 1.8 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of this century.

That’s an optimistic scenario, however, since there is no penalty for nations that don’t meet their commitments and some of the pledges are only abstract goals without concrete plans for how they would be fulfilled.

The research partnership Climate Action Tracker warns that if you only count the pledges that come with real action plans, the projected temperature rise increases to 2.1C.

And the policies actually currently in place, as opposed to proposed future policy changes, leads to 2.7C of warming. That’s an improvement from Paris, where policies at the time would have led to 3.6C of warming.

The reason there has been increased ambition, but not enough to stay below 1.5C, is that countries are increasingly eager to promise big emissions cuts decades from now but less so in the next decade.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that a 45 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions is needed this decade to stay below 1.5C, but insteads the national plans cumulatively will lead to an estimated 16 percent increase. (None of these figures include very late-breaking announcements, such as China’s agreement announced Wednesday night, to join the U.S.-led effort to cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030.)

Over time, as world leaders hoped, the pledges and policies have increased in strength. So the last-ditch effort for averting catastrophe is now that future COPs in this decade will finally bring warming into line with the goals laid out.

Asked by Yahoo News whether he was optimistic that the final agreement at COP26 would be successful in keeping temperatures from rising above 1.5C, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said that goal would require decades of follow through.

“You can’t answer that question with certainty based on what happens at COP26,” Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told Yahoo News in Glasgow. “The jury is out on this and it’s going to require more effort than just what we do in 2021.”

Biden administration reestablishes the U.S. as a world leader on climate

President Biden arrived at Glasgow with a clear objective: reestablish U.S. credibility on climate change following the disengagement by his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, who had withdrawn from the Paris agreement. Biden and the members of his administration made sure to underscore the sea change in Washington.

“I guess I shouldn’t apologize, but I do apologize for the fact that the United States, the last administration, pulled out of the Paris accords and put us sort of behind the eight ball a little bit,” Biden said in a speech to the delegates.

But Biden arrived at Glasgow with one hand tied behind his back. For the first week of the conference, neither his infrastructure plan, nor his Build Back Better agenda had been passed by a sharply divided Congress, which itself put the administration “behind the eight ball” when it came to, in Biden’s words, “leading by the power of our example.”

Still, even action plans to meet those U.S. commitments established in law, important pledges were made by the U.S. during the first week of the conference. Over 100 countries signed on to a U.S-led initiative to cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030, for example. And, during the second week, Sec. of Transportation Pete Buttigieg rolled out international pledges to reduce emissions from the shipping and aviation industries.

By the end of the first week, however, Congress had passed the infrastructure bill and congressional climate leaders were mostly confident they had found a path to passage of Build Back Better and its sweeping climate provisions. That gave special presidential climate envoy John Kerry something to tout as he worked to secure greater commitments on emissions from other nations.

By the second week, India, the world’s third leading emitter of greenhouse gases, had, for the first time, pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2070.

While China’s President Xi Jinping did not attend COP26, Kerry met often during the conference with Chinese officials, and appeared to secure a virtual meeting between Biden and Xi in the coming days. By far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China’s commitment to keeping temperatures from rising above 1.5C has come into question, and the U.S., the world’s second largest emitter, is pressing it to strengthen its pledges.

Then, with just two days remaining, Kerry held a press conference to announce a breakthrough between the two nations on fighting climate change.

“Tonight I am pleased to announce on behalf of President Biden and Secretary [of State] Blinken that we have agreed to a basic framework for this cooperation going forward,” Kerry said, adding that the new declaration “includes strong statements about the alarming science, the emissions gap and the urgent need to accelerate the actions to close that gap.”

Throughout the conference, Kerry could be seen darting back and forth throughout the venue, helping to secure agreements on financing and emissions, supported by multiple cabinet secretaries and congressional delegations. The United States really was back in the game.

Even the co-author of the Green New Deal seemed to agree with that assessment.

“America is back at COP, on the international stage as a leader on climate action,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said during an event on Tuesday.

The U.S.’s climate policy was still controversial. Ocasio-Cortez herself voted against the infrastructure bill, which pro-environment Democrats say offered too much subsidies for fossil fuel infrastructure. And, towards the end of the conference, climate justice activists and developing nations expressed frustration with the U.S. and European Union for blocking the creation of a fund to distribute reparations for the loss and damage in developing countries from climate change.

Developing nations say more money is needed to deal with climate change

This year’s conference also focused on how climate change would hit the developing world hardest, even though those countries are only responsible for a very small percentage of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions.

Rich countries like the United States have not fulfilled their past promise to provide by 2020 more than $100 billion a year in loans and grants to help poorer countries deal with the impacts of extreme weather events and develop fossil fuel-free economies.

While some additional climate finance pledges, from both the government and private sector were made immediately before and during COP26, the current figures show the $100 billion target won’t be hit until 2023.

India led a block of developing nations that refused to increase the ambition of their emissions reduction targets unless more money was produced. That lack of funding for climate finance was a major reason that large developing nations such as India and Indonesia didn’t offer big-enough emissions cuts to set the world on a path to stay below 1.5C.

Developing nations and activists also remain concerned that climate finance is disproportionately tilted towards measures to help developing nations lower emissions — which is the thing that most helps rich countries too, by lowering climate change — and not for preventing, or simply being reimbursed for, the damage of climate change impacts that are already happening or will be soon.

“It comes down to how much resilience you have in your system. In developed countries, we don’t feel like we have a lot as we see our subways flooded and droughts on our farms, but we have so much more resilience built in through insurance schemes, through excess capital, through FEMA, that’s able to swoop in and offer emergency support to families,” USAID Administrator Samantha Power told “The Climate Crisis Podcast.” “Much of that infrastructure does not exist in developing nations.”

For the first time, the principle that loss and damage in developing nations should be compensated by richer countries has been included in the draft agreement. But it only is a general goal, without metrics for how much money is needed, who will donate it and how it will be distributed.

Pledges are a start, but they aren’t action

A stark illustration of the uncertainty about pledges made in Glasgow came during the first week of COP26, when 133 nations signed an agreement to end deforestation by 2030.

Officials hailed the news, saying that the governments that had signed on accounted for 85 percent of the world’s forests, which are vital in absorbing carbon dioxide and keeping temperature rise in check.

While similar pledges had been made in years past to end deforestation, hope sprang eternal that the world had finally woken up to the importance of preserving forests. Yet one day later, Indonesia, which is home to the third-largest rainforest on the planet, announced that it was having second thoughts about signing the pledge.

“Forcing Indonesia to zero deforestation in 2030 is clearly inappropriate and unfair,” environment minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar said.

Suddenly, the deforestation pledge felt a lot less impressive.

Further underscoring the questionable nature of the non-binding pledges made at the conference, three days after Indonesia’s about-face, the Washington Post reported many nations were reporting inaccurate data concerning their greenhouse gas emissions. Malaysia, for example, reported that its trees absorb carbon four times faster than those in neighboring Indonesia. Using those figures, Malaysia has been able to set more lax emissions goals, potentially saving it millions of dollars while offering an overly optimistic picture about how much it is polluting the atmosphere.

Another significant pledge came from India, whose representatives said for the first time that the world’s third-leading emitter of greenhouse gases would achieve carbon neutrality by 2070. Yet India’s pledge was sorely lacking in details for how this would be accomplished, prompting some environmental groups to discount it altogether.

A common refrain at the conference has been that actions, not words, are what matters. From teenage activist Greta Thunberg to diplomats like Kerry, the consensus is that agreements won’t end up having an impact unless countries follow through on their promises.

“The words don’t mean enough unless they are implemented,” Kerry said at the end of the first week of the conference. “All of us have seen years of frustration for promises that are made but not kept. We understand that. But I believe what is happening here is far from business as usual.”

Though the pledges themselves should be viewed skeptically, they are a necessary starting point, Kerry said.

“The alternative is you don’t say anything, you don’t do anything, you don’t have any promises or commitments, and you’re sitting there just waiting for the deluge,” he added.

The real work of the ‘decisive decade’ has already begun

Time and again in Glasgow, everyone from heads of state to the scruffiest activists described the 2020s as the crucial moment in the effort to avert climate disaster.

"Scientists tell us that this is the decisive decade — this is the decade we must make decisions that will avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis," Biden said in his address to the conference’s opening session.

The problem, however, as UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the Associated Press, is that because humans continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at such high levels, the goal of keeping global temperatures from rising above 1.5C is now “on life support.”

Yet there was a recognition of the seriousness of the problem in Glasgow, and nations, businesses and the general public have begun to take action to distance themselves from fossil fuels.

So, while all this news from Glasgow represents progress in the fight to limit the extent of climate change, until the policies are actually in place, it can’t be said that the world is yet on course to avoid catastrophe. The Glasgow Climate Pact, like the Paris Agreement before it, is instead best understood as one step further in that direction.


Will Prince Charles Wage War On Mankind As King?

06 Nov 2021

At the World Leaders Summit of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), Prince Charles called for, "a vast military-style campaign," against pollution and carbon emissions, waging a war against mankind to save any and all other organisms on Earth. 


"... the International Order that we have worked for generations to build. Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs. The order and progress can only come, when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign." - Barack Hussein Obama


Prince Charles' cryptic COP29 Speech DECODED

06 Nov 2021

Prince Charles Speech at COP26 Decoded The world is changing but they people can see the patterns 



This played for the audience just before Prince jug lugs spoke - at COP26 just don't mention the aerial spraying, HAARP, geo-engineering ...

06 Nov 2021



First published BITCHUTE November 5th, 2021.

Links and resources;
Nano Particles To Contaminate Food Supply - Reese Report
Know Thy Enemy



UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System

The most powerful private financial interests in the world, under the cover of COP26, have developed a plan to transform the global financial system by fusing with institutions like the World Bank and using them to further erode national sovereignty in the developing world.

By WHITNEY WEBB - 05. November 2021

On Wednesday, an “industry-led and UN-convened” alliance of private banking and financial institutions announced plans at the COP26 conference to overhaul the role of global and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, as part of a broader plan to “transform” the global financial system. The officially stated purpose of this proposed overhaul, per alliance members, is to promote the transition to a “Net-Zero” economy. However, the group’s proposed “reimagining” of international financial institutions (IFIs), according to their recently published “progress report”, would also move to merge these institutions with the private banking interests that compose the alliance; create a new system of “global financial governance”; and erode national sovereignty among developing countries by forcing them to establish business environments deemed “friendly” to the interests of alliance members. In other words, the powerful banking interests that compose this group are pushing to recreate the entire global financial system for their benefit under the guise of promoting sustainability.

This alliance, called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), was launched in April by John Kerry, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change; Janet Yellen, US Secretary of the Treasury and former chair of the Federal Reserve; and Mark Carney, the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and former chair of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada. Carney, who is also the UK Prime Minister’s Finance Advisor for the COP26 conference, currently co-chairs the alliance with US billionaire and former Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. 

GFANZ Leadership; Source: GFANZ

Upon its creation, GFANZ stated that it would “provide a forum for strategic coordination among the leadership of finance institutions from across the finance sector to accelerate the transition to a net zero economy” and “mobilize the trillions of dollars necessary” to accomplish the group’s zero emissions goals. At the time of the alliance’s launch, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson described GFANZ as “uniting the world’s banks and financial institutions behind the global transition to net zero” while John Kerry noted that “the largest financial players in the world recognize energy transition represents a vast commercial opportunity.” In analyzing those two statements together, it seems clear that GFANZ has united the world’s most powerful private banks and financial institutions behind what they see as, first and foremost, “a vast commercial opportunity”, their exploitation of which they are marketing as a “planetary imperative.”

John Kerry in conversation with CNN’s Christine Amanpour at COP 26; Source: CNN

GFANZ is composed of several “subsector alliances”, including the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA), and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Together, they command a formidable part of global private banking and finance interests, with the NZBA alone currently representing 43% of all global banking assets. However, the “largest financial players” who dominate GFANZ include the CEOs of BlackRock, Citi, Bank of America, Banco Santander and HSBC, as well as David Schwimmer, CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group and Nili Gilbert, Chair of the Investment Committee of the David Rockefeller Fund. 

Notably, another Rockefeller-connected entity, the Rockefeller Foundation, recently played a pivotal role in the creation of Natural Asset Corporations (NACs) in September. These NACs seek to create a new asset class that would put the natural world, as well as the ecological processes that underpin all life, up for sale under the guise of “protecting” them. Principals of GFANZ, including BlackRock’s Larry Fink, have long been enthusiastic about the prospects of NACs and other related efforts to financialize the natural world and he has also played a key role in marketing said financialization as necessary to combat climate change.

As part of COP26, GFANZ – a key group at that conference – is publishing a plan aimed at scaling “private capital flows to emerging and developing economies.” Per the alliance’s press release, this plan focuses on “the development of country platforms to connect the now enormous private capital committed to net zero with country projects, scaling blended finance through MDBs [multilateral development banks] and developing high integrity, credible global carbon markets.” The press release notes that this “enormous private capital” is money that alliance members seek to invest in emerging and developing countries, estimated at over $130 trillion, and that – in order to deploy these trillions in invest – “the global financial system is being transformed” by this very alliance in coordination with the group that convened them, the United Nations.

Proposing a Takeover

Details of GFANZ’s plan to deploy trillions of member investments into emerging markets and developing countries was published in the alliance’s inaugural “Progress Report”, the release of which was timed to coincide with the COP26 conference. The report details the alliance’s “near-term work plan and ambitions,” which the alliance succinctly summarizes as a “program of work to transform the financial system.”

The report notes that the alliance has moved from the “commitment” stage to the “engagement” stage, with the main focus of the engagement stage being the “mobilization of private capital into emerging markets and developing countries through private-sector leadership and public-private collaboration.” In doing so, per the report, GFANZ seeks to create “an international financial architecture” that will increase levels of private investment from alliance members in those economies. Their main objectives in this regard revolve around the creation of “ambitious country platforms” and increased collaboration between MDBs and the private financial sector.

GFANZ Progress Report  Download

Per GFANZ, a “country platform” is defined as a mechanism that convenes and aligns “stakeholders”, i.e. a mechanism for public-private partnership/stakeholder capitalism, “around a specific issue or geography”. Examples offered include Mike Bloomberg’s Climate Finance Leadership Initiative (CFLI), which is partnered with Goldman Sachs and HSBC, among other private-sector institutions. While framed as being driven by “stakeholders,” existing examples of “country platforms” offered by the GFANZ are either private-sector led initiatives, like the CFLI, or public-private partnerships that are dominated by powerful multinational corporations and billionaires. As recently explained by journalist and researcher Iain Davis, these “stakeholder capitalism” mechanism models – despite being presented as offering a “more responsible” form of capitalism – instead allow corporations and private entities to participate in forming the regulations that govern their own markets and giving them a greatly increased role in political decision-making by placing them on equal footing with national governments. It is essentially a creative way of marketing “corporatism,” the definition of fascism infamously supplied by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

In addition to the creation of “corporatist” “country platforms” that focus on specific areas and/or issues in the developing world, GFANZ aims to also further “corporatize” multilateral development banks (MDBs) and development finance institutions (DFIs) in order to better fulfill the investment goals of alliance members. Per the alliance, this is described as increasing “MBD-private sector collaboration.” The GFANZ report notes that “MDBs play a critical role in helping to grow investment flows” in the developing world. MDBs, like the World Bank, have long been criticized for accomplishing this task by trapping developing nations in debt and then using that debt to force those nations to deregulate markets (specifically financial markets), privatize state assets and implement unpopular austerity policies. The GFANZ report makes it clear that the alliance now seeks to use these same, controversial tactics of MDBs by forcing even greater deregulation on developing countries to facilitate “green” investments from alliance members.

The report explicitly states that MDBs should be used to prompt developing nations “to create the right high-level, cross-cutting enabling environments” for alliance members’ investments in those nations. The significantly greater levels of private capital investment, which are needed to reach Net-Zero per GFANZ, require that MDBs are used to prompt developing nations to “establish investment-friendly business environments; a replicable framework for deploying private capital investments; and pipelines of bankable investment opportunities.” GFANZ then notes that “private capital and investment will flow to these projects if governments and policymakers create the appropriate conditions”, i.e. enabling environments for private-sector investments. 

In other words, through the proposed increase in private-sector involvement in MDBs, like the World Bank and regional development banks, alliance members seek to use MDBs to globally impose massive and extensive deregulation on developing countries by using the decarbonization push as justification. No longer must MDBs entrap developing nations in debt to force policies that benefit foreign and multinational private-sector entities, as climate change-related justifications can now be used for the same ends. 

BlackRock CEO and GFANZ Principal Larry Fink talks to CNBC during COP26; Source: CNBC

This new modality for MDBs, along with their fusion with the private sector, is ultimately what GFANZ proposes in terms of “reimagining” these institutions. GFANZ principal and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, during a COP26 panel that took place on November 2nd, explicitly referred to the plan to overhaul these institutions when he said that: “If we’re going to be serious about climate change in the emerging world, we’re going to have to really focus on the reimagination of the World Bank and the IMF.”

Fink continued:

They are the senior lender, and not enough private capital’s coming into the emerging world today because of the risks associated with the political risk, investing in brownfield investments — if we are serious about elevating investment capital in the emerging world … I’m urging the owners of those institutions, the equity owners, to focus on how we reimagine these institutions and rethink their charter.”

GFANZ’s proposed plans to reimagine MDBs are particularly alarming given how leaked US military documents openly admit that such banks are essentially “financial weapons” that have been used as “Financial Instruments and Diplomatic Instruments of US National Power” as well as Instruments of what those same documents refer to as the “current global governance system” that are used to force developing countries to adopt policies they otherwise would not. 

In addition, given Fink’s statements, it should not be surprising that the GFANZ report notes that their effort to establish “country platforms” and alter the functioning and charters of MDBs is a key component of implementing pre-planned recommendations aimed at “seizing the New Bretton Woods moment” and remaking the “global financial governance” system so that is “promote[s] economic stability and sustainable growth.” 

As noted in other GFANZ documents and on their website, the goal of the alliance is the transformation of the global financial system and it is quite obvious from member statements and alliance documents that the goal of that transformation is to facilitate the investment goals of alliance members beyond what is currently possible by using climate change-related dictates, as opposed to debt, as the means to that end.

The UN and the “Quiet Revolution”

In light of GFANZ’s membership and their ambitions, some may wonder why the United Nations would back such a predatory initiative. Doesn’t the United Nations, after all, chiefly work with national governments as opposed to private-sector interests?

Though that is certainly the prevailing public perception of the UN, the organization has – for decades – been following a “stakeholder capitalist” model that privileges the private sector and billionaire “philanthropists” over national governments, with the latter merely being tasked with creating “enabling environments” for the policies created by and for the benefit of the former. 

Speaking to the World Economic Forum in 1998, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made this shift explicit:

The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution’…A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society…The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.”

With the UN now essentially a vehicle for the promotion of stakeholder capitalism, it is only fitting that it would “convene” and support the efforts of a group like GFANZ to extend that stakeholder capitalist model to other institutions involved in global governance, specifically global financial governance. Allowing GFANZ members, i.e. many of the largest private banks and financial institutions in the world, to fuse with MDBs, remake the “global financial governance system” and gain increased control over political decisions in the emerging world is a banker’s dream come true. To get this far, all they have needed is to convince enough of the world’s population that such shifts are necessary due to the perceived urgency of climate change and the need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Yet, if put into practice, what will result is hardly a “greener” world, but a world dominated by a small financial and technocratic elite who are free to profit and pillage from both “natural capital” and “human capital” as they see fit. 

Today, MDBs are used as “instruments of power” that utilize debt to force developing nations to implement policies that benefit foreign interests, not their national interests. If GFANZ gets their way, the MDBs of tomorrow will be used to essentially eliminate national sovereignty, privatize the “natural assets” (e.g. ecosystems, ecological processes) of the developing world and force increasingly technocratic policies designed by global governance institutions and think tanks on ever more disenfranchised populations. 

Though GFANZ has cloaked itself in lofty rhetoric of “saving the planet,” their plans ultimately amount to a corporate-led coup that will make the global financial system even more corrupt and predatory and further reduce the sovereignty of national governments in the developing world.


Whitney Webb


Woke and the Climate Change Hoax - David Icke in 2020 - David Icke Dot-Connector

·Nov 4, 2021


David Icke

David Icke

That was excellent Mr. Icke. I'm so angry morriscum banned you from coming to Australia. But anyone with half a brain knows why. The politicians and bureaucrats in this country are pure EVIL.


China's explanation for skipping COP26

Gravitas: Nov 3, 2021


Chinese President Xi Jinping has come up with an explanation for skipping COP26. Beijing says 'the conference organizers did not provide the video link method' for joining the summit. If that's the case, could China not have requested one? Palki Sharma tells you why Xi really skipped COP26.



First published BITCHUTE November 3rd, 2021.



A transhumanist cult, hellbent on reducing the human population of earth to 500 million, has been preparing for 70 years to launch their final war against the free peoples of Earth! Patriot firebrand and syndicated talkshow host Wayne Allyn Root will join Alex Jones to discuss the global awakening as well as the New World Order’s agenda and how to stop it!





World leaders back deal to end deforestation by 2030

More than 100 world leaders, including Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro, are supporting the agreement at the COP26 climate summit. Activists say it greenlights "another decade of deforestation."

    By DW - 01. November 2021

truck near where trees were cut down

The joint statement was backed by Brazil, which in July faced its highest annual Amazon deforestation level in a decade

Leaders of more than 100 countries pledged late Monday to stop and reverse deforestation and land degradation by the end of the decade, according to the COP26 chair, the United Kingdom. 

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forest and Land Use is an "unprecedented agreement."

"Climate change and biodiversity are two sides of the same coin," Johnson said in a speech at the climate conference on Tuesday.

"We can't deal with the devastating loss of habitat and species without tackling climate change and we can't tackle climate change without protecting our natural environment and respecting the rights of indigenous people."

Johnson added that "protecting our forests is not only the right course of action to tackle climate change, but the right course for a more prosperous future for us all."

The British Prime Minister shared the stage with Indonesian President Joko Widodo. Indonesia's rainforests have largely been destroyed over decades to make room for palm oil plantations.

Widodo said: "We are committed to protecting these critical carbon sinks and our natural capital for future generations."

What do we know about the agreement?

According to the UK government, the 105 signatories account for 85% of the world's forests, including the Amazon rainforest, Canada's northern boreal forest and the Congo Basin rainforest.

The pledge is backed by almost $20 billion (over €17 billion) in public and private funding, the UK government said.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks during the opening ceremony of the COP26

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's office made the announcement on behalf of the leaders

Britain and 11 other countries have specifically pledged 8.75 billion pounds ($12 billion, over €10 billion) of public funding between 2021 and 2025 to help developing countries restore degraded land and tackle wildfires.

More than 30 private sector investors also pledged to stop investing in activities linked to deforestation by 2025.

The agreement includes promises to secure the rights of Indigenous peoples and recognize "their role as forest guardians." Five countries, including Britain and the US, as well as a group of global charities, pledged $1.7 billion (€1.47 billion) to support Indigenous people's conservation of forests. 

'Another decade of deforestation'

A 2014 UN climate meeting in New York had issued a similar declaration to halve the rate of deforestation by 2020, and end it by 2030.

Yet trees continue to be cut down on an industrial scale. The far-right government of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has particularly come under fire over the deforestation of the Amazon

Greenpeace criticized the Glasgow initiative for giving the green light to "another decade of deforestation."

"Indigenous peoples are calling for 80% of the Amazon to be protected by 2025, and they're right, that's what's needed," said Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali.

"The climate and the natural world can't afford this deal," she said.


Glasgow climate summit is an elite farce — innovation is the solution

By  - 01. November 2021
President Joe Biden giving a speech at the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, Scotland on November 1, 2021.
President Joe Biden giving a speech at the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, Scotland on November 1, 2021. Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

At the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow (COP26), President Biden is projecting the image of a climate trailblazer: “The United States is not only back at the table, but hopefully leading by the power of our example.”

But a pledge of expensive emission cuts by American elites isn’t going to make much of a difference, particularly when neither voters back home, nor leaders of developing countries, are willing to give up cheap and reliable energy.

Historically, most climate promises have fared badly. Since negotiations started almost three decades ago, grand promises have been followed by spectacular letdowns and large emission increases. In a startlingly honest review of climate policies of the last decade, the UN Environment Program found that global emissions since 2005 were indistinguishable from business as usual. For all the last decade’s many lofty climate promises, including the Paris agreement, emissions have increased as if there is no climate policy whatsoever.

It is easy and popular for politicians to talk up the dangers of climate change and promise safety with grandiose policies for 2030 or 2050. But it is much less popular when it is time to ask voters to pay for these draconian climate policies. When French president Emmanuel Macron enacted a tiny gasoline tax, he was met with years of yellow-vest protests. In June, Swiss voters said no to a new carbon tax, and the UK government backed off on even introducing a new, costly mandate to replace gas-fired home heating.

In Glasgow, Biden has restated his goal to have the US emissions net-zero by 2050, but this will have a surprisingly small impact. Even if he managed to get the US to zero today and keep it there for the rest of the century, the standard UN climate model shows this would only reduce the temperature rise by the end of the century by 0.3°F.Yet doing so would be spectacularly costly. A new study in the journal Nature shows that reducing emissions 95 percent by 2050 — almost the President’s promise of net-zero — would cost 11.9 percent of GDP or more than $11,000 present-day dollars for each American citizen, every year.

Biden promised to have US net-emissions at zero by the year 2050 at the conference.
Biden promised to have US net-emissions at zero by the year 2050 at the conference.
Photo by EVAN VUCCI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

These costs are far higher than what most people are willing to spend — in one Washington Post survey, a majority was unwilling to spend even $24 per year.

Most emissions in the 21st century will come from China and India along with poor countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is important to design climate solutions that work for them. For developing countries, the current climate approach of paying large sums for achieving negligible temperature reductions in a hundred years is spectacularly unattractive. As their citizens live off as little as a few hundred dollars annually, they understandably care more about their kids surviving malaria and malnutrition. They want to escape misery, poor education and low job prospects. They care about lifting themselves and their children out of poverty with strong economic growth.

Just days before the Glasgow summit, 24 emerging economies including China and India said that the demand for them to achieve net zero by 2050 was unjust because it stopped poor countries from developing their economies. The President of Uganda put it even more bluntly: “Africans have a right to use reliable, cheap energy.”

If the rich world wants the developing world to cut their emissions, it will have to pay. As India’s Environment Secretary Rameshwar Prasad Gupta said in a stunningly honest interview: “If you want that I don’t emit carbon, then provide finance. It will be much more than $100 billion per year for developing nations.”

In Glasgow, there is talk of the rich world paying $750 billion each year or even $1.3 trillion. Most rich world voters simply won’t pay that kind of bill.

Instead, we need a smarter way forward. We should focus on innovation to make green energy more effective. While politicians often claim green is already cheaper, they are belied by the evidence — if it was cheaper, we wouldn’t need years of haggling to get hundreds of nations to grudgingly promise more green.

The world leaders of the Climate Summit should invest in innovative solutions to climate change.
The world leaders of the Climate Summit should invest in innovative solutions to climate change.
AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali, Pool

World leaders should dramatically ramp up investment into research and development of cheaper, low-CO₂ energy, from fusion and fission, solar, wind and batteries to second generation biofuels and many other brilliant ideas. Not only would it be much cheaper than current climate policies, it would also drive major breakthroughs for new, better and greener energy.

At COP26, Biden would be well-advised not to follow the decades-long tradition of empty promises with eyewatering costs and little climate benefits. Instead, he should lead the world by drastically ramping up funding for green innovation. If we can innovate the price of green energy below fossil fuels, everyone will switch.

Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus and Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”



climate change

Glasgow idiocy: Climate change isn’t remotely the world’s No. 1 problem



Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are not among the world leaders in attendance at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland,…

XI and PUTIN Tell Climate Changers SCREW YOU!!!


Russia, China leaders glaringly absent from COP26 climate summit




World leaders slammed for taking private planes to UN climate summit

By  - 01. November 2021

UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss defended world leaders arriving at Cop26 by private plane:

"Well, I think everybody who's ever done a Zoom call knows that they're quite useful for some things, but when you really get into crunch negotiations, when you wanna look somebody in the eye and talk to them face-to-face, you do need to meet in person, and this is really critical. World leaders are going to have to make some tough decisions about what's going on in their own countries. They're going to have to commit to things they didn't necessarily want to when they arrived at the conference, and that's why it's really important that we do have people face-to-face so these negotiations can take place."

[COMMENT: Well, really? Apart from the fact that ZOOM is Chinese spyware and safer video-conferencing could be used, the total transparency of these face-to-face negotiations engaged in by those 'world-leaders, who actually claim to be the representatives of their state's people, would be a good idea. No more back-room deals, no more "you keep them dumb, I keep them poor" agreements, no more secret 'diplomacy' and no more lies.]

As an estimated 400 private planes flew into Scotland this weekend for the COP26 UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Prince Charles, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and US President Biden in the fleet, the world leaders are being slammed for the excessive use of private transportation while they tout efforts to lower carbon emissions. 

During the COP26, Biden and several other heads of state urged their allies to negotiate solutions towards lowering carbon emissions and fossil fuels. 

After arriving at Prestwick Airport in Scotland Sunday, Bezos and his partner, Lauren Sanchez, met with the Prince of Wales to discuss climate change on the eve of the UN summit. 

“The Prince of Wales has been involved in fighting climate change and protecting our beautiful world for five decades — far longer than most,” Bezos wrote on social media.

Jeff Bezos and others conversing at UN Climate Summit
Bezos and partner Lauren Sanchez met the Prince of Wales to discuss climate change on the eve of the UN summit. Instagram

“We had a chance to discuss these important issues on the eve of #COP26 — looking for solutions to heal our world, and how the @BezosEarthFund can help.”

The massive influx of private jets reportedly caused traffic jams that resulted in empty planes flying approximately 30 miles to find other places to park, according to the Daily Mail.

Prince of Wales speaking to Lauren Sanchez at UN Climate Summit
“The Prince of Wales has been involved in fighting climate change five decades,” Bezos wrote on social media. Instagram

The outlet reported that most of the planes that flew in where hired by rental firms, making it harder to identify who was on board each one. 

Biden and his team flew into Edinburgh from Rome on Air Force One Monday morning. From there, Biden traveled to Glasgow for the summit by car. 

Bezos and partner Lauren Sanchez flew on a private plane to the UN Summit on Climate Change. Jamie Williamson

Per local reports, many private vehicles in the city were seen waiting along the streets with their engines running. 

“Side streets around #COP26 are choked up with chauffeur-driven cars and vans, many with their engines idling. Interesting look for a climate conference,” Channel 4 News reporter Ciaran Jenkins noted.

Several social media users took to Twitter to accuse the world leaders of hypocrisy by using private transportation while urging the public to make more climate-conscious decisions.

“The scenes from #COP26 are peak 2021 virtue signalling at its most grim. Park up the private jet jump in the chauffeur driven car as they have to get to Glasgow to tell the world to act more responsibly,” one Twitter user wrote.

“Nothing quite shows your commitment to climate action like flying to #COP26 in a private jet, and burning a few million litres of rocket fuel through the atmosphere every 5 minutes to show off to your mates. Eh Jeff?” another tweeted, appearing to call out Bezos. 

Workers at airport on hangar
The influx of private planes reportedly caused traffic jams. POOL/AFP via Getty Images

“They are laughing at you. The 400 private jets used by world ‘leaders’ to get to #COP26 pumped out 13,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet they want you to stop eating meat, to stop going on holiday, to buy a new electric car, & to spend thousands of pounds on new boilers,” another wrote.

Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK’s Independence Party, accused “every world leader” who traveled to the summit on a private plane of being an “eco-hypocrite.” 

“Every world leader or dignitary that arrives to @COP26 by private jet is an eco-hypocrite. Fact,” he wrote.

Joe Biden emerging from Airforce One
President Biden arrives at Edinburgh Airport on Airforce One to attend the UN Climate Summit. AP

Some took note of the heads of state who are not attending the summit, pointing out their lack of travel may do better for carbon emissions than attending negotiations.

“China and Russia aren’t attending #COP26 because they’ve no intention of acting and will grow their energy industry while the West impoverishes their citizens through radical action. Ironically not attending is better for the planet than the hypocrites arriving by private jet,” one user tweeted. 

It is not the first time Biden or his administration has been slammed for mixed messaging when it comes to climate change. 

Earlier this month, Vice President Kamala Harris came under fireafter flying on Air Force Two to Nevada, where she talked up Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda and investments to tackle the climate crisis, including using electric and clean energy vehicles. 

Air Force Two has been touted as “more fuel efficient” than its predecessor with a fuel capacity of 92,000 pounds, which comes out to around 11,000 gallons.

Many social media users slammed Harris for her mixed messaging, particularly during a time when video conference calls have become a part of everyday life due to COVID-19. 

Biden’s own messaging on climate change was called into question just last week when in Rome, after he was seen taking an 85-car motorcade to meet with Pope Francis. 

It was unclear how many of the motorcade vehicles were electric plug-ins or hybrids.

“#Decarbonize this,” one person captioned the video.

“America’s Marie Antoinette class is Washington’s elites – and that shows it,” another person responded.


Watch Sir David Attenborough's powerful speech to leaders at COP26

- if only David, the gifted and captivating speaker and film-maker standing against the destruction of the natural world since decades, could for once address and scorn the real culprits, whom he unfortunately keeps as friends to finance his adventures. No word against the uranium business of the Queen, no word against Vanguard, BlockRock and the City of Londin banksters, who are responsible for most of the destruction of our natural world on this planet.

Nov 1, 2021

CTV News

Sir David Attenborough urges everyone to use the climate crisis as an impetus to 'rewrite our story' in a powerful speech at the COP26 climate summit.



#Glasgow #COP26 

COP26: Climate action or climate hypocrisy?

Gravitas | Nov 1, 2021


World Leaders have assembled in Glasgow for COP26. 400 Private jets have landed, producing 13,000 tonnes of CO2. Is this climate action or climate hypocrisy? Here's what Palki Sharma has to say.



Biden tours Rome with 85-vehicle motorcade ahead of ‘climate’ summit

By  - 29. October 2021
Police officers stand bby as the motorcade of US President Joe Biden arrives across the Via della Conciliazione in Rome leading to the Vatican on October 29, 2021.
Police officers stand by as the motorcade of President Biden arrives across the Via della Conciliazione in Rome toward the Vatican, on October 29, 2021. VINCENZO PINTO/AFP via Getty Images

President Biden on Friday cruised through Rome with an 85-vehicle motorcade — drawing criticism for the poor optics ahead of a global warming summit in Glasgow, Scotland, to which Biden is bringing about a dozen top US officials.

“Biden arriving at the Vatican. His motorcade is lonnnnnng,” tweeted Washington Post reporter Chico Harlan, along with a video of the procession.

“#Decarbonize this,” one person captioned the video.

“America’s Marie Antoinette class is Washington’s elites – and that shows it,” another person responded.

Biden routinely says there’s a “climate crisis” caused by fossil fuels. It’s unclear how many of the motorcade vehicles are electric plug-ins or hybrids, but they appeared to be standard gas-guzzling limos, SUVs and vans.

President Joe Biden arriving by car at the Quirinale presidential palace in Rome, Italy on Oct. 29, 2021.
President Biden arrived by car at the Quirinale presidential palace in Rome, Italy, on Oct. 29, 2021. 
EPA/Francesco Ammendola

A different Washington Post reporter, Seung Min King, wrote in a White House pool report that “we are told it is 85 vehicles” in the motorcade.

The president’s domestic motorcade usually features only a couple dozen vehicles, not including those used to block off traffic.

Video of the unusually long motorcade in Rome shows the presidential Beast limo and a decoy followed by a stream of other cars — some with flashing police lights.

Biden arriving at the Vatican. His motorcade is loooooonnnnnng. pic.twitter.com/fDzAH2ENsk

It’s possible that the White House was not responsible for the massive protective detail. Offering security generally is the responsibility of the host country and US law enforcement provides protective motorcades for foreign leaders in DC.

Biden departed for the trip Thursday after unveiling a $1.75 trillion framework for social and environmental spending that includes $555 billion in green-energy and anti-pollution spending that he wants Democrats to pass.

Biden said the legislation would “turn the climate crisis into an opportunity.”

The presidential procession goes along via della Conciliazione
Joe Biden arrives at Vatican, Rome, Italy - 29 Oct 2021
Many of the vehicles appeared to be standard gas-guzzling limos, SUVs and vans.
Matteo Nardone/Pacific Press/Shutterstock
President Joe Biden arrives at the Vatican to meet Pope Francis, October 29, 2021.
President Biden routinely discusses the “climate crisis” caused by fossil fuels.
REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane
The car of US President Joe Biden is parked following his arrival at the Chigi palace in Rome on October 29, 2021, for a meeting with the Italian prime minister ahead of an upcoming G20 summit of world leaders.
President Biden drove through Rome with an 85-vehicle motorcade on Oct. 29, 2021.
The presidential procession goes along via della Conciliazione
Joe Biden arrives at Vatican, Rome, Italy - 29 Oct 2021
It wasn’t clear whether the White House was responsible for providing the massive protective detail.
Matteo Nardone/Pacific Press/Shutterstock

“Folks, we all have that obligation — that obligation to our children and to our grandchildren,” Biden said of curtailing the use of fossil fuels.

After reaching the Vatican in the massive motorcade, Biden said he and Pope Francis discussed climate change.

Biden said he and the pope discussed the “moral responsibility to have to deal with this.”



Open letter: FSC is no longer fit for purpose and must urgently reform


As the Forest Stewardship Council General Assembly kicks off, NGOs and civil society groups urge the ethical wood label to instigate serious change of its practices

A scene of deforestation in Malaysian Borneo. Credit: Shutterstock

To the members of FSC Board: 

Alan Thorne

Barbara Bramble

Carla Ximena Cardenas

Ivone Satsuki Namikawa

Janne Näräkkä

Leendert van der Vlist

Linda Fienberg

Mauro Jose Capossoli Armelin

Per Larsson

Ralph Schmidt-Liermann

Rulita Wijayaningdyah

Zandra Martinez

Date: 25 October 2021

Re: The urgent need for immediate structural reform at FSC to adequately reflect the global deforestation crisis (pdf version)

Dear Members of the Board,

We are writing to express our concern about the integrity of the FSC label and its continued relevance to a climate-conscious future.

We are a group of national and international NGOs working to protect forests, some of whom are FSC members and all of whom support FSC’s original aims and mean it well. FSC could be a powerful tool to protect and help restore the world’s forests and has had beneficial effects in some regions. However, we share urgent and serious concerns over its failure to transform in response to the challenges forests face in the 21st century, and believe it is increasingly serving to undermine rather than support its own stated goals.

Some of us, as world experts on the illegal timber trade, were at the forefront of efforts that prompted lawmakers in consuming countries to ban illegally sourced wood. Faced with the failure of voluntary industry efforts to protect forests, some of these consuming countries are now considering extending these laws to require importers to also ensure that their wood was harvested from a ‘sustainable’ source.

Many of us have likewise played a similar role within the Forest Stewardship Council from when it was first conceived nearly 30 years ago and helped formulate and strengthen FSC policy during the early years of its existence.

Unfortunately, the FSC of today is vastly different from the FSC of those early years. Even as the environmental crisis has worsened and the area of FSC certified forest globally has grown, major supporters from the environmental chamber have increasingly found their voices being ignored or drowned out by voices representing the timber and wood product industry at FSC, usually resulting in weakened environmental standards or in measures that favour increased logging by and profitability of timber companies.

The FSC is under increasing pressure from NGOs and civil society to improve its practices. Credit: Alamy

Many others of our number are not FSC members, but have observed repeated failures of the FSC to assure the responsible sourcing, or even the legality, of products certified by it to consumers. Collectively, we have written reports spanning three decades that have shown how FSC’s systems have failed in every major forested region on earth, at every stage of the supply chain from tropical to temperate and plantation forests. We have heard accounts- from activists, whistleblowers, government officials, and insiders in the logging industry- of how FSC is failing to identify and address: corruption, logging in protected areas, large scale deforestation, disrespect of indigenous peoples’ rights and human rights abuses. Our focus on FSC has not been chosen but has been a natural consequence of our work. Increasingly, when we find suspect wood on sale in major markets like Europe and the US, it is FSC certified or being traded by FSC certified companies.

Both members and non-members have repeatedly called for the structural changes to prevent these bad practices occurring and hamstringing the effective working of FSC. These efforts have frequently been met with denial and defensiveness, as well as half-hearted, piecemeal changes by FSC, or stymied completely by vested interests. Individual scandals are treated in isolation, while underlying causes, and the suggestions on how to tackle them, are ignored. Many of the more meaningful steps taken by FSC, such as disassociations from companies, have usually only occurred as a result of independent civil society investigations, media coverage, and the close monitoring of FSC’s response to them.

FSC today is losing relevance and is unfit for purpose. This is because:

  • Its standards and procedures are now lower than those legally required for wood harvesting and imports in major markets like the US, EU and UK. These laws demand ‘due diligence’ from wood importers, in the EU this needs to be of sufficient rigour to reduce the risk of the products being illegal to a ‘negligible’ level. But doing this requires a level of traceability, knowledge of supplier involvement in illegality and transparency that FSC’s systems simply don’t provide;
  • It has failed to keep up with new technologies, such as readily available satellite imagery and methods for tracking wood and ensuring system integrity;
  • There is a culture of defensiveness and buck passing at FSC, reflected in its response to scandals and NGO appeals over the years, and a lack of transparency in its decision-making; and
  • It has failed to face up to the reality of the increasingly urgent climate and deforestation crisis, and its implications for how forests should be managed and protected.

A March 2021 Greenpeace report, Destruction: Certified, highlighted again the failings at FSC and other sustainability schemes. Credit: Greenpeace

Meanwhile, we are running out of time. Deforestation is the leading cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels. The timber industry remains a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation and its activities are often interwoven with other major drivers like agriculture or mining.

If FSC is to continue to have a presence in countries with climate critical forest cover, many of which are also countries with poor governance levels, it must ensure it is bulletproofing its processes and policies from the ensuing risks. No system is completely free from issues. But for the number of failures to have occurred it means FSC’s weaknesses are systemic. Below we have outlined five particularly important concerns and how FSC must address them:

  1. A shift in philosophy: Forests are a finite resource. But they are currently in rapid decline due to overharvesting and associated infrastructure, which often facilitates conversion to agriculture and other uses. There are a number of steps FSC can take here. It must accept and publicly acknowledge that extracting timber at current global rates is fundamentally unsustainable. FSC should focus its efforts on providing incentives for restoring and managing the vast majority of the world’s forests that have already been degraded, instead of facilitating logging in the few remaining primary forests. FSC must distance itself from the false and outdated argument that logging forests is the best way to protect them, regardless of circumstance. The IUCN has declared that primary forests, including intact forest landscapes, are irreplaceable in the time scale needed to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises, and that their protection should be a top priority. Yet efforts to restrict FSC-certified logging in IFLs, broadly supported by FSC membership, have been repeatedly weakened and then effectively eliminated, due to persistent lobbying by logging interests. FSC has also failed to act on recommendations to restrict certification activities in high-risk areas of poor governance, human rights abuses and conflict zones. FSC should also make a clear position against intensification and the use of FSC certified material as biomass for fuel or energy. Perhaps one of the most obvious examples of FSC greenwashing is that it allows its name to be used for wood that is not FSC certified at all. Making minor changes to the text on its labels alone isn’t good enough. It must immediately move away from the use of ‘Controlled Wood’ and ‘FSC Mix’ and only allow its logo to be used on wood that is 100% from FSC certified sources. The only way the timber industry can truly be part of the solution is if it manages forests with a view to restoring ecosystem health, resiliency, and reducing vulnerability. Even if it were true that ‘sustainable’ logging can help protect forests in the long term (and plenty of evidence has shown many such claims to be false), the nature of the climate emergency is such that the long term will not matter if we don’t take the right steps in the short term. It needs to make all these messages clear consistently and actively promote reduced deforestation.
  2. Removing conflicts of interest: Certification bodies are paid directly by the certificate holder, creating a grave conflict of interest that weakens the integrity of FSC’s core process - auditing. . Recent scandals have illustrated the cosy relationships and wilful blindness this leads to, and exposed the failure of existing mechanisms including ASI audits that should prevent them. This must be urgently remedied by implementing an alternate approach to finance them, such as via escrow accounts Rather than applying more sticking plasters, FSC needs to meaningfully, fairly and openly consider alternative financing arrangements which would remove the underlying cause.  Another major conflict of interest is that the certifying bodies paid to administer the standards, have voting power over the content of those standards
  3. Drastically increased transparency in audits: At present, the lack of availability of crucial data on FSC audits in the public domain makes it easy for bad actors to circumvent or lobby for the watering down of FSC’s requirements. Maps of forest concessions and all conservation areas within them must be made public, along with key data about harvest authorisations. FSC should require the publication of summaries of Chain of Custody (CoC) audits and 'headquarters' audits of accredited certifiers, not only FM/COC audits as is currently the case.
  4. No tolerance for serious violations: At present, FSC allows a company to remain associated with its label even where the ‘preponderance of evidence’ indicates that it is guilty of the worst abuses. FSC must amend the policy for association (PfA) to change the burden of proof with regard to serious illegalities, with a precautionary approach also taken to such risks across its wider systems and procedures, in keeping with laws such as the EU Timber Regulation [EUTR]. It must play an active role in enforcing the PfA rather than waiting for civil society to provide proof of wrongdoing. Corporate structure loopholes, including the 51 per cent minimum ownership requirement in the PfA, are unable to capture the way many conglomerates operate and should be revised. FSC should require all certificate holders to document their beneficial ownership through presenting official corporate registry documents. It must require stricter criteria to be met and more in-depth background checks to be conducted both as due diligence for any member entering the system and as part of standard periodic auditing.
  5. Compulsory traceability: At present there is no mandatory requirement for all FSC certified products to be able to be traced back to source. Unless this is put in place then the fraudulent use of the label will continue. The Transaction Verification system needs to be applied to all products. Compulsory source to shelf traceability should be put in place, using a publicly accessible database to avoid volume laundering. Forensic methods should also be included systematically in the FSC-system.

Earthsight revealed last year how timber illegally logged in Ukraine was entering Ikea supply chains with FSC approval. Credit: Earthsight

Detailed suggestions and roadmaps for how to make several of these changes have already been put forward by FSC members and stakeholders over the years but have failed to materialise. As a result, FSC’s problems have continued.

The FSC must acknowledge that it is accountable not just to itself and its members, but to the wider public- the consumers of its products and to the governments, indigenous peoples, ordinary citizens and future generations of the forest rich countries it certifies companies and concessions within. Unfortunately, its actions do not reflect this. Twenty-seven years after its creation, consumer awareness of climate change and deforestation has skyrocketed. Bureaucratic systems that react defensively and that fail to admit to the need for essential changes to protect the environment will invariably struggle to be looked upon favourably.

We are not suggesting that FSC alone can solve the problems associated with corruption or poor forest governance. Nor are we suggesting FSC replace the role of the state. But neither should a flawed FSC continue to operate in these regions regardless. Neither should it call for an increased role to be given to certification under laws in the US, UK and EU, when that would serve only to undermine the potential positive impact of those laws. By taking the steps above, it can ensure its systems are more robust and better insulated from the very worst problems. It is also in the long-term interests of FSC’s industry members who use its label to market their products at premium rates to ensure it retains its legitimacy in the public eye.

Being better than one’s competitors is no excuse. We acknowledge that similar – or worse- weaknesses exist in other wood labelling schemes such as PEFC. Our NGOs criticise those schemes too. But FSC’s aim is not to be the least bad wood label. If ensuring it isn’t outcompeted means its wider goals to protect forests are not met, then its continued value is questionable.

When the FSC was created, its aim was to promote responsible forest stewardship, a legal timber trade, protection of biodiversity and lives and livelihoods of forest peoples. It has come under heavy criticism for failing on all these counts and becoming a mere ‘tool for timber extraction.’ FSC today is at a crossroads once more but this time it may be at a point of no return. We are writing this letter because we believe there is still a chance for the FSC to retain credibility among its consumers and stakeholders if it is ready to make these fundamental changes to how it operates, and to its current philosophy. We hope this belief is not misplaced.

As one voice we ask the members of the Board to address our concerns and to urgently call for the changes we outline above. We believe these reforms will play a significant part in battling the deforestation crisis and ensuring the legitimacy and relevance of the FSC label globally going forward. We trust you will treat the concerns expressed here with the urgency they deserve.


List of names and organisations 


1. Advocates for Public Interest Law (APIL), Shin Young Chung, Director, South Korea

2. Alarm dla Klimatu Piaseczno (Alarm for the Climate Piaseczno), Anna Kolińska, Group Leader, Poland

3. Auriga Nusantara, Timur Manurung, Chairperson, Indonesia

4. Bruno Manser Fonds, Lukas Straumann, Executive Director, Switzerland

5. Canopée, Sylvain Angerand, Campaign Coordinator, France

6. Earthsight, Sam Lawson, Director, UK

7. EcoNexus, Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, UK

8. Environmental Investigations Agency US, Alexander von Bismarck, Executive Director, USA

9. Environment People Law, Olena Kravchenko, Executive Director, Ukraine

10. Fern, Marie-Ange Kalenga, Forests, Governance & Development Policy Advisor, Belgium 

11. Fundacja Las Naturalny (Natural Forest Foundation), Adrian Grzegorz, Executive Director, Poland

12. Fundacja Lasy i Obywatele (Forests and Citizens Foundation), Marta Jagusztyn, Founder and Executive Director, Poland

13. Global Justice Ecology Project, Anne Petermann, Executive Director, USA

14. Global Witness, Jo Blackman, Forest Advocacy Director, UK

15. Greenpeace Indonesia, Kiki Taufik, Global Head Indonesia Forest Campaign, Indonesia

16. Greenpeace Russia, Alexey Yaroshenko, Head of Forestry Department, Russia

17. HAkA, Farwiza Farhan, founder and Chairperson, Indonesia

18. Mighty Earth, Glenn Hurowitz, CEO, USA

19. Nashi Groshi, Lviv, Oleksandra Hubycka, Chairman and Editor, Ukraine

20. Pro REGENWALD, Germany

21. Quercus – ANCN, Alexandra Azevedo, President, Portugal

22. RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK, Gemma Tillack, Forest Policy Director, USA

23. Rainforest Foundation Norway, Solveig Firing Lunde, Senior Advisor, Norway 

24. Ratujmy Kleszczowskie Wąwozy (Save Kleszczow's Canyons), Anna Treit, Group Leader, Poland

25. Ratujmy Las Mokrzański (Save the Mokrzański Forest), Robert Suligowski, Group Co-Chair, Poland

26. ROBIN WOOD, Jana Ballenthien, Forest Campaigner, Germany

27. Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC), Soojin Kim, Senior Researcher, South Korea

28. Stowarzyszenie Most (MOST Association), Łukasz Misiuna, Vice President, Poland

29. Stowarzyszenie Nasza Ziemia Mysłowice (Our Land Mysłowice Association), Natalia Głombek, President, Poland

30. Stowarzyszenie O'Rety Team (O'Rety Team Association), Aneta Esnekier, Vice-President, Poland

31. Stowarzyszenie Wolne Miasto Giżycko (Giżycko Free City Association), Chair: Stanisław  Puciłowski, Vice-Chair Piotr Kwiatkowski, Board Members Regina Ludwiszewska, Ludwika Rychlik, Jerzy Iżycki-Herman, Poland

32. Tuk Indonesia, Edi Sutrisno, Director, Indonesia

33. Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Environment - People – Law, Yehor Hrynyk, Forestry Expert, Ukraine

34. Wspólny Las, Forest in Common, Anna Treit, Founder, Poland



South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record


Antarctica's frigid winter temperatures are in contrast to trends in the rest of the world, which overall recorded its fourth hottest summer.

Ice in Antarctica.

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

The South Pole just had its coldest winter on record. 

Between April and September, a research station sitting on a high plateau in Antarctica, registered an average temperature of minus 78 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 61 degrees Celsius). That's the coldest temperature recorded since record keeping began in 1957, and about 4.5 F (2.5 C) lower than the most recent 30-year average, according to The Washington Post

The frigid winter is likely caused by a strong polar vortex in the stratosphere, the second layer of the planet's atmosphere from Earth's surface, according to the Post. "Basically, the winds in the polar stratosphere have been stronger than normal, which is associated with shifting the jet stream toward the pole," Amy Butler, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, told the Post. "This keeps the cold air locked up over much of Antarctica."

What's more, a strong polar vortex also leads to more ozone depletion in the stratosphere, which strengthens the polar vortex even more, according to the Post. Ozone is a gas made up of three oxygen molecules that is found high in the atmosphere. Ozone protects Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet rays and depleting it can expand the ozone hole over Antarctica.

While Antarctica logged the coldest known average winter temperature, satellites have detected individual temperatures that are far lower; as low as minus 144 F (minus 98 C), according to the Post.

Thanks to the frigid temperatures, sea ice levels around Antarctica were at their fifth highest extent on record in August, the Post reported. But  the ice melted rapidly over the next several weeks, and by the end of September sea ice had thinned to some of the lowest levels seen at that time of year. Scientists told the Post that the climate in Antarctica is prone to rapid change and that a frigid winter doesn't mitigate the seriousness of climate change.

Antarctica's frigid winter temperatures are in contrast to trends in the rest of the world, which overall recorded its fourth hottest summer. In fact, July 2021 was the hottest month ever recorded, Live Science previously reported

"One cold winter is interesting but doesn't change the long-term trend, which is warming," Eric Steig, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, told the Post. In the long term, Antarctica, like the rest of the world, is warming and rapidly losing sea ice. 

Read the original Washington Post article here.

Originally published on Live Science.

Yasemin Saplakoglu

Yasemin Saplakoglu is a staff writer at Live Science, covering health, neuroscience and biology. Her work has appeared in Scientific American, Science and the San Jose Mercury News. She has a bachelor's degree in biomedical engineering from the University of Connecticut and a graduate certificate in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.



"Sea levels falling.." says NASA. Marshall Islands in no danger. Declining sea levels EXPLAINS Great Barrier Reef BLEACHING ''Sea level issue hijacked by activist agenda.''

GO HERE (unfortunately one needs to sign in via creepy google or fascistbook)

This paper

A short summary of this paper

37 Full PDFs related to this paper

James G Matkin

James G (Jim) ​​​​​​Matkin, Q.C. Internationally known Vancouver lawyer for his work in public policy and conflict resolution. He was EDITOR-IN-CHIEF of the Alberta Law Review studied post graduate law and economics at Harvard University, as a Frank Knox Fellow … moreHarvard UniversityHarvard Law School, Alumnus - Constitutional Law