Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So China and Russia didn't show up, and supposedly India had no desire to as well. I mean, was anyone really surprised? Biden can act tough and "blast them for not showing up" as the headlines say, but they're probably still laughing at him.
This is exactly why Trump pulled us out of the Paris Accords and wanted us to not be involved with climate change as much as we did in the past. I mean seriously, why should we be contributing the most when we have dramatically reduced our carbon footprint? Especially when China and India are the two biggest pollutants? China is considered the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. They also contribute peanuts to this, and it's same the same for Russia. Not to mention Putin has his shiny new pipeline going into Germany, so why would he care?
They just talked about a detailed new study comparing many countries regarding their role in climate change, i.e. emissions, policies, ambitions to prevent it etc.
Regarding the title as such, why would those countries send their presidents? They have sent people that know more about climate change than their presidents do. After all, it's not a photo op, but a tough negotiation, hopefully with some useful results.
I don't know much about Russia's climate ambitions, but China certainly does a lot already. They act instead of talking.
The way certain leaders present are trying to hijack the summit for their geopolitical goals is a disgrace.
Yes, they are laughing. Climate science literature and climate agendas directly benefit China because these climate agendas decrease manufacturing and energy production in the United States and other first-world countries, decreasing competition with China. China knows this and takes advantage of it.
Russia, China and other countries are funding climate change research in American universities, and likely publishing many dramatic articles online in order to push the public alarmism.
How much of the climate research being done has at least some foreign funding that isn't coming from pure intentions? How fanatical are climate change believers, and why are they so fanatical? How much of this fanaticism originated from foreign-funded propaganda, vs legitimate science? How much have climate change policies or laws hurt American interests? How many good jobs were lost? I wonder, if the economic damage could be calculated, what that number would be?
They talk loud but do little. DiCrappio rents The Topaz which moves about 50 feet to the gallon.
Never mind how much fuel it burns to keep his groupies cool, fed and housed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
