It envisages helping developing countries rebalance their relations with the West while avoiding the neocolonial pitfalls for the ‘green agenda’ that’s being weaponized as a ploy to entrap them.
Lavrov's being disingenuous. Most of the Global South stands to experience devastating impacts from climate change. Russia seems to think it can gain but runaway methane release from melting permafrost will accelerate the rate of warming well beyond human tolerance even if parts of Russia hold out for a while, as boreal forests burn, harvests fail, Ukraine freezes with the slowing AMOC, and floods destroy cities. Russia has good scientists. Presumably Lavrov is like all the rest of global leaders, not listening to them.
A city in the MOUNTAINS here in North Carolina was literally wiped off the face of the Earth by hurricane Helene. People are still living in tents there😞 That's climate change. Go fuck yourself🤡
Yes, another non climate retired physicists has been wheeled out.
CERES and cloud cover has not been left out of the equation by anyone. Low level cloud cover reduction is thought to be due to warming of the ocean, caused by increased Co2. It's being closely investigated. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/industrys-excuses-for-human-climate
Climate change is a scam developed to implement mitigations for oil depletion without panicking the sheeple. People with no critical thinking or hard sciences background just bleat and parrot the propaganda. Any decent engineer that looks into it should be able to find reasons the narrative is nonsense.
Hard science background so I am not parroting the prevalent propaganda that climate change has been debunked. And do we not need mitigations for peak oil: panic or no panic? And why if they took the trouble to develop the scam has it disappeared from MSM? I look forward to your comments on my post.https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
CO2 is a trace gas with no effect within current range of variation. Anyone who doesn't buy into the narrative would never make it into academia or publish because both are screened by folks whose careers are tied to past publications in agreement with the narrative and all funding comes from organizations that want to magnify the "crisis".
Cheney/Tillerson believed in peak North American energy. Thanks to fracking we have bought another 30 years in which fossil fuel production isn’t a concern. Counterintuitively, now is the time to develop the technology to get off of fossil fuels because the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was really the product of an energy crisis that Bush/Cheney failed to solve…and American ingenuity bailed us out with fracking.
Russia’s most successful disinformation campaign was its anti-fracking effort. Many American progressives have been fooled into opposing fracking because of disinformation disseminated by Russian troll farms.
Absolutely correct. For over a century, it has been known that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in an increase in global temperatures.The effect was more fully quantified by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.. See below.
The last two paragraphs sums up this article very well. I would say Lavrov advanced the idea of slow-morphing rather than directly challenging the West head-on by anybody, not by Russia, not by BRICS, and not by the Global South. Instead, go for practical solutions for actual problems. For many countries in the Global South, they cannot afford natural gas or nuclear energy, let alone so called Green Energy. Solar panel requires large semiconductor fabrication with lots of doping from rare earth elements. Windmill blades require high-tech composite materials and the blades frequently break down before the expected expiration dates as formulated in the lab. Most countries in the Global South simply do not have this kind of money or technology.
Whether there is really global warming is debatable, not only at the data level, but also at the semantics and definition level. But the food supply deficiency, population problem, over-foresting problems, etc. are all very real, life-threatening, and shaking the foundations of governments. For the true believers of the Global Warming theory, I suggest a minor change of direction: Try to reduce the CO2 production within your countries. Jet engines do not have good efficiency. But look at who keeps the large commercial and military jet fleets? Which countries have the highest private jets per capita? Maybe Jet fuels should have extra taxes. Ditto for fuels used by cars and trucks. Most countries in the world count on railroads for bulk transportation. The USA counts on 18-wheelers. Or the ratio of work force who drive to work versus those who take public transportataions? Start the efforts at home is the realist; Start the efforts abroad asking other countries to do so and so are imperialists. The "Greens" are realists, are they not?
" Most countries in the Global South simply do not have this kind of money or technology. "
Which begs the question , Whats the point of them being independent nations ? When they're constantly in need of assistance Chinese, Russian ,or the ZioWest. They all give or forgive billions on a regular basis.
No argument about what you said. There are many failed states. Unfortunately, it seems most such failures are due to personal or clan corruption rather than simple incompetence. In Confucius' words, there is never a shortage of good honorable men. What he did not say is that good people tend to stay at places far away from power, willingly or unwillingly. And quite often the exploited people happily elect some real bullies because they like or accept these people rather than out of fear.
That's why China is investing in green growth in developing countries - for mutual benefit. The cost of not going green is much higher than the cost of going green.
Just like 'globalists' at the UN are not forcing a green agenda on the West to control them, neither is the West forcing one on the Global South, in order to control them. They are both cons by the fossil fuel industry.
The Global South are already disporportionatly being affected by the climate crisis, in which global warming (not debatable among the unbiased or the vast majority of climate scientists) plays a large destructive part.
And most such countries cannot afford these solar panels. Therefore they either accumulate huge debt with China or forced to sell raw resources to China (not necessarily at better pricing) or both. Solar panels are good for deserts but bad for vegetation growth. In other words, reduce your CO2 recycling. Solar panels do have its places but its unreliable nature greatly restricts its effective usage.
Yes, there are many issues and yes it's unfair that the Global South is suffering from the crisis largely caused by the West.
The point is, it's not just up to greens to sort out the problem and there is no green agenda being used by China or the West against the developing countries.
Even if the West miraculously improved their emissions, the rapid increase in production in China, Russia and the Global South would still be throwing yet more gasoline on the fire.
The is no future for humanity beyond a few decades based on increased growth or continued fossil fuel use whoever is doing it.
All I can say is that there is no future for humanity beyond a few decades because such resources will be exhausted. As for global warming, I don't see causing any real problems in 30 years, at least not problems as critical or urgent as those already facing the developing countries. Instead of instructing China and Russia about what to do, it is better to get manufacturing back into your country, manufacture the needed goods, now that will reduce transportation overhead in the process.
The reduction in transportation emissions in bringing back manufacturing to the UK would have a minimal effect on the problem.
Global warming is going to make the production of food impossible in many countries by 2050. This is more important than industrialising, which will accelerate the problem and cause greater mass migration, of millions of people. I think having food is the most critical, urgent and real problem.
I am not instructing China or Russia what to do. Neither is the West, who are allegedly using a ‘green agenda’ to control them. That is the fallacy that Lavrov is using to excuse his not doing anything about climate crisis. Industry funded lobbying on climate doubt and denial is obviously as prevalent in Russia as it is in the UK.
Food problem is real but the main issue is soil depletion and dependency on chemical fertilizers and insecticides. Both require heavy energy use and cause pollution. Moving manufacturing back will let the Western people see that their reduced CO2 footprint is mostly due to exporting manufacturing. Besides, population growth alone would wipe out growth in agriculture production. Again, for CO2 to become a problem take easily 30 years, if it ever becomes a real problem at all. There are many other more critical problems. If you believe global warming is a real and urgent problem, please focus on effort inside your own country. Once you solve the problems on your side, I am sure many people will be happy to follow suite.
Lavrov and Russia have a position which has greater validity than the alarmist position.
Real science considers the logical rationale, and the processes of scientific rigor. If you have a scientific theory like (those proposed in climate-ology) some evidence to support it and a proposition, you have to assess the validity of that proposition through falsification, otherwise it is not really science at all. Every serious scientist knows this.
If you rely on the media to promote and stiffle scientific debate it is not science, it's politics. Every politician knows this.
The West believes the green agenda is a weapon by globalists at the UN, to destroy or control them. The Rest believes the green agenda is a weapon by neoliberals in the West, to destroy or control them.
Win win for fossil fuels. Well played them.
There will no doubt be issues with wind and solar- brought about by the increasing climate crisis from continuing co2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
EVs are superior to ICE vehicles and natural gas is superior to coal. If everyone switches to EVs and natural gas it’s very easy to transition to renewables. Two countries are by far the biggest producers of natural gas—America is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and Russia is the second biggest producer and so both can benefit if Russia stops acting the ass.
Lavrov's being disingenuous. Most of the Global South stands to experience devastating impacts from climate change. Russia seems to think it can gain but runaway methane release from melting permafrost will accelerate the rate of warming well beyond human tolerance even if parts of Russia hold out for a while, as boreal forests burn, harvests fail, Ukraine freezes with the slowing AMOC, and floods destroy cities. Russia has good scientists. Presumably Lavrov is like all the rest of global leaders, not listening to them.
The greenhouse gas alarmists have been promising this for years, yet Lower Manhattan and the Maldives remain above water. It could be that, as with the Covid panic, the modelers are wrong again; leaving cloud cover out of the equation might be a mistake: https://thenewamerican.com/us/environment/nobel-laureate-physicist-calls-climate-emergency-a-dangerous-corruption-of-science/
A city in the MOUNTAINS here in North Carolina was literally wiped off the face of the Earth by hurricane Helene. People are still living in tents there😞 That's climate change. Go fuck yourself🤡
Natural disasters never happened before climate change. Hey, since you're such a fan of emojis: 🤡
Yes, another non climate retired physicists has been wheeled out.
CERES and cloud cover has not been left out of the equation by anyone. Low level cloud cover reduction is thought to be due to warming of the ocean, caused by increased Co2. It's being closely investigated. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/industrys-excuses-for-human-climate
Climate change is a scam developed to implement mitigations for oil depletion without panicking the sheeple. People with no critical thinking or hard sciences background just bleat and parrot the propaganda. Any decent engineer that looks into it should be able to find reasons the narrative is nonsense.
Hard science background so I am not parroting the prevalent propaganda that climate change has been debunked. And do we not need mitigations for peak oil: panic or no panic? And why if they took the trouble to develop the scam has it disappeared from MSM? I look forward to your comments on my post.https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
CO2 is a trace gas with no effect within current range of variation. Anyone who doesn't buy into the narrative would never make it into academia or publish because both are screened by folks whose careers are tied to past publications in agreement with the narrative and all funding comes from organizations that want to magnify the "crisis".
Cheney/Tillerson believed in peak North American energy. Thanks to fracking we have bought another 30 years in which fossil fuel production isn’t a concern. Counterintuitively, now is the time to develop the technology to get off of fossil fuels because the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was really the product of an energy crisis that Bush/Cheney failed to solve…and American ingenuity bailed us out with fracking.
Russia’s most successful disinformation campaign was its anti-fracking effort. Many American progressives have been fooled into opposing fracking because of disinformation disseminated by Russian troll farms.
Absolutely correct. For over a century, it has been known that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in an increase in global temperatures.The effect was more fully quantified by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.. See below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
The argument is very old. It doesn't work. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/26/climate/maldives-islands-climate-change.html
Thank you lowly snail. Absolutely perfectly said.
Look at the data. Look at the effects. Look at the attribution studies. Look at the insurance industry. Or not.
The last two paragraphs sums up this article very well. I would say Lavrov advanced the idea of slow-morphing rather than directly challenging the West head-on by anybody, not by Russia, not by BRICS, and not by the Global South. Instead, go for practical solutions for actual problems. For many countries in the Global South, they cannot afford natural gas or nuclear energy, let alone so called Green Energy. Solar panel requires large semiconductor fabrication with lots of doping from rare earth elements. Windmill blades require high-tech composite materials and the blades frequently break down before the expected expiration dates as formulated in the lab. Most countries in the Global South simply do not have this kind of money or technology.
Whether there is really global warming is debatable, not only at the data level, but also at the semantics and definition level. But the food supply deficiency, population problem, over-foresting problems, etc. are all very real, life-threatening, and shaking the foundations of governments. For the true believers of the Global Warming theory, I suggest a minor change of direction: Try to reduce the CO2 production within your countries. Jet engines do not have good efficiency. But look at who keeps the large commercial and military jet fleets? Which countries have the highest private jets per capita? Maybe Jet fuels should have extra taxes. Ditto for fuels used by cars and trucks. Most countries in the world count on railroads for bulk transportation. The USA counts on 18-wheelers. Or the ratio of work force who drive to work versus those who take public transportataions? Start the efforts at home is the realist; Start the efforts abroad asking other countries to do so and so are imperialists. The "Greens" are realists, are they not?
" Most countries in the Global South simply do not have this kind of money or technology. "
Which begs the question , Whats the point of them being independent nations ? When they're constantly in need of assistance Chinese, Russian ,or the ZioWest. They all give or forgive billions on a regular basis.
No argument about what you said. There are many failed states. Unfortunately, it seems most such failures are due to personal or clan corruption rather than simple incompetence. In Confucius' words, there is never a shortage of good honorable men. What he did not say is that good people tend to stay at places far away from power, willingly or unwillingly. And quite often the exploited people happily elect some real bullies because they like or accept these people rather than out of fear.
That's why China is investing in green growth in developing countries - for mutual benefit. The cost of not going green is much higher than the cost of going green.
Just like 'globalists' at the UN are not forcing a green agenda on the West to control them, neither is the West forcing one on the Global South, in order to control them. They are both cons by the fossil fuel industry.
The Global South are already disporportionatly being affected by the climate crisis, in which global warming (not debatable among the unbiased or the vast majority of climate scientists) plays a large destructive part.
I hope your shill-work is well paid.
The irony.
There isn't any.
Oh yes there is.
I don't think so.
For it to be ironic, i would have to be a paid agent. Since I'm not, there is no irony.
And most such countries cannot afford these solar panels. Therefore they either accumulate huge debt with China or forced to sell raw resources to China (not necessarily at better pricing) or both. Solar panels are good for deserts but bad for vegetation growth. In other words, reduce your CO2 recycling. Solar panels do have its places but its unreliable nature greatly restricts its effective usage.
Yes, there are many issues and yes it's unfair that the Global South is suffering from the crisis largely caused by the West.
The point is, it's not just up to greens to sort out the problem and there is no green agenda being used by China or the West against the developing countries.
Even if the West miraculously improved their emissions, the rapid increase in production in China, Russia and the Global South would still be throwing yet more gasoline on the fire.
The is no future for humanity beyond a few decades based on increased growth or continued fossil fuel use whoever is doing it.
All I can say is that there is no future for humanity beyond a few decades because such resources will be exhausted. As for global warming, I don't see causing any real problems in 30 years, at least not problems as critical or urgent as those already facing the developing countries. Instead of instructing China and Russia about what to do, it is better to get manufacturing back into your country, manufacture the needed goods, now that will reduce transportation overhead in the process.
The reduction in transportation emissions in bringing back manufacturing to the UK would have a minimal effect on the problem.
Global warming is going to make the production of food impossible in many countries by 2050. This is more important than industrialising, which will accelerate the problem and cause greater mass migration, of millions of people. I think having food is the most critical, urgent and real problem.
I am not instructing China or Russia what to do. Neither is the West, who are allegedly using a ‘green agenda’ to control them. That is the fallacy that Lavrov is using to excuse his not doing anything about climate crisis. Industry funded lobbying on climate doubt and denial is obviously as prevalent in Russia as it is in the UK.
Food problem is real but the main issue is soil depletion and dependency on chemical fertilizers and insecticides. Both require heavy energy use and cause pollution. Moving manufacturing back will let the Western people see that their reduced CO2 footprint is mostly due to exporting manufacturing. Besides, population growth alone would wipe out growth in agriculture production. Again, for CO2 to become a problem take easily 30 years, if it ever becomes a real problem at all. There are many other more critical problems. If you believe global warming is a real and urgent problem, please focus on effort inside your own country. Once you solve the problems on your side, I am sure many people will be happy to follow suite.
Lavrov and Russia have a position which has greater validity than the alarmist position.
Real science considers the logical rationale, and the processes of scientific rigor. If you have a scientific theory like (those proposed in climate-ology) some evidence to support it and a proposition, you have to assess the validity of that proposition through falsification, otherwise it is not really science at all. Every serious scientist knows this.
If you rely on the media to promote and stiffle scientific debate it is not science, it's politics. Every politician knows this.
Can someone please explain what are the EXACT benefits of being part of BRICS ? How would a Sri Lanka fair in that arrangement for instance ?
DECEIT UNCOVERED: FBI’s story on Las Vegas bomber Falls Apart
Smells on CIA PsyOp – Extensive IDs found in burnt car – Wrong corpse - DNI likely to be faked
https://youtu.be/-46i-jba34o?si=gY5R_oQweTU3qfNm
The West believes the green agenda is a weapon by globalists at the UN, to destroy or control them. The Rest believes the green agenda is a weapon by neoliberals in the West, to destroy or control them.
Win win for fossil fuels. Well played them.
There will no doubt be issues with wind and solar- brought about by the increasing climate crisis from continuing co2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
EVs are superior to ICE vehicles and natural gas is superior to coal. If everyone switches to EVs and natural gas it’s very easy to transition to renewables. Two countries are by far the biggest producers of natural gas—America is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and Russia is the second biggest producer and so both can benefit if Russia stops acting the ass.