Yup, that was the question mark that I had. I saw it at the CBC (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guilbeault-china-saudi-arabia-climate-1.7376007) where we get ‘China, Saudi Arabia should pay up to help the planet cope with climate change: Guilbeault’ OK, I like my sarcasm with plenty of Maple Syrup (a personal choice). A wholesome breakfast as it says. We are given “Guilbeault wants emerging economies to contribute to a new climate goal”. This sounds nice on paper, but it doesn’t hold the pastrami. I feel uneasy as the idea sounds nice, but it seems to have all kinds of unforeseen complications. And as we consider “Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said Wednesday he wants China and Saudi Arabia to contribute money to international efforts to help poorer countries struggling with the worst effects of climate change.” You know, America and Europe take its own share of decades of looting in wealth the established setting of the commodity of oil. Oh, and why give OPEC and China that bill? Where is Am Erica for that bill? I am pretty sure that some president of the US give Steven Guilbeault the finger the moment he states that out loud. There is a larger setting. You see, we could decrease the allowed oil for any nation by 10%, then there is my favourite, decrease global flights by 15% (taken in account that there are way too many flights happening). You see, the last 15 years we have seen a million flights per year more. I did a calculation once (in 2021) where I stated “That amounts to 41,000 flights a day, every single day.” I did this on November 13th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) in ‘A COP26 truth’ As I see it, this will have a better result. But Steven Guilbeault does not want that. He merely want to point the finger at China (to get the blessing of some president), he’ll also point the finger at Saudi Arabia which will not go anywhere. As I personally see it, this is a limelight piece. Get the shiny lights thrust upon him whilst the solution goes nowhere, and those poor poor emerging economies? Ad when we consider ““China will become, in fact, one of the biggest historic polluters in the coming years,” Guilbeault said.” What data does he have? In the coming years is speculation, as I see it, Russia will have to become a much larger polluter to get any fingers over the edge of disaster at present. There is no real data to consider that China will be anything like that. I wonder where he got the data, as the ‘data’ in march gave us all “India was declared as the third-most polluted country in 2023, after Bangladesh and Pakistan, according to a report released by Swiss air quality monitoring body, IQAir.” Which is interesting as they have a significant loss of longevity They went from eight position in 2022 to third position in 2023. Of that list of 50 cities 42 are in India. As such I call his bluff and wish him a nice day with what he has. Yes something needs to be done, pretty much everyone agrees with that. What it is, remains the question. Giving the Ace of Spades to China and Saudi Arabia is folly as I see it. The issue with any fire is to take away the air for a fire to breath, take away the fuel that propels the fire or put out the fire (the third is the lamest idea). As such you can limit oil to everyone, which will drive the price up, or take away the air for oil to burn (extremely hazardous to people). As such we are in a bind. Making this about emerging economies is just a bad option, or we lessen EVERYONE’S access to oil and the the emerging countries get their 100% and the largest economies get that limit decrease as well. I wonder how long it will take for everyone to ‘diminish’ the emerging economies. You see Steven Guilbeault blasted his statement to ‘merely’ include China and Saudi Arabia. In 2021 the United States used 20.4% of the petroleum-consuming countries it was number one with 5% more then number 2 (China), as such why didn’t Steven Guilbeault mention America? Oh, and Saudi Arabia isn’t even in that top 5. India (4.8%), Russia (3.8%) and Japan (3.5%) had those positions. As such it makes kinda sense to hand the spade to China, but not before America gets the spade as well. They both Amount to 36.1% of the petroleum-consuming countries. As such, when you consider these numbers. Is he anything more than a windy politician (like the ones from Chicago)?
It’s not all seemingly bad news. We are also given “According to one estimate, $2.4 trillion US in climate finance is needed by 2030 for investments to meet the Paris Agreement targets and related development goals.” Yes, that works with any nation with a gross federal debt surpassing $35,000,000,000,000. That really seemingly works and don’t blame President-elect Trump for that, Harris wouldn’t have been able to do that either. This is the result of sitting on your hands and too many presidents have done that going all the way back to President Clinton, which was 21 years ago. The easiest option is that we allow climate change to kill 27.8% of the population, making the decrease of 49,000 flights a day and 24.1% less oil used a manageable achievement. You see, the solution is very simple if you see the problem as simple as an arithmetic problem. Take away the people using oil and you get the same result. Oh, as a bonus consider that less food is required at that point. All simple solutions towards a conundrum that people aren’t willing to see as a real problem. Did I oversimplify the problem for you?
Have a lovely day and consider how much oil you used this week.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 