This is what we have at times, we see the news, we do not completely trust the news but we see what we see and we think we are being deceived. This is not at the front of our minds, but it is definitely in the back of our minds. I a not different, I tend to check several sources, but in the end, this is not always possible. So the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60525591) ‘IPCC report warns of ‘irreversible’ impacts of global warming’ you would think this was serious enough, and you could (not would) be wrong. You see, we see “the authors of a new report say that there is still a brief window of time to avoid the very worst”, is there? We are also given “there’s hope that if the rise in temperatures is kept below 1.5C, it would reduce projected losses”, now for the bad news. You see on the 11th of February the BBC also gave us “The number of trees cut down in the Brazilian Amazon in January far exceeded deforestation for the same month last year, according to government satellite data. The area destroyed was five times larger than 2021, the highest January total since records began in 2015”, as some might say it, that weasel Jair Bolsonaro was so eager to be seen ‘positive’ at the COP26, yet we also get (from the HRW.org), ““The Bolsonaro government now wants the world to think it is committed to saving the rainforest,” said Maria Laura Canineu, Brazil director at Human Rights Watch. “But these commitments cannot be taken seriously given its disastrous record and failure to present credible plans for making urgently needed progress in fighting deforestation.”” The Brazilian government (those connected) are eager to fill their pockets before some deforestation commitment will more and more likely be delayed by 3-5 years. So matters will go from ‘worst case’ to ‘worse then worst case’ soon thereafter and most reports seemingly do not take that into account, so when I see “a brief window of time”, I wider what window they are talking about, we are being buried alive and governments are letting this happen. Although, my sense of humour tells me that Vladimir Putin could save is here. If he presses the nuclear button, we will see a global population drop of 60%-85%, at which point the problem is solved. There is no deforestation required when no one needs wood and what forests are left will be enough to give oxygen to the 15%-40% remaining. You think I am kidding? You thought that America would intervene? They did less then that, as I personally see it they are more likely filling their credit cards as we are given “the Biden administration recently announced the creation of a taskforce that will take aim at their lucrative assets, including yachts and mansions”, the media does not give us the list of where those ‘registered’ assets will go. I doubt that 100% will go to the Ukraine. Yet I am diverting. You see, the article also gives us “Coral reefs are being bleached and dying from rising temperatures, while many trees are succumbing to drought” which is inaccurate, in Australia, the delicate balance was disrupted for some time through pollution and overfishing, all whilst the lame reactions to overfishing and the Australian super weak legal responses is making that happen again and again. Then we get the angering quote from the UN ““I’ve seen many scientific reports in my time, but nothing like this,” – UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres”, you see if he never seen anything like this, then the United Nations have a much larger problems, because environmentalists have been saying issues in this direction for a decade, so someone (or a collection of grapes) at the UN is not doing their job, most likely they are given a too specific brief and waste year after year (with a high income) on that brief and whose fault is that?
So far the only truth at the COP26 was given by Greta Thunberg with the accurate setting of “just more bla bla bla” And when I wrote about it, I already predicted it (well not Putin pushing the button). And in the end, did anyone pause at “since records began in 2015”? Perhaps I was asleep, but was the environment, pollution and deforestation not a larger stage for well over 25 years? We could of course go for the extreme solution and just get rid of 95% of the population, it solves employment issues, agism, population, housing issues, deforestation, overfishing issues, and carbon footprints. If a person is not there, they have a carbon footprint of zero. You see, the worst could be just around the corner and you won’t see it until you wonder why you are glowing in the dark. Nuclear winter will clean up the rest, that is now becoming an actual possibility.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 