By Jo Nova
…
Just to be clear, yet again, the 29th United Nations Conference of Parties was a smashing success, 70,000 people got a free trip to Azerbaijan, millions of dollars were siphoned from taxpayers, nobody was asked any hard questions, and everyone gets to schmooze it all again next year.
In a big win, nothing at all was achieved in solving “The CrisisTM” which means The Gravy Train rides again.
Last year the UN was excited because of the “historic” move to use the phrase “transition away from fossil fuels” for the absolute, first time ever in a global document. It marked the “beginning of the end of fossil fuels” according to the UN. But one year later, and the phrase was quietly dropped. Nevermind. This time, Saudi Arabia and the petrostate allies were able to nix that promise — possibly because the world still needs their oil. Where were the honest headlines: “UN backslides from key historic transition away from fossil fuels?”
The new $300 billion “goal” replaces the last $100 billion target, which achieved almost nothing, and wasn’t reached, except with accounting games, like relabeling foreign aid and rebadging loans. Seven years after the last target was set, Kiribati had received nothing except a half a million dollars to help them write a new application.
The $300 billion goal is just a Grifter Target to aim for in ten years. It’s part of the Psy-Op to gaslight the citizens of the rich world to keep paying billions to unaccountable foreign committees.
The WEF puts the best spin possible on the pork, and it isn’t that big:
A broad target of $1.3 trillion in annual funds by 2035 was adopted, yet only $300 billion annually was designated for grants and low-interest loans .
The deal has tripled finance to developing countries up from the previous goal of $100 billion annually.
The deal has done nothing of the sort. “Has tripled” makes it sound like a done-deal, but the only thing that tripled was the language. It’s just another acronym of a distant promise:
… crucially agreeing on how much money developing countries will get to tackle and prepare for climate change in what is known as the ‘New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance’ or simply ‘NCQG’.
Tony Thomas found the event has become a kind of “Hunger Games” — where businesses in the host nation charge extortionate fees to soak the rich world taxpayers, while third world delegates can’t even afford a meal. The UN was sponsoring some delegates for $291 USD a day, but almost all that was going on accommodation. The top hotel in Azerbaijan was charging $12,000 a night, while delegates from Africa were living off sample cheese crackers and free coffee. A “dinner date” was part of the menu…
The Famished Freeloaders of Baku
Tony Thomas, Quadrant
Nation’s reporter, Leon Lidigu, cited many accounts from famished Third World delegates, including “Isabella” our Brazilian food seductress. She told him, “I’ve been low-key surviving off lunch and dinner date invites from my male global north friends who can afford it here. To be honest, it feels like they are ‘living’ around here while we merely exist.”
Calorie-scrounging was so common that one COP smarty created a WhatsApp group listing all events involving coffee urns and free biscuits and cheese. “The document has spread like wildfire,” said Isabella to Lidigu.
…a delegate from Tanzania told Nation he had been obliged to skip a session, Making Climate Finance Work for Climate Action in Agriculture and Food Security, “because I have to go to a local market that I am told is quite far, to see if I can get affordable food to eat. The cost of food at COP is just too much for me.”
Baku’s hunger games put a new perspective on COP’s hordes. Kenya, for instance, had 288 delegates, Uganda 412 and Tanzania 353. Few, I’d say none, paid their own way: [4] it was all sponsored by First World grants, delegates’ own long-suffering national treasuries, or diverted from charities’ funds meant to conquer poverty.[5]
How many grants does it take to send 288 Kenyans to Azerbeijan, and why did the climate need a planeful of people from Uganda and Tanzania?
Most of the money in “climate change” is not spent changing the climate, it just rains cash in the Believer Tent.
So far my analysis is the only one I have seen that explains what happened in the Finance Game: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/25/cop-29-diplomacy-delivers-perfectly-vague-promises-a-decade-away/
Those huge numbers of delegates are mostly manning the national pavilions in the green zone. This is a two week international trade show with lots of real deals being made. Nothing to do with climate or the UN. Might even be useful.
50
Just to be clear on Finance. The 2020-25 goal of $100 billion a year expires next year. This COP was supposed to name a 2026-30 goal. It did not do so as the only 2 goals are for 2035. There is no goal for 2026-30. Not $100 billion, not $300 billion, nothing.
50
Andrew Bolt and Matt Canavan laughed about the delegates at COP 29 crowding for the normal meat dishes at the food counters and the vege dishes looked a bit neglected.
Again more lefty hypocrisy on display for all to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGz1p_YcxHA
70
This is all so offensive. Nothing much has changed at these climate talkfests except the extravagance lavished upon delegates gets worse and worse while the people they are supposed to represent suffer from unaffordable and unreliable energy. Let them eat cake!
40
I wouldn’t be confiident of any return next year.
I see reports that a company is in dire trouble, which is the owner of three or four or more rag shops in just about every major shopping mall.
That won’t improve anybody’s living standards. For me that puts the question, who is next?
10
Amazing that a welcome to country was performed at the Aussie pavilion at COP 29.
Even Chris Kenny thought this was taking things too far.
Don’t forget silly Chris was a strong supporter of Labor’s YES campaign last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR-1puLK_R8
30
I haven’t seen this sort of information in media stories. Perhaps the USA media folks were too busy bashing Trump to send a delegation. Or the room rates were more than the networks were willing to pay.
20
Do we know who the freeloaders were from Australia at COP29 accompanying Minister Bowen?
Among Bowen’s misinformation:
“In Australia, we believe climate action makes economic sense at every level, from the household budget to the nation’s economy. It makes sense for the family home with cheaper bills, powered by clean renewable energy. It makes sense for businesses to harness the cheapest energy known to us. And it makes sense for Australia’s economy, blessed with abundant renewable resources.”
10
B O Bowen is a lazy fool and should know that even their ABC admits that fra-dulent W & S will cost us trillions of $ for SFA change to temperature or climate by 2050 or 2100.
We can only hope these Labor, Greens and Teals parasites are booted out in 2025 and the Coalition follows proper data and evidence for a change.
20
Australia had over 300 attendees. That alone is a sign of excess and stupidity. I dont think listing them will add much.
00
How lucky we were that Trump was elected and this ensured COP 29 was a bummer for the clueless bludgers and donkeys.
This should set the scene for the next 3 years and hopefully the lazy know nothings will be spitting chips for a while.
30
The McKinsey report tells us that the global cost ( waste ) of net zero will be about 275 trillion $ by 2050. Here’s a quote from their report……
“February 18, 2022How much will the net-zero transition cost? Our analysis of the industry-standard scenario for net zero by 2050 suggests that about $275 trillion in cumulative spending on physical assets, or approximately $9.2 trillion per year, would be needed between 2021 and 2050. That’s $25 trillion more than the current-policies scenario. Every sector and every time frame would see a bigger bill”.
00