By Jo Nova
Only a few schmuck countries are even trying anymore
Ten years ago 196 countries signed legally binding pledges to fix the weather. Every five years they agreed they would update their plans, and the plans could only go upwards, and never retreat.
So here we are, with a week to go before the COP30 party starts again, but this time only 64 countries have bothered to update their plan.
The best guess is that the UN is on target to reach cuts of 10% instead of the 57% cut they said the world needed to stop a 1.5°C rise by 2035.
What does legally binding mean? — Turns out, not much.
Most countries fail to submit new climate pledges ahead of summit
By Matt McGrath, BBC
Recently drafted climate plans from scores of countries fall drastically short of what is needed to stave off the worst effects of climate breakdown, analysis has shown.
Only 64 countries have submitted new plans to cut carbon, the UN says, despite all being required to do so ahead of next month’s COP30 summit. Taken together, these plans would cut carbon by only about 10% by 2035 compared with 2019 levels. This is only about a sixth of the drop in global emissions needed to limit global heating to 1.5C.
To keep that goal alive will require steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, up to 57% by 2035, according to the UN last year.
These include around 30% of global emissions, which incredibly includes the US, because Joe Biden, or one of his minders, put in an update early. Given that the US emits 14% of global emissions and is not going to be meeting any agreement, except accidentally, the current Paris agreement covers what’s left, which is 17% of global emissions.
Most countries are not even going through the motions of setting pretend targets that they have no hope of meeting. That’s how little they care. Though the EU, riven with political strife, is still arguing over how ambitious to make their commitment. By the time the US is officially out, the EU may be back in.
But at this point, even the UN effectively admits defeat on the 1.5°C target
“One thing is already clear: we will not be able to contain the global warming below 1.5 °C in the next few years. Overshooting is now inevitable. Which means that we’re going to have a period, bigger or smaller, with higher or lower intensity, above 1.5 °C in the years to come.”
— António Guterres, address to the World Meteorological Organization meeting, Geneva, late October 2025
But they got the money and another decade of junkets, which was really the point wasn’t it?
The Liberal Party need to get out and about because most of the world knows The Paris Agreement will not recover. Australia is nearly the last Global Schmuck left standing.
It’s time the UN acted in the interests of the whole world. Be brutal & don’t accept the slack attitude of those intent on destroying the planet with their “ couldn’t care less attitude “!
Expel them all from that ‘ wonderfully caring, forward thinking & totally useless club of half baked nit wits’!
The UN will be doing the productive world a favour by getting rid of those “useless eaters”!
Imagine a world free from the UN and its lunacy! Please Mr Guiteres free us all. Please expel us. At last a world rid of the would be One World morons,
370
Apparently there has been a huge atrocity committed in Sudan. Possibly this one single incident, although the war in Sudan has been going on for years , has killed more people in one country than all the “climate change” deaths since the need to reduce temperatures began.
The U.N., one job failed at repeatedly yet still attempting to change the world with fairy dust telling everyone on the planet to trust them. Justice, totally blind, cannot see the absolute injustice of wasted billions while real human benefit could happen tomorrow, if the U.N wanted it. Apparently NOT!
480
The UN Peace Keeping Troops (LOL) did not see Hezbollah or what ever those Farkers are called doing anything naughty in Southern Lebanon.
Maybe they should have gone to SpecSavers. LOL
90
What do you have to do to get expelled, asking for a friend.
260
Just move the UN to somewhere Neutral like Antarctica and see how it works then and who will turn up.
Should be a giggle. No more nice NY eateries.
300
But there may be solace there – in the penguins!
Auto
00
Truth bombs fly as we head for energy security meltdown! Australia’s east coast now exists with one of the most erratic electricity markets in the world because it is literally run by the weather that even our own illustrious BOM is unable to predict. Unfortunately, this chaos will show up on our bills for the next 20 years. Long after the architects of this debacle disappear from sight but never memories!
140
I hope we’re expelled, and we can start to rely on baseload power and not the toxic, unreliable W & S rubbish.
How can the unreliable W & S rubbish be called “green or clean” when we know that it will destroy thousands of klms of eastern Australia and repeated every 15 to 20 years?
These clueless fools have lost their minds and capacity factors of 24% for W and 15% for S. When will they look up the data and start to THINK?
420
Neville:
You are assuming that those clueless fools are capable of thinking. Clueless yes.
Reminder: Must send Letter to the local paper about a “clueless fool” writing (last week) above the local Council going full renewables.
Even the local Council has reservations.
260
They won’t expel us Neville. We in Australia are the prime example of virtuous useful idiots that support the UN goals – whatever they are because we want the esteem of this globalist organization to show how nice we are, and please can we have the next COP conference in Sydney or Ayres Rock!
It’s time to grow up Australia! The UN doesn’t care about us and our miniscule contribution to global emissions reduction; they want rich developed nations like us to kowtow to them as the global leader of everything, giving them more power to legislate on our behalf on how our country is run, what power we can use and where our future lies.
Given their track record of incompetence in the one policy area they were originally given- securing world peace, what reliance could we have on their integrity with any other important matter- None!
Therefore, re climate, the Paris Agreement is now virtually null and void, as nations realize that Net Zero is a noose around their necks that they allowed the UN to tighten every annual COP meeting. Is this some weird sexual gratification thing, I somehow missed? I remain utterly unimpressed by lying globalist politicians and their eco-alarmist climate comrades. The UN needs defunding urgently and their headquarters should be somewhere like Greenland or Sudan, where they might be appreciated.
111
I think this is at least moderately good news :
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-01/nationals-ditch-net-zero-support-in-party-platform/105959532
I’d have been happier if they’d gone further and quoted the science that justified then-PM Abbott’s assertion “It’s all crap”.
60
USA is the global banker. It is the only one that matters. Without its easy money, the whole climate ambition is in the toilet. Thank you Mr President.
UN needs to find another tin to rattle. How can AI be used as a source of income.
290
Australia (the Government) actually prides itself on its fanatical commitment to globalist policies.
The Commonwealth’s “external affairs” powers under Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution has been used by Uniparty Governments to implement globalist policies ever since the Hawke regime in 1983 won the so-called Tasmanian Dams case*.
Using that precedent, Uniparty governments have implemented just about every UN globalist policy, overriding the wishes of the Australian people. Thus the communists, thieves, anti-Western lowlifes of the UN constitute our true government.
Just think how often you hear politicians say something to the effect of “we have no choice, we have international obligations”.
The most recent globalist announcement in relation to the Climate Scam is from the International Court of Justice which stated**:
Australia needs a leader like TRUMP who puts the interests of his country first, not last like globalist Australia. We don’t elect the UN, we do elect our “representatives”.
* Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams case) [1983] HCA 21, (1983) 158 CLR 1 (1 July 1983), High Court
** https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/icj-advisory-opinion-climate-change
180
NZ’s present Prime Minister – ex-corporate boss, jargon-spewing chrome-dome millionaire, who sounded like an excited schoolboy after he’d had “face-to-face time” with Mr Trump in South Korea this week (a 5-minute chat and a photo op) – has of late resurrected a mumbo-jumbo term not heard in yonks, apart from at the UN or BIS –
“international rules-based system”,
claiming that policy is one we strictly adhere to. Yeah nah.
210
Yes, the term “rules based international order” became trendy with our politicians for a while, especially with the ones working with the UN for big taxpayer-funded salaries, but then seemed to fall out of favour. Probably even the politicians themselves eventually worked out it was an important-sounding but practically meaningless term.
Nevertheless, the Goolag trends analysis shows the usage is increasing.
The term “order” when used by the commies/Socialist Elites scares me. This obsessive desire for “order” reminds me of the National Socialists.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Rules%20based%20international%20order&hl=en
130
Would you rather NZ citizens were represented by Mahuta and the Kapa Haka rabble to have a meeting with Donald Trump? Check your meds and while your about it go to Specsavers and get a reality upgrade on the lenses.
00
Again, here’s part of the critical summary of the Net Zero Australia report from Renew Australia and dated at the top 1/11/25. Just look at that 100 times increase in the unreliable, toxic W & S rubbish.
Would wasting 9 TRILLION $ even cover the cost for the first 15 to 20 wasted years?
Again, here’s the Renew Economy quote….
“Australia will need nearly three terrawatts, or 3,000 gigawatts, of wind and solar if it is to meet its goal of a net zero economy by 2030, a plan that could cost up to $9 trillion, according to a new study”.
“The astonishing numbers are revealed in a new report – Net Zero Australia – put together by Melbourne University, the University of Queensland, and the Nous Group, and released on Wednesday”.
“To put the 3,000 gigawatts of wind and solar in some context, Australia currently only has about 30GW of large scale wind and solar across the country. So it has a lot to do”.
180
Here’s the Renew Australia link to the above quote of 9 TRILLION $.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/net-zero-study-finds-australia-needs-nearly-three-terawatts-of-wind-and-solar/
90
Yes, just get all the Unemployed and new Migrants trained up in 5 minutes to build all the Infrastructure needed. LOL.
There is just not enough materials to do it anyway.
What a FARCE.
150
new Migrants trained up in 5 minutes to build all the Infrastructure needed.
Most people seem to prefer a position in an air conditioned office. Moving electrons or paper around.
100
You watch, we’ll get to 2050, nothing will have happened to the weather, and yet the catastrophists will claim they saved the world by demanding these cuts, even though they never actually occurred in reality, only in propaganda.
It’s the Hole in the Ozone layer being fixed by the Montreal Protocol all over again. Nothing is done, nothing changes, yet they claim a victory and rely on a slovenly media not to check up on the facts.
390
Yes, and because of the Montreal Protocol we are now all stuck with inefficient refrigerants and got rid of the best fire fighting agents.
The US did not ban bromochlorodifluoromethane (BCF) fire fighting agent because it is so effective and is especially used by the military but it is banned in woke Australia (except for critical applications supposedly, but in my last contact with military aviation some years ago I was told it was completely banned) and also banned in woke Europe.
190
The gummint will probably need that firefighting BCF when THAT Senator decides to burn down THEIR parliament!! 🤓🤓🤓
130
It’s OUR Guv’ment Building. Taxpayers paid for it.
50
And it was Maurice Strong, the avowed socialist, who was responsible for the Montreal Protocol. And also responsible for setting up the UN organisation that became the IPCC.
60
Lord Monckton wrote:
50
Those able to watch in 2050 will have virtually no memory of 2025.
Except for oldsters ranting on blogs like this if blogs like this are still allowed.
NYC is about to elect a Communist mayor because most of his voters barely know that their nation ‘fought’ a great ‘cold’ war against Communism.
And they hate nations.
They already have no idea why carcasses of B-52s rot in the desert in Arizona.
(They also have know idea about the gargantuan amount of fossil fuel it took to get them aloft.)
Most don’t know that Russia was once a Soviet Union.
They don’t know that that during the great glorious US Civil War to end slavery, that four of the Union states were slave states.
In Europe, especially the UK, they won’t know that the call to prayer was not commonly heard before the Great 20 year GWOT.
Nothing new I guess.
I took me a long time to figure out that the 100 Years War between ‘France’ and ‘England’ was actually just a family feud.
Now it has dawned on me (I’m slow) that I live pummeled by battling globalist aristocratic billionaires constantly beating me about the brain with their virtue sticks.
SSDD.
50
There is a new paper written by a group of ecologists and just published in Nature. It highlights that the effects of utility scale wind energy production can have unexpected and serious consequences on ecosystems and bio diversity. Unfortunately the paper is paywalled and, of course, the MSM has completely ignored it. The report highlights that wind farm turbines kill birds, bats and insects. It shows that these wind farms change animal behaviour and physiology. They cause habitat degradation and loss of irreplaceable ecosystems. There is an annual loss of 500,000 bats in the US with some species heading to extinction. German wind farms kill 200,000 bats a year, Canada 50,000 and 30,000 in the UK. Some bird populations in Europe are on the verge of collapse through wind farm carnage. No doubt MSM and the UN will blame this on climate change. An estimated 50% of bird species in California are in population decline due to wind turbines with significant losses of Golden Eagles at the Altamont wind facility. Because they are not as immediately visible as birds and bats, the insects tend to get overlooked, but their affects on ecosystems cannot be understated. Heaven knows what will come out when a real analysis of offshore wind farms come out.
260
For the record the link is at:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44358-025-00078-1
50
Does lead to this –
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03407-8?fromPaywallRec=true
Open access.
And this – https://www.nature.com/articles/s44183-022-00003-5?fromPaywallRec=true
Also open access.
Auto
00
I have solved the Whyalla & Tomago problems with a flash of brilliance which no doubt the ALP/Green coalition would favour.
.SIMPLES,! Shut both out of control emitters down. No more emissions, no more subsidies, no more jobs no more small towns, less people to feed, less agriculture, less farting cows.
Aren’t I clever! Almost as clever as Blackout Bob.
😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫
100
STOP giving the idiots in charge any ideas like that!
121
No more tax money for the Ferals to waste either.
80
No more tax money??? Fix that easily! The workers have got over $ 4 trillion in Superannuation that they’re trying to get their grubby thieving hands on!!
You’ve been warned!
They claim it’s for the Guvmint to invest in housing & other wet dreams of hydrogen, ( which Is dead ), contrived by Bowen & his ilk.
30
Have you done an audit on that? Maybe your “… have got..” should be “…had…” ?
30
The alleged problem dooming the planet is the slow steady linear growth in CO2. Only half in fact the amount of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. And if CO2 warming was a real problem, we should be measuring atmospheric CO2, not ’emissions’. Why are we measuring the wrong thing?
So after 37 years of spending, does anyone try to measure the effect of what has already been done on CO2? Or is it that CO2 shows no relationship to human activity?
What about the sequestering of trillions of tons of CO2 in trees, as measured by NASA? Don’t we count what happens naturally?
160
Because emissions can be taxed.
140
Liberal party’s Dan and Dave speak word salads on net zero that would have impressed Kamala Harris. Hopeless the lot of them.
160
Useless as the proverbial tits on a bull!
150
David do you have a link? Dan seems to be on song .
“We’re seeing smelters close, we’re seeing farmland that should be prime agricultural farmland … other types of land, which has important diversity, now being ripped up for renewable energy projects because there’s no map or no plan as to what Chris Bowan is doing.” (Sky)
91
So why can’t the Labor, Greens and Teals dunces spend a few minutes online and look up the global co2 emissions data and the clear upward trajectory since 1945?
There’s a clear global trajectory over the last 80 years and yet the OECD have not increased annual co2 emissions since 1988 or when Dr Hansen made his silly BS speech in Washington DC.
Checking the data only takes a few minutes and yet stupid left- wing loonies can’t be bothered and demand that we WASTE TRILLIONS of $ forever and for a guaranteed ZERO return. Why can’t they just look up the data and save us TRILLIONs of $?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29~AUS
70
They can’t look it up unless they go to SpecSavers.
120
JR you’re a far smarter bloke than I am and I should have seen that coming.
70
Not really Neville. I’m just a regular bloke with a nawty sense of humour when it comes to having a go at the so called Elites.
70
Now that climate money seems to be drying up, as has covid money, the moneyed class will be looking to move on to the next mutually agreed upon cash cow. Any thoughts on what it will be? Government subsidies for AI, perhaps? Any other ideas?
110
Now, microplastics may be in the betting.
Can’t se them, so – like Climate – the bones of a religion are present.
Auto
00
Again Dr Nordhaus won the Noble prize for Economics and found that Humans would be 4.34 times RICHER by 2100 if we did nothing about their so called CC.
The cost of CC would only be about 0.16 deducted from 4.5 times richer.
So who wants to waste 100 TRILLION $ a year( Matt Ridley’s global quote) or just accept the 0.16 penalty by 2100? Gosh that’s a difficult decision, SARC.
BTW Dr Tol also made a similar calculation to Dr Nordhaus.
80
Here’s a quote from one of Lomborg’s articles……
“The constant barrage of negative stories may lead us to imagine that our forward progress is about to end”.
“However, the evidence at hand does not support this conclusion.”
“The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios indicate that, if not for climate change, the average person would be 4.5-times richer by the end of the century than they are today”.
“Climate change will merely slow progress, such that the average person will be “only” 4.34 times as rich – by no means the ‘end of the world’..”.
“Yet fear pushes many to demand an inefficient diversion of hundreds of trillions of dollars to steer the global economy abruptly towards ‘zero carbon emissions’…”
100
I think Lomborg is fairly realistic in his future CC summaries and he always uses the best data when or where he can find it.
And his UN IPCC quote I’ve included in the above example also includes the admission of spending (or wasting?) hundreds of TRILLIONs of $ towards net zero.
That also reflects or agrees with what Matt Ridley told us a few months ago.
50
Legally binding Agreements with WHO? The UN?
Is the UN a legal entity? And if so (which I very much doubt), who signed the Agreements on the side of the UN? Every member State of the UN (No chance) or some self appointed Windbag. LOL.
Nut Zero to minus infinity and Emissions Impossible. Paging Blackout Bowen, paging, paging………..
What a FARCE.
140
I’ve just heard a rumour that I hope is not true. Good old Guterres may be stepping down as leader of the UN. Not a bad thing you would think, except that the favourite to replace him is that misanthropic sociopath Jacinda Ardern. Heaven help us. If she is in charge we will be asking for Guterres back. Ardern is cut from an extreme left mould and showed her true fascist nature during Covid, the smiling assassin who declared the government as the only source of truth and then preached daily lies from her pulpit of truth. Orwell’s 1984 was no longer a novel, but her handbook on how to control the unruly masses. It was clear that Ardern, who worshipped at the feet of Tony Blair and was a product of the WEF, had no interest in New Zealand or New Zealanders. She was playing the long game, currying favour with the all powerful UN and WEF so she could end up with a well paid job in these organisations who share her views that ordinary people are just despicable proles who must be kept in their place at all costs. To paraphrase Shelley, “My name is Ardern, ruler of rulers. Look on my works you plebs and despair. Nothing beside remains. Round the decay, boundless and bare stretch the remaing soulless automatons of once great nations.” I ain’t a religious man, but I do find myself praying that this is either not true, or will not happen.
120
I no longer get excited when I hear a tyrant is stepping down, say Guterres or “our” very own e Safety Kommissar.
They will likely be replaced with someone who is even worse and more tyrannical.
90
Do UN Permanent Members of the Security Council have a veto = real or effective – over the appointment/election of a new Secretary General?
If so – would POTUS approve of Jacinda?
Auto
00
Nazi Germany stopped following the rules set at Versailles. The British, in their naïveté, continued to abide by them. Thankfully they changed course, just in the nick of time.
110
This is all very farcical. Only the countries that emit 30% of emissions are actually required to make cuts and whilst non-OECD countries can make bold claims they are under no obligations courtesy of the UNFCCC framework agreement and can increase their emissions by any amount they desire, so they do.
The bigger question we should be asking of the UN – If CC is such a big threat as they claim, which did they give all non-OECD countries a free pass to keep emitting back in 1992 and why didn’t they update that agreement over the ensuing 33 years ????
110
And why do they all fly to Climate Conferences in private jets?
120
Because they can. Just follow the money.
Graft and Corruption is the World’s Growth Industry. LOL
50
Even though only 64 bothered to update you can be assured there will still be a good crowd, because boondoggle.
110
64 on the UN teat, Still way too many IMHO. They must be Pigs.
And no offence to any Pigs.
30
The End of Paris?
Some interesting comments here:
https://cliscep.com/2025/10/13/the-end-of-paris/
80
The idea of global CO2, a constant from pole to pole, controlling global temperatures makes no sense at all.
The only directly measured temperatures from 1750 to today are in Europe. And the graph of these European temperatures were presented by Professor Carl Otto Weiss and his mathematical partners. His amazing graph is utterly different from the alleged ‘world’ temperature graph.
Weiss’ graph of vast numbers of thermometer measured temperatures in six European cities fits perfectly with the known history of Europe with a serious minimum in 1870 and even predicts the 2020 peak. They were able to fit it perfectly as shown with just two cycles, solar (de vries 250 year) and ocean (AMO/PDO 65 year).
But we are supposed to believe that their real temperature data is somehow wrong and proxy data from pole to pole averaged over 250 years from places including the South Pole and Mt Everest and the vast oceans in which no one lives, 72% of the planet, is accurate and meaningful though it bears no relationship to measured data.
The very idea of a meaningful single temperature for an homogenous world seems absurd. Let alone the total control by the trace gas CO2 which after all has only changed 50% in 250 years. And on this incredible proposition, the world’s countries have signed an agreement in Paris to change something they have no proven ability to change, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact the only thing achieved is a vast world tax on the atmosphere and breathing and the major source of power which has dragged humanity out of the dark ages.
At present I cannot say the United Nations does anything but chase billions in cash, largely for themselves. Thousands of retired socialist politicians and their minions comfortable doing nothing for world peace as they lecture on the evils of carbon dioxide. Carbon Indulgences, a replay of the Reformation. Send cash.
150
Why does anyone believe slow steady monotonic CO2 increase can be used to predict world temperatures when the precise temperatures of Europe for the last 250 years bears no resemblance to CO2? And can be explained by two of the most obvious drivers of temperature, the sun and oceans.
I can only think it is a politicians world and most of the signatories of the Paris Agreement expected to be substantial beneficiaries, including the UN itself. And the real victims, the advanced rich Western democracies are run by politicians who loved the idea of being able to party world wide with the UN and even tax breathing. I would single out NZ PM Helen Clarker and our own genius, Julia Gillard. The only thing I find utterly amazing is the agreement and universal silence of ALL the world’s universities and scientific bodies. Like docile sheep, slaves to the politicians and their paychecks.
It’s all so obviously absurd. A huge grab for money and no shortage of complete loonies taken in by the latest end of world story after Chicken Little/Henny Penny. Literally The Sky is Falling. Plus no shortage of Climatebaggers, in it for the mountains cash. Starting with leading Climate Scientist and innumerate football player and tobacco heir, nearly US President and Billionaire Al Gore.
90
Game on.
‘The Nationals’ grassroots members have voted to ditch net zero, setting the scene to formally scrap the target at a meeting on Sunday morning.
“We believe in reducing emissions, but not at any cost,” the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, told the party’s federal council on Saturday.
‘A motion at the meeting for the party to “abandon its support for a net zero mandate” was passed.
‘The junior Coalition partner is likely to find a “compromise” position on climate change.’ (Guardian)
51
The Nationals should join with One Nation and ditch the Left Wing Wet Libs.
30
A likely reason many plans have not been updated is most developing country plans are contingent on funding from developed countries which now looks unlikely.
61
Oh dear.
How sad.
Never mind.
Auto
00