Spread the love

Conference of The Parties 26 is a climate summit being held in Glasgow. This is widely called the “last best chance” to address climate change.

Commentary and excellent perspective by Michael Mann, author of The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet (Amazon associates link*) interviewed on CNN:

Notice Mann’s comment on Russia (and Saudi Arabia). I’m not sure if people realize the extent to which Russia has made itself, under Putin, a specialized economy based almost entirely on fossil fuels. See Blowout: Corrupted Democracy, Rogue State Russia, and the Richest, Most Destructive Industry on Earth (Amazon associates link*), a must-read read, to read about that.

The opening of COP26:

See also this commentary in the Los Angeles Times.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

4 thoughts on “COP26

  1. China isn’t going. India rejected its net zero target.

    Nuclear power is the answer to lowering CO2 emissions – but a large portion of the world rejects nuclear power out of hand.

    Problems, problems.

    I don’t expect much out of the “last best hope”. Fortunately the real world is running much cooler than the models – so we have that going for us.

    1. For the record,

      China actually did more than any country has done ever in one single move, recently. See the video with Mike Man for details

      Nuclear power may have a limited role but it does not use a renewable source, has significant cleanup problems, and the electricity it produces is five to ten times more expensive than other forms of electricity.

      The world is not running cooler than models.

  2. RickA, your consistency in mixing being flat out wrong with your dishonesty is preserved.
    This is from 2020, but does nothing to support your claim.

    Geophysical Research Letters, in 2019, published a study of the accuracy of models through that year: again, the conclusion was that they were on target.

    A little more.

    I know the Cato institute agrees with you — but its people are paid to dismiss science. Perhaps you could be a consultant for them and stop spreading your foolishness here.

  3. Thank you for those videos. I’m going to be watching Amy Goodman, who (if everything goes as planned) will be covering the entire 2 weeks of COP26 and should be interviewing a number of young activists.

    I remain hopeful for nuclear power. Rod Adams, of Adams Atomic Insights, has this to say about small modular reactors:

    It is enlightening to see how much costs fall when you can train a group of operators in a common speciality (sic) and send them out to several dozen plants that have identical equipment, spare parts lockers and layouts. It’s also easy to see how maintenance procedures can be written once and used by all and how alterations can be planned, reviewed and implemented. These are just a few of the examples I can list. Rules protecting confidential information prevent me from sharing quantified details. Space prevents me from listing other examples.

    This amounts to mass production. It works with large reactors too; see France. One of the reasons nuclear power plants cost so much here is that each is a one-off unique design. That’s one of the reasons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *