This sounds like the old argument for criminal justice, can a felony be rehabilitated or should he be punished harshly? Where should the balance be? In my view, these institutions have been extremely biased from the start and we're established primarily to promote hidden agendas and world views that had little to do with climate. Better to abolish them and begin again with charters that are scientifically objective, balanced, and apolitical. Rehabilitation is a pipe dream.
Jessica, I first want to say that you are my favorite Substack author and I admire your work immensely. Being on the inside of these institutions today has not yet lead to moderation of their views and policies. Perhaps they need a wake up call such as the US cutting funding.
I watched Trump and Xi speak at the UN Climate Summit. Xi offered 5 minutes of diplomatic remarks- something about cooperation and respect. Trump went on for an hour with a pontification about terrazzo flooring and bombastic rhetoric. I watched and thought, "You're not wrong Walter you're just an a**hole." So, I'm not so sure that everyone will just fall in line with what the US does just because. But idk... maybe it gives others opportunity to bail, too.
I agree that the UNFCCC should be abolished. But so long as it's there producing dangerous decisions I think we should be there to oppose those decisions and explain why those are bad ideas.
Remaining in these UN organizations lends undeserved prestige and sanction. The US doesn't need to be inside these organizations to monitor them. The important thing is for the US to pursue a high quality assessment of climate science every few years. The world can choose the UN assessment or the US assessment.
I agree that the US should produce high quality assessment and be clear about how other assessments (including those produced domestically) have shortcomings. And I think it should stay formally engaged at the IPCC to stand up for high quality science. But a US assessment vs a UN/ rest of the world assessment seems to me as really unwise.
The IPCC has never linked man made climate change to sever weather. Yet, we have a whole industry built on that false hood. Being 73 years old, I have watched the UN for decades. It has never made the changes to keep from spiraling further down the hole of doing more harm than good. Somalia is now the head state of the Security council. Dictatorships sit in positions of great influence on human rights. Generally I would agree, always better to change from within than as an outsider. On the other hand, Trump has shown the ability to bring divergent nations together to work for the common good. He has settled more wars and completed more peace treaties in this year than the UN in it's entire existence. Time for the UN to go.
It remains to be seen if the UN can even survive without our funds. I doubt it.
This sounds like the old argument for criminal justice, can a felony be rehabilitated or should he be punished harshly? Where should the balance be? In my view, these institutions have been extremely biased from the start and we're established primarily to promote hidden agendas and world views that had little to do with climate. Better to abolish them and begin again with charters that are scientifically objective, balanced, and apolitical. Rehabilitation is a pipe dream.
Jessica, I first want to say that you are my favorite Substack author and I admire your work immensely. Being on the inside of these institutions today has not yet lead to moderation of their views and policies. Perhaps they need a wake up call such as the US cutting funding.
Thanks 😊
I watched Trump and Xi speak at the UN Climate Summit. Xi offered 5 minutes of diplomatic remarks- something about cooperation and respect. Trump went on for an hour with a pontification about terrazzo flooring and bombastic rhetoric. I watched and thought, "You're not wrong Walter you're just an a**hole." So, I'm not so sure that everyone will just fall in line with what the US does just because. But idk... maybe it gives others opportunity to bail, too.
I agree that the UNFCCC should be abolished. But so long as it's there producing dangerous decisions I think we should be there to oppose those decisions and explain why those are bad ideas.
Remaining in these UN organizations lends undeserved prestige and sanction. The US doesn't need to be inside these organizations to monitor them. The important thing is for the US to pursue a high quality assessment of climate science every few years. The world can choose the UN assessment or the US assessment.
I agree that the US should produce high quality assessment and be clear about how other assessments (including those produced domestically) have shortcomings. And I think it should stay formally engaged at the IPCC to stand up for high quality science. But a US assessment vs a UN/ rest of the world assessment seems to me as really unwise.
The IPCC has never linked man made climate change to sever weather. Yet, we have a whole industry built on that false hood. Being 73 years old, I have watched the UN for decades. It has never made the changes to keep from spiraling further down the hole of doing more harm than good. Somalia is now the head state of the Security council. Dictatorships sit in positions of great influence on human rights. Generally I would agree, always better to change from within than as an outsider. On the other hand, Trump has shown the ability to bring divergent nations together to work for the common good. He has settled more wars and completed more peace treaties in this year than the UN in it's entire existence. Time for the UN to go.
It remains to be seen if the UN can even survive without our funds. I doubt it.