Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

Whatever you seem to think about the people's allegedly clear message about renewable energy or anything else, the people in NZ, just like everywhere else, still leave it to their elected representatives to decide. And once elected, they do just that: make the decisions.

Regularly conducted polls to gauge the public's sentiment aren't referendums. They serve no other purpose than to make politicians come up with fitting arguments and excuses for why their decisions vary so much from people's sentiments. That's why people are always disappointed about politics.

I just stumbled on this one:

62% of voters did not vote for the tax cuts/foreign buyers policy. They don't have a mandate for it. Fewer may have voted for it had it been fact checked before voting opened. #nzpol
Keir Whipp (Twitter/X, Nov 18, 2023)

And, no, you don't vote the government in or out any more than in other representative democracies. You vote for a party, and which other parties that party decides to form a government with is left to the party to decide. That's what surprises many voters whenever it turns out to be something unexpected and sometimes even something the candidates promised not to do before the election. If it wasn't the case in NZ this time, that doesn't change the fact.

That parties promise one thing to one group of people and another thing to others (and maybe a third thing to people who make campaign contributions) isn't something your National Party invented. It's representative democracy.

I can see why you would like to see NZ voters do something about climate change, but they already gave up on doing anything about it when they decided to leave the decision to their elected representatives. As did you, I assume.

The principle still is that whatever they may have promised[/url], it's no longer binding once they're elected. That they may not get reelected is a chance they have to take. If they are or not depends on their ability to come with excuses for why they didn't (or allegedly couldn't) live up to what they promised.

 

[dann]

...mens gruppen af mindst velhavende danskere har reduceret deres klimaudslip med 30 procent siden 1990, er CO2-udslippet fra den allerrigeste procent i samme periode steget med 2,7 procent"
En procent af danskerne udleder 13 gange så meget CO2 som de 50 procent, der ejer mindst (Politiken.dk, Nov 20, 2023)

... the group of the least well-to-do Danes have reduced their climate impact by 30 percent since 1990, whereas the CO₂ emission from the richest 1 percent rose by 2.7 percent.
One percent of Danes emit 13 times as much CO₂ as the 50 percent who own the least

Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says
'Polluter elite’ are plundering the planet to point of destruction, says Oxfam after comprehensive study of climate inequality
The climate chasm between the world’s carbon-guzzling rich and the heat-vulnerable poor forms a symbolic shape when plotted on a graph. Climate-heating greenhouse gas emissions are so heavily concentrated among a rich minority that the image resembles one of those old-fashioned broad-bowled, saucer-shaped glasses beloved of the gilded age: a champagne coupe.

At the top is the wide, flat, very shallow bowl of the richest 10% of humanity, whose carbon appetite – through personal consumption, investment portfolios, and share of government subsidies and infrastructure benefits – accounts for about 50% of all emissions.

Just below is the epicure, that narrowing joint of the glass where the dregs collect. This is made up of the middle 40%, whose carbon habit is roughly proportionate to its number but still double the average carbon budget that everyone would need to stick to if the world is to have any chance of avoiding more dangerous levels of climate breakdown.

Going further down is the long, slim, fragile stem comprising the remaining 50% of the world’s population, whose carbon use tapers away along with incomes. At the bottom are the hundreds of millions who live in extreme poverty and barely register in terms of greenhouse gases.
The great carbon divide (Guardian, Nov 20, 2023)

* Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent surged to 16 percent of world’s total CO2 emissions in 2019.
* Their carbon emissions are enough to cause 1.3 million excess deaths due to heat.
* Unequal countries suffer seven times more flood fatalities than more equal countries.
* Fairly taxing the super-rich would help curb both climate change and inequality.

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent surged to 16 percent of world’s total CO2 emissions in 2019.
Their carbon emissions are enough to cause 1.3 million excess deaths due to heat.
Unequal countries suffer seven times more flood fatalities than more equal countries.
Fairly taxing the super-rich would help curb both climate change and inequality.
Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity (Oxfam.org, Nov 20, 2023)

A European wealth tax would raise nearly €250 billion a year which could be used to fight the climate crisis and inequality.

The richest 10 percent of Europeans produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as half of Europe’s poorest population, Oxfam reveals today. These findings, based on Oxfam’s new report “Climate Equality: A Planet for the 99%”, come ahead of the UN climate summit in Dubai and amid growing fears that the 1.5°C target for curtailing rising temperatures appears increasingly unachievable.

In Europe, a person from the richest 1 percent emits on average 14 times more carbon (CO2) than a person in the bottom 50 percent. These outsized emissions of Europe’s richest will cause 67,800 heat-related excess deaths by 2100, the equivalent of almost 850 deaths every year.
EU's richest 10 emit as much planet-heating emissions as half the EU’s poorest population (Oxfam.org, Nov 20, 2023)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

... the group of the least well-to-do Danes have reduced their climate impact by 30 percent since 1990, whereas the CO₂ emission from the richest 1 percent rose by 2.7 percent.
One percent of Danes emit 13 times as much CO₂ as the 50 percent who own the least

Unfortunately that article is paywalled so I can't read it.

The Guardian article says:-

We are not equally to blame for rising temperatures, and recognising that is an important step in identifying possible solutions

Problem with this is that 'blame' is not what we need. Current GHG emissions are dominated by China. So we could say "China's the bad guy why should we do anything?". But a large proportion of that is caused by making products that we buy from China because they are cheaper. So actually we are just as much 'to blame' as they are.

Then again, most of the GHG currently in the atmosphere was put there by us ('the West') years ago, so we are actually more 'to blame' than China is. But it's irrelevant who put it there. What matters is that we all work towards not putting in any more. Playing the blame game doesn't help. It actually makes it worse, because it gives people an excuse to continue their polluting ways.

The next issue:-

...the richest 10% of humanity, whose carbon appetite – through personal consumption, investment portfolios, and share of government subsidies and infrastructure benefits – accounts for about 50% of all emissions.

Something seems very wrong with this categorization - surely personal consumption is the only measure that's relevant?

But...

The top 10%, who are paid at least US$40,000 (£32,000) – which probably includes many Guardian readers – are responsible for 50% of emissions. They may feel less culpable than the super-rich but there are many more of them, so their combined impact is considerable.

How many of us who earn more than £32,000 think of ourselves as being the 'carbon-guzzling rich', and how many think that refers to someone else?

In 2022 the median household income in the UK before taxes and benefits was £35,000, increasing to £38,100 after taxes and benefits. So by the measure in that Guardian article, more than half of UK households are part of the 'carbon-guzzling rich'.

But what about those below them?

...the middle 40%, whose carbon habit is roughly proportionate to its number but still double the average carbon budget that everyone would need to stick to if the world is to have any chance of avoiding more dangerous levels of climate breakdown.

That probably includes practically everyone in western countries - but I bet most will think the 1% are the problem, not them.

...remaining 50% of the world’s population, whose carbon use tapers away along with incomes. At the bottom are the hundreds of millions who live in extreme poverty and barely register in terms of greenhouse gases.

Sucks to be them, but if they had the chance many of them would be just as polluting as the top 10%. Being poor is no excuse to not be sustainable. It may be even more important because it helps reduce waste that poor people can less afford. And in fact, some of those poor people are actually leading the way in reducing GHG emissions by being greener.

According to the Bloomberg Electric Vehicle Outlook Report 2023, electric bicycles and tricycles displaced 3.7 times more oil consumption than EVs did. Why? The reason is simple, electric bicycles are much cheaper to own and run. So poor people aren't using them to save the planet, they're doing it to improve their lifestyle!

Another statistic - the average car in New Zealand lasts almost 20 years. I can attest to that, as my last two gas cars were stuffed by that age. After getting my last gas car crushed I bought a used Nissan Leaf, calculating that it would save me a ton in petrol and maintenance costs. Since then the price of petrol has gone up by over 50% and isn't coming down.

What does this mean? Many poor people are driving around in old polluting vehicles when they might be better off choosing an alternative that is both cleaner and cheaper.

Sending a message suggesting that only rich people should be cutting back on fossil fuel use is wrong. Telling everyone that the 1% are using the most is worse. Almost nobody is in the 1%. Most of us don't even think we are in the 10%, when we actually are. "It's those 'carbon-guzzling rich' who are the problem", we think, "not me". But it is us.

This message is coming from OXFAM. I can understand their reasons for framing it this way, but it's not helping.

 

[Stout]

But...
How many of us who earn more than £32,000 think of ourselves as being the 'carbon-guzzling rich', and how many think that refers to someone else?

Pretty much everybody. It's always somebody else's fault we're burning all these fossil fuels. The politicians, the corporations, the super rich, the advertisers...Not us, oh no, we're the victims here and this is the bread and butter of the climate activism industry.

So the 90% blame the 10% who blame the 1%. Well, the 1% who aren't in the sports or entertainment industry because they might just use their platforms to talk about climate change. No it's the 1%, the people we've never heard of, that are to blame.

We keep hearing about young people, how they're suffering from climate anxiety yet do these young people ever stop and think about just how carbon intensive Taylor Swift's Eras Tour really is. I don't just mean Swift and her private plane, but the total emissions from shipping that show all over the world and the emissions from all those fans travelling around, to and from the concerts and all the crap that they buy to celebrate the event. Air New Zealand NZ1989

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We keep hearing about young people, how they're suffering from climate anxiety yet do these young people ever stop and think about just how carbon intensive Taylor Swift's Eras Tour really is. I don't just mean Swift and her private plane, but the total emissions from shipping that show all over the world and the emissions from all those fans travelling around, to and from the concerts and all the crap that they buy to celebrate the event. Air New Zealand NZ1989

New Data Shows a Global Surge in Searches Related to ‘Climate Anxiety’

November 22, 2023

Searches worldwide related to “climate anxiety” or “eco-anxiety” increased by 4,590% from 2018 to 2023, according to the company’s data...

Awareness of climate anxiety has been increasing in recent years, as extreme weather has swept across the U.S. and wildfires have turned skies orange from California to New York. News website Grist reported that Google searches for the term rose 565 percent from 2020 to 2021...

Around 7% of American adults are experiencing at least mild levels of climate change-related psychological distress, according to a survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication in July. That includes 3% experiencing severe depression and/or anxiety, based on clinical indicators...

A much larger group, and one that’s steadily increased over the past decade, were worried about climate change. About two-thirds of Americans said they are at least “somewhat worried” about global warming in the program’s latest report in spring 2023. That included 30% who are “very worried.”...

On the positive side, Leiserowitz and Lawrance both said worry can galvanize collective climate action, which can also lead to better mental health as people take change into their own hands.

“The single best antidote for climate anxiety is action,” Leiserowitz said.

Lawrance said young people’s concerns need to be validated, not dismissed, by adults, and policymakers need to “listen to these voices and take this seriously.” For many youth, she said, the anxiety is “not the climate crisis itself, it’s knowing not enough is being done about it.”

Young people have always been worried that adults aren't doing enough about important issues.

And young people have always been self-centered and immature and irresponsible, trying to get as much fun out of life as possible without thinking about the future.

Many are both at one time or another - or even at the same time.

But young people have the naive optimism and energy to challenge the status quo and jaded cynicism of the older generation. We need that brash energy to jolt us out of our lethargy and change the world for the better.

At 66 years old I shouldn't worry too much about what the World will be like in 30 years time - since I won't be there. But I would hate to die knowing that it was going down the toilet due to my actions (or inactions). Death is a hard thing to face, but if I know a brighter future awaits the younger generation I feel a lot happier about it. That's why I want to see climate action now, before I die. Not just for me, but for everyone in the future.

My greatest fear is the same as young people's - that the people of my generation will renege on their responsibilities for selfish gain. "I'm going to get as much fun out of life as I can and screw the planet" is just as bad an attitude as young people indulging in carbon intensive entertainment, but with a worse effect because we are the ones in a position to actually do something about it.

 

[dann]

Unfortunately that article is paywalled so I can't read it.

The Guardian article says:-
Problem with this is that 'blame' is not what we need. Current GHG emissions are dominated by China. So we could say "China's the bad guy why should we do anything?". But a large proportion of that is caused by making products that we buy from China because they are cheaper. So actually we are just as much 'to blame' as they are.

As for blame, I am pretty sure that you are familiar with the meaning of the word: "to say or think that someone or something did something wrong or is responsible for something bad happening." (Google)

And as for China, it is not really unexpected that a country with a population of 1,412 billion emits more CO₂ than, say, New Zealand, Denmark or the USA, and yet the latter (population 331,9 million) loves to blame China for its omissions while ignoring this: Per capita CO₂ emissions.
Considering it historically, as you mention, it makes even less sense for Americans to blame China for anything in this context.

Then again, most of the GHG currently in the atmosphere was put there by us ('the West') years ago, so we are actually more 'to blame' than China is. But it's irrelevant who put it there. What matters is that we all work towards not putting in any more. Playing the blame game doesn't help. It actually makes it worse, because it gives people an excuse to continue their polluting ways.

Yes, OK, but some countries sure as hell need to work more than others, don't they?!

The next issue:-
Something seems very wrong with this categorization - surely personal consumption is the only measure that's relevant?

Of the things mentioned, "personal consumption, investment portfolios, and share of government subsidies and infrastructure benefits," why would personal consumption matter more than CO₂ omissions from, for instance, factories, transport and fossil-fuel based infrastructure? Is it irony?!

But...
How many of us who earn more than £32,000 think of ourselves as being the 'carbon-guzzling rich', and how many think that refers to someone else?

Does it matter much? I think you're obsessed with this idea because you consider it to be all a question of individual choice and not of the 'choices' that have been thrust on people in the shape of fossil-fuel-based infrastructure - unlike the luxurious habits of the 1%ers.

In 2022 the median household income in the UK before taxes and benefits was £35,000, increasing to £38,100 after taxes and benefits. So by the measure in that Guardian article, more than half of UK households are part of the 'carbon-guzzling rich'.

Yes, the article said as much: "includes many Guardian readers." But again, unless the infrastructure makes it possible for them to decrease their 'carbon footprint', there's not much people with a "median household (!) income" can do. Those cold showers and recycling of cans and bottles don't contribute much to lowering CO₂ emissions.

But what about those below them?
That probably includes practically everyone in western countries - but I bet most will think the 1% are the problem, not them.

Sucks to be them, but if they had the chance many of them would be just as polluting as the top 10%. Being poor is no excuse to not be sustainable. It may be even more important because it helps reduce waste that poor people can less afford. And in fact, some of those poor people are actually leading the way in reducing GHG emissions by being greener.

That's Bill Maher's argument: If poor people were rich, they would have private jets, too. It doesn't seem to occur to him or to you that they aren't rich, so what they'd do if they were is entirely irrelevant. I can see why poor people in NZ would vote for the fascists if that's the argument they are presented with from 'green' parties. Poor people aren't leading anything. They just don't pollute as much as the 1%ers because "personal consumption, investment portfolios, and share of government subsidies and infrastructure benefits" really isn't an option for poor people.

According to the Bloomberg Electric Vehicle Outlook Report 2023, electric bicycles and tricycles displaced 3.7 times more oil consumption than EVs did. Why? The reason is simple, electric bicycles are much cheaper to own and run. So poor people aren't using them to save the planet, they're doing it to improve their lifestyle!

Improving one's lifestyle is a very fancy way of saying that poor people need to get to work, too, even if they can't afford a car and don't have proper affordable infrastructure in the form of subway systems. They may even have to resort to biking in spite of insufficient infrastructure, which forces them to 'choose' unsafe biking as their means of transportation.

Another statistic - the average car in New Zealand lasts almost 20 years. I can attest to that, as my last two gas cars were stuffed by that age. After getting my last gas car crushed I bought a used Nissan Leaf, calculating that it would save me a ton in petrol and maintenance costs. Since then the price of petrol has gone up by over 50% and isn't coming down.

What does this mean? Many poor people are driving around in old polluting vehicles when they might be better off choosing an alternative that is both cleaner and cheaper.

That is very easy to say if you have the money to pay for one of those electric cars, but it's not so easy to do if you're poor. Being poor is expensive in so many ways!

Sending a message suggesting that only rich people should be cutting back on fossil fuel use is wrong. Telling everyone that the 1% are using the most is worse.

Well, it's the truth, isn't it? Why wouldn't you tell them the truth?

Almost nobody is in the 1%.

It's in the numbers, isn't it?! 1% is in the 1%! No more, no less.

Most of us don't even think we are in the 10%, when we actually are.

According to my calculations, I was in the 10% in Denmark until I retired.

"It's those 'carbon-guzzling rich' who are the problem", we think, "not me". But it is us.

Sending the message to poor people that they need to cut back was what got the fascists elected in NZ. And it seem like it's the message you'll continue to send.

This message is coming from OXFAM. I can understand their reasons for framing it this way, but it's not helping.

Unlike your argument, Oxfam's doesn't drive poor people into the arms of the fascists, but it's not an organization I know anything about. I can see that they are here in Denmark, too, and allegedly "work for a just world where all people have equal access to education, influence and resources," which doesn't sound too bad, but I assume that you would tell them that giving poor people more access to ressources is a bad idea because it will just make those greedy bastards consume more!

 

[wobs]

We are screwed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

COP28: UAE planned to use climate talks to make oil deals

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We are screwed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

The briefings show the UAE also prepared talking points on commercial opportunities for its state renewable energy company, Masdar, ahead of meetings with 20 countries, including the UK, United States, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kenya...

Adnoc suggested the oil-producing nations of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela be told "there is no conflict between the sustainable development of any country's natural resources and its commitment to climate change"

So while the UAE were in town they took the opportunity to do some private deals. So what? The important thing is that they are thinking positively about renewable energy and sustainability. 'We are screwed' is not the appropriate response.

But that's the narrative a lot of people want. "We're all screwed so why bother doing anything?' - the ultimate excuse of a global warming procrastinator.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

So while the UAE were in town they took the opportunity to do some private deals. So what? The important thing is that they are thinking positively about renewable energy and sustainability. 'We are screwed' is not the appropriate response.

But that's the narrative a lot of people want. "We're all screwed so why bother doing anything?' - the ultimate excuse of a global warming procrastinator.

While I don't agree that we're screwed, I am rather wondering why you snipped out the part of that article that said that many of the proposed deals were about gas and oil, not renewables.
And "so what?" Did you miss the part where the article says using the COP as a means of conducting private business deals is a "serious breach of the standards of conduct expected of a COP president"?

 

[zooterkin]

Fancy that, the president of COP28 is from Dubai, and seems to think phasing out fossil fuel is a non-starter.

Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels

The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting can reveal.

Al Jaber also said a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”.

The comments were “incredibly concerning” and “verging on climate denial”, scientists said, and they were at odds with the position of the UN secretary general, António Guterres.

 

[The Atheist]

I think the name should be changed to COP-OUT.

What have they ever achieved? And this year seems to be just farce.

 

[dann]

The hope is COP28 will help limit the long-term global temperature rise to 1.5C, which the UN's climate science body says is crucial to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But that will require drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, it says - a 43% reduction by 2030 from 2019 levels.
UAE planned to use COP28 climate talks to make oil deals (BBC, Nov 27, 2023)

As always, hope is not a strategy.
King Charles tells Cop28 summit 'hope of the world' rests on Dubai climate talks (Independent, Dec 1, 2023)
Charles tells Cop28: Countries are 'dreadfully far off' achieving climate goals (Bracknell News, Dec 1, 2023)

No 10 insists government not interested in 'reducing people from flying' amid environmental outrage
Sunak, Cameron and King Charles each take own private jets to travel to Cop 28 (Independent, Nov 30, 2023)

A pledge to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 garnered support from 118 countries as of Saturday at the 28th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties underway in the United Arab Emirates.
COP28 vow to triple renewable energy by 2030 supported by 118 nations (NikkeiAsia, Dec 3, 2023)

Another pledge? A vow?! Wow!
They really (pretend to) mean business this time, don't they?!
It is as binding as Biden's commitment to stop fracking. It's word play, literally:
How a single word could hold up global talks to save the planet (Washington Post, Dec 4, 2023)

And while Prince Charles and the other ******** are flying around in their private jets, the media presents this advice to its readers:
Why you should think twice about cranking up your thermostat as it gets cold (Washington Post, Dec 2, 2023)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And yet, global use of renewables continues to increase.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables

 

[dann]

There is no yet. There is no contradiction between the two things. Countries can pledge to the use of more renewables without committing to phasing out fossil fuels, which is what makes the word play so important.

From WP:

Reifsnyder, then a State Department official negotiating the treaty on behalf of the United States, discovered a potentially deal-killing line buried deep in the draft text. It declared that wealthy countries “shall” set targets for cutting their planet-heating emissions.
(...)
“‘Shall’ is a legal obligation. ‘Should’ is not,” said Reifsnyder, now an adjunct professor at the University of Virginia’s Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. “There’s an absolute world of difference between those two verbs. And frankly, ‘shall’ would have made it impossible for the United States to sign on to the Paris agreement as a legal matter.”
(...)
At issue is whether negotiators from nearly 200 nations should agree to phase “down” or phase “out” the burning of fossil fuels, the primary driver of rising global temperatures. The former implies a gradual decline, while the latter implies the eventual elimination of oil, gas and coal as the world transitions to cleaner forms of energy.

 

[Stout]

Fancy that, the president of COP28 is from Dubai, and seems to think phasing out fossil fuel is a non-starter.

If you take everything he said, then he's not wrong.

Al Jaber said: “I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”

Which is why the scientists said Al Jaber's comments are “verging on climate denial” rather than outright calling them climate denial. Nobody, nowhere has come up with a workable path to averting 1.5C (except me) because the cuts to our cherished lifestyles would be way to severe.

Politicians are more than happy to write really big numbers on pieces of paper because they know that's what the masses want to see, knowing full well that there's no way, no how those targets are going to be hit, or effective, while they're in office.

Activists rant and rave about the 1% and the corporations while they try to convince us, the 10% that we're the victims here while all the while sticking their snouts in the fossil fuel trough and pigging out. Even those glue-yourself-to-the-street types can't resist the lure of burning some jet fuel in pursuit of drinking buckets on a Thai beach. As seen ITT.

Averting 1.5C is just a fantasy. Always has been, always will be.

 

[arthwollipot]

First Dog nails it, as usual.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-no-prizes-for-guessing-how-it-is-turning-out

 

[Cosmic Yak]

As always, hope is not a strategy.

Another pledge? A vow?! Wow!
They really (pretend to) mean business this time, don't they?!
It is as binding as Biden's commitment to stop fracking. It's word play, literally:

And yet, global use of renewables continues to increase.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables

There is no yet. There is no contradiction between the two things. Countries can pledge to the use of more renewables without committing to phasing out fossil fuels, which is what makes the word play so important.

You either misread or misunderstood my post.
The post of yours I responded to seemed to be saying that it was all talk and no action. My post showed that, in fact, action is taking place.
You replied about 'word play', and added a further claim about 'pledges': I fail to see the relevance of this, with regard to my post. My point is that there is a move towards renewables, that is more than just word play, hopes or vows.

 

[The Atheist]

First Dog nails it, as usual.

Absolutely!

And more on the COP-OUT nature of COP 28: https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023...-lobbyists-granted-access-cop28-climate-talks

Worse talk shop than the UN.

 

[Samson]

Absolutely!

And more on the COP-OUT nature of COP 28: https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023...-lobbyists-granted-access-cop28-climate-talks

Worse talk shop than the UN.

100,000 pun'ers
It should solve everything.

 

[Stout]

100,000 pun'ers
It should solve everything.

Ya, that's a lot of jet fuel spent on getting to a conference that's, ostensibly, being held to limit the burning of things like jet fuel. No wonder the oil companies are laughing.

This post created using 100% renewable energy.