‘Opinion pieces are labeled appropriately and news stories are generally factual and sourced to credible links. In general, most stories favor the left and denigrate the right.’
‘A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check.
Overall, the evidence-based reporting helps balance the progressive bias and therefore we rate this source Left-Center. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.’
Fine by me!
As for the first link, I wouldn’t form opinions from tabloid press. A better source, with warning not to believe everything you read and see in the popular press:
The report shows that updated national pledges since COP26 – held in 2021 in Glasgow, UK – make a negligible difference to predicted 2030 emissions and that we are far from the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C. Policies currently in place point to a 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century. Implementation of the current pledges will only reduce this to a 2.4-2.6°C temperature rise by the end of the century, for conditional and unconditional pledges respectively.
Indeed. The UN said today that there is “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place”.
“We had our chance to make incremental changes, but that time is over. Only a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies can save us from accelerating climate disaster."
Not the words of some fringe revolutionary extremists - but the United Nations.
An extract from the land with over a billion in population:
“ China has said its carbon dioxide emissions will continue to grow until they peak by 2030, but it has not set targets for reducing other greenhouse gases, such as methane, which it emits in amounts large enough to equal the total emissions of smaller nations.
Last year, China said it would stop building coal-burning power plants overseas. ”
Overseas, all very well and not a small number (84 in August 2022) but I wonder if China’s internal coal mining production cannot power down because of increasing demand from a modernising society might lead to unrest if they resent restrictions.
And then there’s the other largest producer of carbon emissions, the US. Tricky electorate there.
Looks to me like 2030 hasn’t a bat in hell’s chance. Radical social changes ahead and I truly hope the far right isn’t going to make it even harder for all humanity to survive.
Its a bit of a click bait throw away kind of thing.
So Rishi isnt going to COP27. That must be because of the major hole the tories have put us in and he is so busy trying to sort it out. Is he sending the deputy or are they too much of an embarrassment?
Surely the answer to the ‘billions’ of investment required to meet Euro7 is simple: don’t do it.
Why on earth is any manufacturer thinking of investing anything in fossil fuel engines nowadays?
How stupid do you have to be to get promoted to CEO of a car company?
To keep their coffers rolling in and their mates in the oil industry happy.
Beginning to wonder whats the point unless some tech actually saves me money as I dont have kids or grand kids maybe I should be as selfish as some others!
I do worry about how difficult life might become for my kids, etc - but I’m not sure it makes a huge difference. If you have the ability to grasp the science, and the imagination and empathy to understand how awful living through climate/ecological breakdown will be, then I think you’ll have similar feelings whether or not you have children.
Because of “pressing domestic commitments”? Surely he can delegate, and turn up himself at the COP27!
I said in a previous post some while ago that I thought it was too bloody late to do anything about climate change! I don’t like Rees Mogg but he said we should mitigate climate change, not try to prevent it, and that is the way it is looking to me.
It would appear that Sunak’s ERG puppetmasters have decided otherwise. He’s not going, though King Charles can (according to Thérèse Coffey this morning).
Quite. There is a far from erroneous assumption that ministers enjoy the perks of a good junket, regardless of the forum.
PM Sunak has some rather pressing issues to handle ASAP in UK and as a wealthy traveller on his own account probably sees no perk in the charms of COP at Sharm El-Sheikh. Imagine the hue and cry if he were going?! You can just hear the tabloid press baying because the PM would dare to chose the environmental meet instead of knuckling down to the very urgent difficulties at home.
I for one think this would be an excellent opportunity to send HRH. By quite some way the best informed on the subject. Well connected and with respect he could make a very important statement about the UK position in environmental concerns, just by attending, and without saying one word. If he could be persuaded to attend as a silent observer, SILENTLY, it may be a win all around.