Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
A row over the definition of the term “gender” threatens to bog down pivotal talks at the Cop30 climate summit.
Before the UN talks in Brazil, hardline conservative states have pushed to define gender as “biological sex” over their concerns trans and non-binary people could be included in a major plan to ensure climate action addresses gender inequality and empowers women.
Gender rights advocates said the move would backslide on decade-old language within the UN system. “These are unprecedented times to negotiate on gender equality and women’s empowerment,” said Lorena Aguilar, the executive director of the US-based Kaschak Institute for Social Justice for Women and Girls, and Costa Rica’s former vice minister for foreign affairs.
“There are some countries that want to push us back to 30 years ago. But we will not accept anything less than what we already have.”
Could this climate conference possibly get more absurd? Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the entire conference broke down over this issue?
I’ve no doubt if the UN parachuted millions of dollars into a poverty-stricken disaster zone, only available to people who identify as a woman, pretty soon everyone would identify as a woman – at least while they were queuing up for the handout.
Liberals formally abandon net zero by 2050 but Ley says reaching target would still be ‘welcome outcome’
Future Coalition government would not withdraw from Paris climate agreement altogether, Liberal frontbench decides a day after five-hour party room debate
Future Coalition government would not withdraw from Paris climate agreement altogether, Liberal frontbench decides a day after five-hour party room debate
…
The Liberal party will abandon a firm net zero emissions target, siding with the Nationals to end the Coalition’s commitment to the climate goal, in a bid to pursue what Ley and energy spokesperson Dan Tehan called “energy abundance” by supporting nuclear power, and backing coal and gas.
But in an at-times confusing press conference, Ley said it would still be a “welcome outcome” if they managed to reach net zero emissions anyway, despite planning to junk Labor government legislation and renewable targets which support such an outcome.
“I could not be more clear when I say we are removing net zero targets and long-term targets from our policy. We are not pursuing a policy of net zero,” Ley said in Canberra on Thursday.
…
However the Liberal plan would not include withdrawing from the Paris agreement, which was a red line that could have prompted the resignation of moderate Liberals such as Andrew Bragg and Maria Kovacic. In an olive branch to moderates who wanted the target retained, MPs will also be free to argue that reaching net zero would be a “welcome outcome” in the future, two sources confirmed to Guardian Australia.
The Guardian described the press conference which announced this new policy position as “at times confusing” – an assessment I agree with.
On a positive note, this will likely throw sand into the gears of the Aussie Net Zero revolution. It’s difficult to raise green energy loans on the back of subsidies which could be pulled at any moment. At the very least it will force the current government to provide more green energy loan guarantees, which will cause significant embarrassment, and open them to accusations of gambling with Australia’s future financial stability.
On the negative side, I and I’m sure plenty of my fellow Aussies still have no idea what Australia’s mainstream opposition stands for.
Still it seems a step in the right direction, however tentative.
Hopefully in a few years, in the leadup to the next election cycle, COP and Net Zero will have become such a no-show embarrassment political leaders will quietly forget there ever was a Paris Agreement.
The world’s burning of fossil fuels is set to release more planet-warming carbon dioxide than ever before this year, new figures show.
It is another sign that efforts to fight climate change by cutting emissions are moving far too slowly to meet international targets, as countries meet in Brazil for UN climate talks COP30.
But emissions have grown much less quickly over the past decade as renewables have taken off, providing hope that the world’s warming trend can still be curbed.
And separate analysis by clean energy think tank Ember suggests that fossil fuel use in electricity generation has flatlined in 2025, largely thanks to the rapid growth of solar power.
It adds weight to the idea that global emissions may be nearing a peak – even though it’s hard to say exactly when that might come.
First, why is the BBC using the word “hope”? It is the BBC’s job to report the news, not reflect the reporters’ personal views.
Their first chart is revealing:
It is abundantly clear that the world is not going to suddenly give up fossil fuels, so I congratulate the BBC for telling its readers the truth for a change.
But what is this about a renewables boom and curbing warming trends?
The BBC offer this graph:
One would be entitled for believing that our energy system is being transformed.
But the BBC omitted to put these figures into perspective in overall terms. Total global electricity generation last year was 31255 TWh, so that 500 TWh of solar power is just a drop in the ocean.
Moreover, global electricity consumption keeps on rising; last year it increased by 1292 TWh. As the above chart indicates, all that the “boom” in renewables is doing is meet the growth in demand.
Whether emissions peak soon is irrelevant. There is no prospect at all that they will substantially fall in the foreseeable future.
Once again, the headlines scream “Worse than we thought.” This time, it’s methane—specifically from lakes and reservoirs—that’s being cast as the next great climate villain. According to a new study from Linköping University in Sweden and NASA Ames Research Center, methane emissions from inland waters could “double by the end of the century” and “exacerbate the IPCC’s worst-case climate scenario”. It sounds dire—until you take a closer look.
Once again, the headlines scream “Worse than we thought.” This time, it’s methane—specifically from lakes and reservoirs—that’s being cast as the next great climate villain. According to a new study from Linköping University in Sweden and NASA Ames Research Center, methane emissions from inland waters could “double by the end of the century” and “exacerbate the IPCC’s worst-case climate scenario”. It sounds dire—until you take a closer look.
First, a little perspective. Methane (CH₄) currently makes up just about 1.9 parts per million of Earth’s atmosphere. That’s less than two-thousandths of a percent—essentially a trace gas. By comparison, carbon dioxide sits above 420 ppm, while water vapor—the dominant greenhouse gas—typically ranges from 10,000 to 40,000 ppm depending on humidity. Yet methane is frequently portrayed in the media as a “super-potent” greenhouse gas, with headlines implying it plays an outsized role in warming. In reality, methane’s total radiative forcing—its contribution to the atmosphere’s energy balance—is small compared to CO₂ and minuscule compared to water vapor. Its concentration has not been rising steadily either; methane levels have gone through periods of stagnation and even decline. Satellite and ice-core data show that from roughly 2000 to 2007, global methane levels were virtually flat. Since then, they’ve increased modestly but not alarmingly. If methane were on an unstoppable trajectory as claimed, we wouldn’t have seen that decade-long pause.
The core of the new study isn’t field observation but modeling. The authors openly describe their work as a “computational simulation” based on IPCC climate scenarios. They built a model using data from 767 sites across various climate zones and extrapolated those results to represent every lake and reservoir on Earth for the next 75 years. That’s an extraordinary leap. Such modeling exercises depend entirely on assumptions—about temperature change, biological response, and feedbacks—that cannot be verified. A model’s output is not data; it’s a hypothesis expressed in numbers. In this case, the model assumes that warming alone drives methane emissions upward in a near-linear fashion. But lake ecosystems are far more complex. Methane formation depends on oxygen availability, nutrient levels, sediment composition, microbial communities, and water depth. Temperature is only one variable among many, and in some systems, higher temperatures can even suppress methane production by increasing oxygen penetration or altering microbial competition.
Real lakes are also dynamic. Their surface temperatures fluctuate with wind, mixing, inflows, shading, and seasonal turnover. A small change in air temperature doesn’t necessarily translate into a proportional rise in sediment temperature where methane is generated. But models tend to smooth over these complexities, turning natural variability into tidy global averages. When that simplification is fed through multiple layers of climate scenario assumptions, it produces numbers that look precise but are, in fact, speculative.
The press release claims that before industrialization, methane emissions were “in balance” with natural breakdown processes and that climate change now threatens to “disturb” that equilibrium. That framing assumes there was ever a fixed baseline. In truth, methane levels have always fluctuated in response to natural factors like rainfall, vegetation shifts, and temperature cycles. Wetlands, lakes, and even termites are major methane sources, and their emissions have varied widely throughout history without any human influence. To describe the system as “out of balance” now is to misunderstand that natural balance is dynamic, not static.
Another red flag is the reliance on what the study itself calls the “IPCC’s warmest scenario”—the one that assumes massive fossil fuel expansion and unchecked emissions through 2100. Even the IPCC has quietly admitted that its so-called “worst case,” now known as SSP5-8.5, represents an implausible path that doesn’t match real-world energy or population trends. Yet that’s the foundation this methane projection stands on. When you start from an exaggerated premise, you end up with an exaggerated conclusion.
It’s also telling that the study was funded by the European Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, and NASA Earth Science programs—institutions that exist within the broader climate research ecosystem where funding and attention flow toward studies emphasizing risk and urgency. “Methane emissions stable” won’t make the news or attract new grants, but “methane doubling—worse than the IPCC’s worst case” certainly will. The incentive structure ensures that speculative modeling studies receive maximum visibility, while measured, data-driven assessments get buried.
And then there’s the rhetoric. The lead researcher is quoted as saying, “This study makes it even clearer that we really, really want to change the climate scenario as quickly as possible.” That isn’t scientific language; it’s advocacy.
Of course, he looks like another Mann clone:
Professor David Bastviken at Tema M – Environmental Change, Linköping University, Sweden.
Science should describe what is, not prescribe what society “really, really” must do. When a model becomes a moral argument, the line between empirical research and policy lobbying has been crossed.
In the end, what we have here is not evidence of an impending methane catastrophe but another example of how climate modeling gets presented as certainty. Methane remains a trace gas with a small, transient role in atmospheric heating. Its natural sources and sinks are vast and variable, defying the kind of simplistic modeling that underpins this study. The suggestion that lakes and reservoirs will suddenly double their methane output by 2100 is speculation layered upon speculation.
So, when you see headlines warning that “warmer lakes could worsen the IPCC’s worst case,” remember what’s really being described: a model of a model of a model. The numbers aren’t measurements, the future isn’t data, and the atmosphere isn’t listening. Methane may bubble quietly from lakebeds, but the real gas here is the hot air coming from yet another round of climate conjecture dressed up as discovery.
Just in time for COP30 in Belem, Brazil, we have fresh confirmation that cooling temperatures are resulting in lower-than-expected levels of atmospheric CO2. Historical records show that around 1875 was the coldest time in the last 10,000 years. That was the end of the Little Ice Age, and since then temperatures have warmed at an average rate of about 0.5C per century. The recovery of the biosphere and ocean warming resulted in rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Just in time for COP30 in Belem, Brazil, we have fresh confirmation that cooling temperatures are resulting in lower-than-expected levels of atmospheric CO2. Historical records show that around 1875 was the coldest time in the last 10,000 years. That was the end of the Little Ice Age, and since then temperatures have warmed at an average rate of about 0.5C per century. The recovery of the biosphere and ocean warming resulted in rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. At times, there are warming spikes, in the 1930s and 40s for example, and the rate of rising CO2 goes up. At other times, such as 1950s and 60s, temperatures cool, and rising CO2 slows down. More recently, in 2023 and 24, we saw temperatures spike up before falling back down in 2025.
Previously I have demonstrated that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels follow changes in Global Mean Temperatures (GMT) as shown by satellite measurements from University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). That background post is reprinted later below.
My curiosity was piqued by the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024. GMT has declined steadily, and now 18 months later, the anomaly is 0.53C down from 0.94C. I also became aware that UAH has recalibrated their dataset due to a satellite drift that can no longer be corrected. The values since 2020 have shifted slightly in version 6.1, as shown in my recent report UAH Ocean Stays Cool, SH Land Warms, October 2025. The data here comes from UAH record of temperatures measured in the lower troposphere (TLT).
In this post, I test the premise that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The chart above shows the two monthly datasets: CO2 levels in blue reported at Mauna Loa, and Global temperature anomalies in purple reported by UAHv6.1, both through October 2025. Would such a sharp increase in temperature be reflected in rising CO2 levels, according to the successful mathematical forecasting model? Would CO2 levels decline as temperatures dropped following the peak?
The answer is yes: that temperature spike resulted in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected. And lower CO2 levels followed the temperature decline.
Above are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.
Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies referenced to the 1991-2020 period. CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example October 2025 minus October 2024). Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month. Note the recent CO2 upward spike and drop following the temperature spike and drop.
The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1979 with a simple mathematical formula:
For each subsequent year, the CO2 level for each month was generated
CO2 this month this year = a + b × Temp this month this year + CO2 this month last year
The values for a and b are constants applied to all monthly temps and are chosen to scale the forecasted CO2 level for comparison with the observed value. Here is the result of those calculations.
In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9988 out of 1.0000. This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which are small in comparison, rise steadily and monotonically. For a more detailed look at the recent fluxes, here are the results since 2015, an ENSO neutral year.
For this recent period, the calculated CO2 values match well the annual highs, while some annual generated values of CO2 are slightly higher or lower than observed at other months of the year. Still the correlation for this period is 0.9941.
Key Point
Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.
Background Post Temperature Changes Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse
This post is about proving that CO2 changes in response to temperature changes, not the other way around, as is often claimed. In order to do that we need two datasets: one for measurements of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time and one for estimates of Global Mean Temperature changes over time.
Climate science is unsettling because past data are not fixed, but change later on. I ran into this previously in 2021 and 2022 when I set out to update an analysis done in 2014 by Jeremy Shiers (discussed in a previous post reprinted at the end). Jeremy provided a spreadsheet in his essay Murray Salby Showed CO2 Follows Temperature Now You Can Too posted in January 2014. I downloaded his spreadsheet intending to bring the analysis up to the present to see if the results hold up. The two sources of data were:
Uploading the CO2 dataset showed that many numbers had changed (why?).
The blue line shows annual observed differences in monthly values year over year, e.g. June 2020 minus June 2019 etc. The first 12 months (1979) provide the observed starting values from which differentials are calculated. The orange line shows those CO2 values changed slightly in the 2020 dataset vs. the 2014 dataset, on average +0.035 ppm. But there is no pattern or trend added, and deviations vary randomly between + and -. So last year I took the 2020 dataset to replace the older one for updating the analysis.
Now I find the NOAA dataset starting in 2021 has almost completely new values due to a method shift in February 2021, requiring a recalibration of all previous measurements. The new picture of ΔCO2 is graphed below.
The method shift is reported at a NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory webpage, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) WMO Scale, with a justification for the difference between X2007 results and the new results from X2019 now in force. The orange line shows that the shift has resulted in higher values, especially early on and a general slightly increasing trend over time. However, these are small variations at the decimal level on values 340 and above. Further, the graph shows that yearly differentials month by month are virtually the same as before. Thus I redid the analysis with the new values.
Global Temperature Anomalies (ΔTemp)
The other time series was the record of global temperature anomalies according to RSS. The current RSS dataset is not at all the same as the past.
Here we see some seriously unsettling science at work. The purple line is RSS in 2014, and the blue is RSS as of 2020. Some further increases appear in the gold 2022 rss dataset. The red line shows alterations from the old to the new. There is a slight cooling of the data in the beginning years, then the three versions mostly match until 1997, when systematic warming enters the record. From 1997/5 to 2003/12 the average anomaly increases by 0.04C. After 2004/1 to 2012/8 the average increase is 0.15C. At the end from 2012/9 to 2013/12, the average anomaly was higher by 0.21. The 2022 version added slight warming over 2020 values.
RSS continues that accelerated warming to the present, but it cannot be trusted. And who knows what the numbers will be a few years down the line? As Dr. Ole Humlum said some years ago (regarding Gistemp): “It should however be noted, that a temperature record which keeps on changing the past hardly can qualify as being correct.”
Given the above manipulations, I went instead to the other satellite dataset UAH version 6. UAH has also made a shift by changing its baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020. This resulted in systematically reducing the anomaly values but did not alter the pattern of variation over time. For comparison, here are the two records with measurements through December 2023.
Comparing UAH temperature anomalies to NOAA CO2 changes.
Here are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.
Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies now referenced to the 1991-2020 period. As stated above, CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example June 2022 minus June 2021). Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month.
The final proof that CO2 follows temperature due to stimulation of natural CO2 reservoirs is demonstrated by the ability to calculate CO2 levels since 1979 with a simple mathematical formula:
For each subsequent year, the co2 level for each month was generated
CO2 this month this year = a + b × Temp this month this year + CO2 this month last year
Jeremy used Python to estimate a and b, but I used his spreadsheet to guess values that place for comparison the observed and calculated CO2 levels on top of each other.
In the chart calculated CO2 levels correlate with observed CO2 levels at 0.9986 out of 1.0000. This mathematical generation of CO2 atmospheric levels is only possible if they are driven by temperature-dependent natural sources, and not by human emissions which are small in comparison, rise steadily and monotonically.
Comment: UAH dataset reported a sharp warming spike starting mid year, with causes speculated but not proven. In any case, that surprising peak has not yet driven CO2 higher, though it might, but only if it persists despite the likely cooling already under way.
Previous Post: What Causes Rising Atmospheric CO2?
This post is prompted by a recent exchange with those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.
The IPCC doctrine which has long been promoted goes as follows. We have a number over here for monthly fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and a number over there for monthly atmospheric CO2. We don’t have good numbers for the rest of it-oceans, soils, biosphere–though rough estimates are orders of magnitude higher, dwarfing human CO2. So we ignore nature and assume it is always a sink, explaining the difference between the two numbers we do have. Easy peasy, science settled.
What about the fact that nature continues to absorb about half of human emissions, even while FF CO2 increased by 60% over the last 2 decades? What about the fact that in 2020 FF CO2 declined significantly with no discernable impact on rising atmospheric CO2?
These and other issues are raised by Murray Salby and others who conclude that it is not that simple, and the science is not settled. And so these dissenters must be cancelled lest the narrative be weakened.
The non-IPCC paradigm is that atmospheric CO2 levels are a function of two very different fluxes. FF CO2 changes rapidly and increases steadily, while Natural CO2 changes slowly over time, and fluctuates up and down from temperature changes. The implications are that human CO2 is a simple addition, while natural CO2 comes from the integral of previous fluctuations. Jeremy Shiers has a series of posts at his blog clarifying this paradigm. See Increasing CO2 Raises Global Temperature Or Does Increasing Temperature Raise CO2 Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
The following graph which shows the change in CO2 levels (rather than the levels directly) makes this much clearer.
Note the vertical scale refers to the first differential of the CO2 level not the level itself. The graph depicts that change rate in ppm per year.
There are big swings in the amount of CO2 emitted. Taking the mean as 1.6 ppmv/year (at a guess) there are +/- swings of around 1.2 nearly +/- 100%.
And, surprise, surprise, the change in net emissions of CO2 is very strongly correlated with changes in global temperature.
This clearly indicates the net amount of CO2 emitted in any one year is directly linked to global mean temperature in that year.
For any given year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be the sum of
all the net annual emissions of CO2
in all previous years.
For each year the net annual emission of CO2 is proportional to the annual global mean temperature.
This means the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be related to the sum of temperatures in previous years.
So CO2 levels are not directly related to the current temperature but the integral of temperature over previous years.
The following graph again shows observed levels of CO2 and global temperatures but also has calculated levels of CO2 based on sum of previous years temperatures (dotted blue line).
Summary:
The massive fluxes from natural sources dominate the flow of CO2 through the atmosphere. Human CO2 from burning fossil fuels is around 4% of the annual addition from all sources. Even if rising CO2 could cause rising temperatures (no evidence, only claims), reducing our emissions would have little impact.
A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.
A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.
The McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections. Last year, the management consultant’s models had coal demand falling 40% by 2035. Today, McKinsey projects an uptick of 1% over the same period. The dramatic reversal is driven by record commissioning of coal-fired power plants in China, unexpected increases in global electricity use, and the lack of viable alternatives for industries like steel, chemicals and heavy manufacturing.
The report states that the three fossil fuels will still supply up to 55% of global energy in 2050, a forecast that looks low to me. Today’s share for hydrocarbons is about 64%..
In any case, McKinsey’s report confirms what seasoned energy analysts and pragmatic policymakers have long maintained: The energy transition will not be swift, simple, or governed solely by climate targets. In fact, this energy transition will not happen at all without large scale deployment of nuclear, geothermal or other technological innovations that prove to be practical.
In places such as India, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the top energy priorities are access, affordability and reliability, which together add up to national security. Planners are acutely aware of a trap: Sole reliance on weather-dependent power risks blackouts, industrial disruption, economic decline and civil unrest.
That is why many developing nations are embracing a dual track: continued investment in conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) while developing alternative technologies. McKinsey says this in consultancy lingo: “Countries and regions will follow distinct trajectories based on local economic conditions, resource endowment, and the realities facing particular industries.”
In countries like India, Indonesia and Nigeria, the scale of electrification and industrial expansion is enormous. These countries cannot afford to wait decades for perfect solutions; they need “reliable and good enough for now.” That means conventional fuels will be retained.
McKinsey’s analysis also underscores what physics and engineering dictate: Intermittent and weather-dependent sources, such as wind and solar, require vast land areas, backup batteries and generation and power-grid investments, none of which come cheaply nor quickly.
The technologies of wind and solar branded as renewable should instead be called economy killers. They make for expensive and unstable electrical systems that have brought energy-rich nations like Germany to their knees. After spending billions of dollars on unreliable wind turbine and solar panels and demolishing nuclear plants and coal plants, the country is struggling with high prices and economic stagnation.
The Germans now have a word for their self-inflicted crisis: Dunkelflaute. It means “dark doldrums”—a period of cold, sunless, windless days when their “green” grid fails. During a Dunkelflaute in November 2024, fossil fuels were called on to provide 70% of Germany’s electricity.
If “renewables” were truly capable, planners would be shutting down fossil fuel generation. But that is not the case. While wind and solar are being pursued in some places, coal and natural gas remain much sought-after fuels. In the first half of 2025 alone, China commissioned about 21 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity, which is more than any other country and the largest increase since 2016.
Further, China has approved construction of 25 GW of new coal plants in the first half of 2026. As of July, China’s mainland has nearly 1,200 coal plants, far outstripping the rest of the world.
McKinsey points to a dramatic surge in electricity demand driven by data centers, which is estimated to be about 17 % annually from 2022 to 2030 in the 38 OECD countries. This kind of growth in electricity use simply cannot be met by wind and solar.
When analysts, journalists and engineers point out these realities, they’re branded as “shills” for the fossil fuel industry. However, it is not public relations to point out the physics and economics that make up the math for meeting the world’s energy needs. Dismissing such facts is to deny that reliable energy remains the bedrock of modern civilization.
The cost of foolish “green” policies is being paid in lost jobs, ruined businesses, disrupted lives and impoverishment that could have been avoided by wiser choices.
For those who have repeated energy realities for years, the vindication is bittersweet. The satisfaction of being right is tempered by the knowledge that many have suffered because reality has been ignored.
This commentary was first published by Daily Calleron November 9, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
“… Countries prioritising cheaper, dirtier energy production and showing less enthusiasm for the hard, costly work of cutting emissions have led to a global vibe shift …”
“… Countries prioritising cheaper, dirtier energy production and showing less enthusiasm for the hard, costly work of cutting emissions have led to a global vibe shift …”
This year’s global climate summit is different – but not in a good way
The vibe shift on global climate action has hit the buzz around Brazil’s COP, but the true believers are still there doing work they say is as urgent as ever.
…
But the persistence of the climate policy crowd in trekking to Belém, where temporary rooms on cruise ships moored at the mouth of the Guamá River are reportedly going for more than $4000 a night, does not mean all is well with the global climate action movement. Far from it.
Countries prioritising cheaper, dirtier energy production and showing less enthusiasm for the hard, costly work of cutting emissions have led to a global vibe shift, as illustrated by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s pre-summit leaders meeting over the weekend.
Heads of state from almost all the world’s biggest emitters, including the United States, China, India and Russia, did not attend. Australia, which says it wants to host the event next year, sent its assistant energy minister, Josh Wilson.
As far as global diplomatic priorities go, it amounted to little more than a collective shrug. And that’s a problem – because this is not any old climate summit.
It is hilarious that the Trump agenda is dominating the COP30 climate conference, even though Trump is a no show.
Australian Financial Review contributors almost always take a pro-renewables position, so it is quite an admission that “dirtier” energy production methods are cheaper.
Renewables being more expensive shouldn’t be a surprise, certainly not to WUWT readers. The intermittency of renewables is a show stopper in terms of cost competitiveness. Obtaining reliable power from a supply system which includes renewables either requires insanely expensive battery backup and massive overcapacity, or an entire duplicate fossil fuel system, which has to be paid for and kept on hot standby for when the renewables let you down.
I wouldn’t read too much into the drop in attendance, though sending junior doesn’t exactly scream “top priority”. The host city Belém is an easy day trip from the equator, and its proximity to water keeps the weather dripping wet and steamy, pretty much all the time. Think Singapore with more biting insects and less chance of a sea breeze. That alone could have deterred senior politicians from temperate nations from visiting – especially if the conference hall aircon is struggling to keep up.
Some real fireworks kicked off yesterday evening when an irate crew of 50 to 100 Tupinambá warriors — some decked out in their striking traditional feathers and body paint — stormed the Blue Zone like it was the Alamo.
Some real fireworks kicked off yesterday evening when an irate crew of 50 to 100 Tupinambá warriors — some decked out in their striking traditional feathers and body paint — stormed the Blue Zone like it was the Alamo.
These aren’t your Hollywood stereotypes of eco-warriors glued to trees. Rather, they’re proud, resilient people who have stewarded the Amazon for generations. After I snapped a few photos with them around the COP Green Zone venue today, I found them as warm and welcoming as any tailgate party at a football game back home. It’s clear they’re not here for Al Gore’s PowerPoint on carbon footprints.
Climate change? Barely a blip on these people’s radar. No, their gripe is far more grounded: why is a leftist government hosting a global gabfest that bulldozes their sacred lands for an eight-mile highway, displaces açaí farmers without a dime in compensation, and sidelines their voices in favor of radical agitators?
Their breach on Wednesday was chaotic: doors were kicked in, chants of “Our land is not for sale!” echoed off the walls, and batons and protesters shoved back at security. Joining the fray were cheerleaders from Brazil’s far-left Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) — the kind of outfit that dreams of Che Guevara statues in every village square. They piped up with the usual suspects: outrage over “illegal logging, mining, and industrialization” ravaging the wilderness.
Sounds noble, right? Except when you chat informally with the protesters themselves, that narrative crumbles faster than a Michael Mann climate forecast. Take my encounter in the Green Zone — that sprawling NGO bazaar where businesses hawk “sustainable” widgets and academics peddle guilt trips. I cornered an interpreter, a university type who clearly leaned sympathetic to the cause and got the unvarnished truth through his translations. Sure, the Tupinambá are steamed about representation. Why hand the mic to Lula’s cronies when the real stewards of the forest, their Indigenous groups, get token seats at best?
Dig deeper, and these native Brazilians are not driven by some Marxist manifesto. It’s simpler, and more American: they want economic development. They want roads that connect their villages to markets; jobs that lift families out of poverty without chaining them to endless welfare handouts. They are for mining and industry. These folks see opportunity, not oppression — if it’s done with respect for their culture and values.
That’s the real scandal here at the climate summit. The Indigenous voices aren’t the problem — it’s how the radical left co-opts them like props in a bad diversity play. The PSOL radicals hijacked the protest to push their anti-capitalist fever dreams, ignoring that true prosperity comes from free enterprise, not UN fiat. Brazil’s President Lula cleared over 100,000 trees, with barely a peep of protest from the environmental community, for the convenience of elites attending this climate summit.
Talk about hypocritical deforestation! And amid the pomp on display here, the Indigenous community serves as nice props and ornamentation for delegates to gawk at while they sip imported champagne.
Wandering the Green Zone today was an eye-opener, even for a COP summit veteran like me. It’s glitzier than normal — booths hawking carbon credits like snake oil, solar-powered gadgets nobody needs, and endless panels on “equity” that sound like rebranded socialism.
But beneath the sheen, you sense the frustration bubbling. These Indigenous protesters aren’t anti-progress; rather, they’re anti-exploitation. They deserve partners who prioritize property rights, fair deals, and growth over endless regulations that keep the Amazon in perpetual poverty. Here in Belém, verification day has arrived. And the natives? They’re not just restless — they are righteously fed up.
CFACT interviews a Brazilian climate researcher on Indigenous demands
EARTHDAY.ORG (EDO), the global organizer of the Earth Day movement—observed by more than one billion people each April 22—celebrates the European Union’s landmark decision to integrate climate education into school curricula from kindergarten through grade 12, as part of its 2025 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement.
By Paul Homewood
This press release has just arrived from Earthday
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — EARTHDAY.ORG (EDO), the global organizer of the Earth Day movement—observed by more than one billion people each April 22—celebrates the European Union’s landmark decision to integrate climate education into school curricula from kindergarten through grade 12, as part of its 2025 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement.
“The inclusion of climate education in the EU NDC is an important step toward equipping students with green skills and countering climate disinformation. “
The Danish Presidency formally submitted the European Union’s NDC to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 5 November 2025. By officially incorporating climate education across its 27 member states, the EU joins more than 60 other countries that have adopted EARTHDAY.ORG–model language in their NDCs—helping to cement climate literacy as a global standard for climate action.
“The inclusion of climate education in the EU’s NDC is a significant victory for young people across Europe. Strengthening green skills in curricula will make young Europeans better prepared and more competitive in the green job market but also combat the rise of climate misinformation which is arising across Europe.
This achievement is the result of strong collaboration between governments, youth, and civil society. Our dear youth colleague from EARTHDAY.ORG has been an important advocate for advancing climate education at the EU level.” Sigurd Krabbe, Denmark’s Youth Delegate to the UN for Climate and Environment
This milestone marks the result of over a decade of bold EDO advocacy.
“As we navigate the climate emergency, quality climate education is as fundamental as teaching reading and writing. Teachers are determined to empower students for climate action and a just transition but we need policies that provide us with enabling conditions. Through our Teach for the Planet campaign and together with EARTHDAY.ORG, we are advocating for governments everywhere to recognize and fund climate education as the essential adaptation measure and resource that it is.” Dave Edwards, General Secretary, Education International
Last month, the Vatican endorsed climate education and integral ecology, highlighting EDO’s advocacy in Vatican News alongside the release of its updated NDC.
The EU and the Vatican are not alone — nations across the political and economic spectrum are now integrating climate education into their NDCs.
It is no coincidence that just last week Bridget Phillipson introduced a major overhaul of the national curriculum which includes new mandatory lessons on climate awareness for all primary school children.
But the chances of children actually being taught the actual facts are remote. Instead, they will be force fed with then government version.
You must be logged in to post a comment.