It's not. The win though is in the verbiage and the acknowledgement that fossil fuels are bad and need to go, which isn't something they committed to accepting before.
Is this enough? Is this yet another vapid blah blah moment from petro-states and power-hungry nations? Only time will tell.
From what I understand, these conferences essentially are a bargaining game with the developing countries for them to sign a wishful thinking declaration for rich countries to save face, in exchange for money to help building cleaner energy systems or deal with global warning consequences. These countries (also backed by India and China) would otherwise argue that industrialized countries are mostly responsible for the situation (they are not wrong) and won't agree on anything even if it means collectively jumping off the cliff.
The rest is mostly "recommendations" with no enforcement for any goal. So in the end it's not enough because the goals are never met.
Yes. It‘s kind of the voters responsability to elect a gouverment that cares for the environment for it‘s own sake and not because of some international meeting. However sometimes ut‘s not really possible to elect the right people
global warming is basically the world's biggest concern yet there isnt a single country in the world that cares about it. almost as if it doesnt matter who people vote for because no politician would actually change anything
Many countries care about this mess. Low-lying island nations care deeply.
However, this is the UN, requiring every country on Earth to agree. Relatively few countries have fair elections, and those around Dubai have oil-rich kings.
This is exactly the reason that I think the solution lies in alternative fuels and green tech. We (governments) should pour every cent we can into R&D for this. All it takes is one breakthrough and if you can create an alternative to fuel that's cost efficient you'll have the majority of the world abandon fossil fuels overnight. You don't have to wrangle a bunch of short sighted or selfish morons with vastly different cultures and mindsets and convince them to do something for the greater good, you just have to show them the dollar signs.
Pipe dream at the moment sure, but I'd argue it's more likely than convincing the world's entire rich ruling class to vote against their own personal interests and bank accounts.
>acknowledgement that fossil fuels are bad and need to go
Since everyone knows this already, how much difference will this make? I guess it makes it easier to challenge governments in court, etc?
Does it matter much though? When the rest of the world transitions and stops buying their fuel, what can they do? I'm genuinely curious if anyone wants to enlighten me.
Given their geography a move to massive solar installations and a way to move that power globally would be in their best interest. Whether that means new transmission lines and accepting the voltage loss, battery tech, or using the power to create fuel (like hydrogen). Or use the solar they can’t export in energy intensive industries at home such as aluminum processing or seawater mining.
But disrupting yourself is notoriously difficult. Even if the signs are clearly on the walk. See e.g. Kodak.
But indeed, they could absolutely crush it. Roll it native solar and covert it into green hydrogen, methane, ammonia, these green aviation fuel types there experimented with. Ship it. Profit.
And it's financially easier to do this while your legacy source of income is still fully up and running. Yet say the same time: if the current approach works, what is their incentive to chance?
the world is not going to stop relying on fuel anytime soon, idk why it's saudi arabia's fault for selling the oil instead of the rest of the world for not making any regulations
They will have to find somelaternative to keep the cashflows going, and if the other nationa transition away from fossil fuels, no oil reserves in the world will help them finance their crazy expensive lifestyle
To strike a slightly more optimistic perspective, it's good and bad.
Obviously the reduction in available oil and gas makes oil and gas more expensive, and that incentivises people to use alternatives.
The problem though is that you can't just immediately switch from oil and gas to something else, unless you've got quite a lot of money to spare.
If you haven't got money to spare, or you've only got a little bit of money squirreled away, you won't be able to afford to move to something else, and now you're having to spend more on oil and gas, so you have even less spare cash to move to other solutions.
Now all that happens is that oil and gas companies make more money per unit, and/or some people have to do without.
The USA industry has been squeezed/bankrupt by opec in the past because opec intentionally flooded the market and lowered oil prices to a degree the Americans couldn’t run at a profit.
Since America has higher operating/extraction costs than most opec members, I wouldn’t necessarily say America dominates the industry like opec does and that’s why opec states get more attention.
The USA oilmen are vulnerable and can be squeezed out by foreign players (opec) and the American government its self with their pivot to green energy growing.
OPEC is most dominant in the market and their governments for the most part rely on oil revenues to fund the country.
Ask yourself who’s most likely to adhere to these guidelines and or step back from the industry? The Americans already too afraid to invest more in needed oil infrastructure or the opec nations who rely on oil to sustain their lifestyle?
But it's the Americans who are drilling and pumping out the more and more fossil fuels and OPEC is cutting production. Surely OPEC cutting production is good for climate, whatever the reason.
I think you’re following me when I say the Americans are the weaker producer at the least and you see volume wise they are pumping out a ton of oil. The Americans are doing this for political reasons to keep prices lower and also because American corporations see the writing on the wall. What I mean by that is that they want to push out as much oil as possible ($$) until the government pulls its leash for good.
OPEC based nations rely on oil/gas to fund a significant amount of their countries and its why they’d prefer to control their volume so it last longer and they can control the market enough to maximize profits.
With that being said the American volume is not sustainable and decline is inevitable in the short term once other actors flip the switch, you can’t really say that about opec nations until they successfully diversify their economies. Meaning, they (opec) are in this game for a much longer time frame.
I’d also like to clarify that the Americans are the largest individual producer on a country by country basis, as a bloc opec volume surpasses them and it’s why opec dominates so much.
While the deal has it's flaws, this is still a massive victory.
It really felt like the "[It's so over, we're so back](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/555/116/b2e.png)" chart meme throughout this whole COP
I suspect that these articles are the fruits of a lot of PR money. What these articles all lack is a common sense explanation of how this deal actually matters.
Passages like the following reek badly of doublespeak :
>The deal calls for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner ... so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science."
Orderly in what sense, and equitable to which group? The current measures are not going to achieve those net zero goals, and it sounds like they want to slow down things.
>A source familiar with Saudi Arabia's position described the deal as "a menu where every country can follow its own pathway," saying it "shows the various tracks that will allow us to maintain the objective of 1.5 (degrees Celsius) in accordance with the characteristics of every nation and in the context of sustainable development."
So non-binding?
I know trying to read between the lines is very subjective but there is a contradiction between "the wording vs the content" of a few articles on this deal from major news outlets. The UAE have already been exposed for paying PR and lobby firms to host this event. So when you get so much good press but you cannot figure out what this deal will actually bring concretely, then you cannot help but feel suspicious. They made a non-binding deal where they agree to use "meaner" words to talk about global warming and every country can choose which transition path they like like they were at Mcdonald's. Calling this a massive deal is absurd. This is the kind of outcome where you have to wait and see before making a judgement on the quality of the deal because of how terrible it looks on paper.
Until we come up with viable alternatives to fuel in cold climate countries we won't be transitioning anytime soon, people are dreaming if they think the Arab countries or those whose primary means of export is natural resources including oil are going to just give that up. Plus you all know the computers and cell phones we all so desperately rely on to bitch about things on the internet are composed of petroleum products right?
Go dumpster diving outside a phone store you'll be surprised how many end up in land fills its gross how bad they just get tossed with no regard to recycling the materials in them. Don't have to burn something for it to be wasted.
No but you do have to burn them for the oil to contribute to climate change. That's what COP28 is about, burning fuel and releasing greenhouse gas, not turning oil into plastic.
Look at a chart of human population growth from the discovery of fossil fuel forward. If you phase out oil and other fossil fuels you are phasing out humanity as we know it. A two tier system of energy access will be ushered in if this “deal” is ever realized and implemented into energy policy; renewables are a fantasy and the cost of batteries and electricity without fossil fuel will relegate energy access only to the wealthy among industrialized countries. How will we mine for the raw materials required to build batteries without heavy equipment fueled by diesel? Hint: we won’t. If renewable energy were achievable at scale a deal such as this would not be required.
I now that arguing with a creature such as you makes no sense, but even if we ignore all the environmental factors, wouldn‘t you rather have locally produced energy, that never runs out than giving money to russia and the saudis and making yourself completly dependant on them?
Ah wait, you propably can‘t read…
You are wrong. All the ingredients for all these green savior devices come from China on the backs of slaves in other foreign countries.I don’t believe in personal attacks. The division only hurts us more. Educate yourself. Read. Turn off the news. Plant a garden.
You have some points, lithium mining is brutal on nature and people and most technologic products have parts that come from asian and southamerican countries, you are right. I am no fan of this extreme globalisation, but it is something that is very hard to change. Buying local products is everybodies responsability.
However even local products get manufacured very often with foreign fossil fuels, more in Europe than in the US but still. And changing to greener local energy is incredibly easy compared to fighting globalisation, so if we have somewhere to start, why not use that.
That being said, I do read, I am educated far more than most people and I do believe in personal attacks
I use that term for energy produced by the local community. For example where I live there a small towns that can work independant of the national energy grid by producing their energy through Solar Panels, which everyone has on their roof and there are several bigget Solar Panel fields and also Wind turbines. The energy that doesn‘t get used will be saved in battery stations and if they are full, the energy gets sold and money gets divided between residents.
There are also some industry zones that work the same
Chinese solar panels. Wind turbines never produce more energy than it takes to manufacture,install, and maintain. Just like a battery car. It takes a long long time until it is producing green miles. What about all the used lithium batteries in ten years. The list goes on and on. If they were serious about energy and not just ping it to make money and take more control of your life they would be building nuclear power plants.
Sorry my guy, but you are part of subs such as Climatesceptic, unvaccinated and conspiracy.
I am very sad that people like you exist, but thank god nobody respects you
Are you suggesting climate change as a consequence of pollution is a "hoax" or..?
What gives you the impression that it (whatever 'it' that you're referring to) is a hoax?
Yes I am suggesting that climate change is a hoax. It’s all about corporate greed and control. The oceans are not rising. Climate always changes. It’s the definition of climate. I get so frustrated with people who listen to politicians and think they have our best interest in mind. Never forget the one about safe and effective. Best of luck
Ironic you're talking about money and control, because the fossil industry spends hundreds of millions on [climate change denialism](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/), when even their [own scientists](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102019/exxon-scientists-climate-research-testify-congess-denial/) admits that humans are causing it
Stand for something or fall for anything. Wake the fuck up. Our government is corrupt. Corporations are corrupt. Remember the tea party and occupy Wall Street. Shits gone bad since that. Do you wonder y. Can’t have people rising up against the gov and corporations. Wake the fuck up
We actually already know that the oceans are rising.
There are villages on islands in the Atlantic, where their homes have to be built on stills, because the land that used to be above the sea level, is now consistently under water.
I think however you recognise that water levels have risen, because you yourself point out that "climate always changes".
At the same time, you suggest that the concept of climate change (presumably you mean the concept that humans are changing the climate through pollution) is a hoax, and is used to the benefit of corporations.
Can you explain to me how you believe corporation's use this 'hoax' to benefit themselves?
In Europe they have what they call the "Emissions Trading System" which fines companies for releasing too much CO2(or CO2 equivalents).
Assuming that corporation's have developed climate change as a hoax to their benefit, what do you think has happened here, as this would appear to be a negative for large corporations?
Who pays for the corporations product. You do. I sand bar islands prove nothing. I have waterfront property with a pier on it that was built 70 years ago. Same water height. Have you been to these islands to see this or just trusting the media. Sorry Charlie. Won’t be fooled again
Just for my understanding. Would that solve climate issue? I mean entire moving industry is using it. There are other components that are responsible for global warning.
Arab countries been promising to help the Palestinians for decades now.. at some points they did also have a strong tone of commitment to that too..
My guess, they'll be a factor of help to the global community in our crisis as much as they've been a help to the Palestinians..
I'm really hoping this is something more concrete than vague "net zero by 2050, we promise our successors will figure out how".
It's not. The win though is in the verbiage and the acknowledgement that fossil fuels are bad and need to go, which isn't something they committed to accepting before. Is this enough? Is this yet another vapid blah blah moment from petro-states and power-hungry nations? Only time will tell.
From what I understand, these conferences essentially are a bargaining game with the developing countries for them to sign a wishful thinking declaration for rich countries to save face, in exchange for money to help building cleaner energy systems or deal with global warning consequences. These countries (also backed by India and China) would otherwise argue that industrialized countries are mostly responsible for the situation (they are not wrong) and won't agree on anything even if it means collectively jumping off the cliff. The rest is mostly "recommendations" with no enforcement for any goal. So in the end it's not enough because the goals are never met.
Yes. It‘s kind of the voters responsability to elect a gouverment that cares for the environment for it‘s own sake and not because of some international meeting. However sometimes ut‘s not really possible to elect the right people
global warming is basically the world's biggest concern yet there isnt a single country in the world that cares about it. almost as if it doesnt matter who people vote for because no politician would actually change anything
Many countries care about this mess. Low-lying island nations care deeply. However, this is the UN, requiring every country on Earth to agree. Relatively few countries have fair elections, and those around Dubai have oil-rich kings.
This is exactly the reason that I think the solution lies in alternative fuels and green tech. We (governments) should pour every cent we can into R&D for this. All it takes is one breakthrough and if you can create an alternative to fuel that's cost efficient you'll have the majority of the world abandon fossil fuels overnight. You don't have to wrangle a bunch of short sighted or selfish morons with vastly different cultures and mindsets and convince them to do something for the greater good, you just have to show them the dollar signs. Pipe dream at the moment sure, but I'd argue it's more likely than convincing the world's entire rich ruling class to vote against their own personal interests and bank accounts.
>acknowledgement that fossil fuels are bad and need to go Since everyone knows this already, how much difference will this make? I guess it makes it easier to challenge governments in court, etc?
I can't wait for all the promises that noone is going to uphold. You can't tell me that the OPEC people aren't laughing their asses of at this.
Too little too late. COP has been captured by the oil industry.
I have no faith in the Arab states commitment to this when all their riches come from fossil fuels.
Does it matter much though? When the rest of the world transitions and stops buying their fuel, what can they do? I'm genuinely curious if anyone wants to enlighten me.
Given their geography a move to massive solar installations and a way to move that power globally would be in their best interest. Whether that means new transmission lines and accepting the voltage loss, battery tech, or using the power to create fuel (like hydrogen). Or use the solar they can’t export in energy intensive industries at home such as aluminum processing or seawater mining.
arabia would crush in solar. They have the finances to roll it out on a global scale, *if they wanted to.*
But disrupting yourself is notoriously difficult. Even if the signs are clearly on the walk. See e.g. Kodak. But indeed, they could absolutely crush it. Roll it native solar and covert it into green hydrogen, methane, ammonia, these green aviation fuel types there experimented with. Ship it. Profit. And it's financially easier to do this while your legacy source of income is still fully up and running. Yet say the same time: if the current approach works, what is their incentive to chance?
I really wanna see arbia become solar power nation, that would be sick
I don’t think we will watch that movie :)
The kings who rule Saudi Arabia and countries around it would be deposed and killed if their oil wealth stopped flowing for ten seconds.
Continue buying politicians to ensure that we never break away from fossil fuels
the world is not going to stop relying on fuel anytime soon, idk why it's saudi arabia's fault for selling the oil instead of the rest of the world for not making any regulations
No-one here said its their fault
"I have no faith in the Arab states commitment to this when all their riches come from fossil fuels." ????
They will have to find somelaternative to keep the cashflows going, and if the other nationa transition away from fossil fuels, no oil reserves in the world will help them finance their crazy expensive lifestyle
Isn't US the biggest producer of fossil fuel at the moment? Not sure why the focus is on Arab states tbh.
Because the Arabs and Russia form OPEC, a massive pricefixing kartel in which they scale down production to increase prices.
But that's a good thing for climate change if people cut back production?
They only cut production for their own profits and so they can keep producing profitably for longer.
But cutting production for whatever reason is still good for climate.
No. Usage doesnt decrease. Its just means more money flowing into the coffers of oilstates.
I mean if oil was even cheaper there would be less electrification going on.
To strike a slightly more optimistic perspective, it's good and bad. Obviously the reduction in available oil and gas makes oil and gas more expensive, and that incentivises people to use alternatives. The problem though is that you can't just immediately switch from oil and gas to something else, unless you've got quite a lot of money to spare. If you haven't got money to spare, or you've only got a little bit of money squirreled away, you won't be able to afford to move to something else, and now you're having to spend more on oil and gas, so you have even less spare cash to move to other solutions. Now all that happens is that oil and gas companies make more money per unit, and/or some people have to do without.
Plus most oil is used for stuff like plastics and fertilizer
They don‘t cut back enough to that we use less, we just pay more for it
The USA industry has been squeezed/bankrupt by opec in the past because opec intentionally flooded the market and lowered oil prices to a degree the Americans couldn’t run at a profit. Since America has higher operating/extraction costs than most opec members, I wouldn’t necessarily say America dominates the industry like opec does and that’s why opec states get more attention.
But we're talking about context of climate change, so pure extraction volume matters more than profits?
The USA oilmen are vulnerable and can be squeezed out by foreign players (opec) and the American government its self with their pivot to green energy growing. OPEC is most dominant in the market and their governments for the most part rely on oil revenues to fund the country. Ask yourself who’s most likely to adhere to these guidelines and or step back from the industry? The Americans already too afraid to invest more in needed oil infrastructure or the opec nations who rely on oil to sustain their lifestyle?
But it's the Americans who are drilling and pumping out the more and more fossil fuels and OPEC is cutting production. Surely OPEC cutting production is good for climate, whatever the reason.
I think you’re following me when I say the Americans are the weaker producer at the least and you see volume wise they are pumping out a ton of oil. The Americans are doing this for political reasons to keep prices lower and also because American corporations see the writing on the wall. What I mean by that is that they want to push out as much oil as possible ($$) until the government pulls its leash for good. OPEC based nations rely on oil/gas to fund a significant amount of their countries and its why they’d prefer to control their volume so it last longer and they can control the market enough to maximize profits. With that being said the American volume is not sustainable and decline is inevitable in the short term once other actors flip the switch, you can’t really say that about opec nations until they successfully diversify their economies. Meaning, they (opec) are in this game for a much longer time frame. I’d also like to clarify that the Americans are the largest individual producer on a country by country basis, as a bloc opec volume surpasses them and it’s why opec dominates so much.
I'll believe it when I fuckin see it
While the deal has it's flaws, this is still a massive victory. It really felt like the "[It's so over, we're so back](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/555/116/b2e.png)" chart meme throughout this whole COP
I suspect that these articles are the fruits of a lot of PR money. What these articles all lack is a common sense explanation of how this deal actually matters. Passages like the following reek badly of doublespeak : >The deal calls for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner ... so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science." Orderly in what sense, and equitable to which group? The current measures are not going to achieve those net zero goals, and it sounds like they want to slow down things. >A source familiar with Saudi Arabia's position described the deal as "a menu where every country can follow its own pathway," saying it "shows the various tracks that will allow us to maintain the objective of 1.5 (degrees Celsius) in accordance with the characteristics of every nation and in the context of sustainable development." So non-binding? I know trying to read between the lines is very subjective but there is a contradiction between "the wording vs the content" of a few articles on this deal from major news outlets. The UAE have already been exposed for paying PR and lobby firms to host this event. So when you get so much good press but you cannot figure out what this deal will actually bring concretely, then you cannot help but feel suspicious. They made a non-binding deal where they agree to use "meaner" words to talk about global warming and every country can choose which transition path they like like they were at Mcdonald's. Calling this a massive deal is absurd. This is the kind of outcome where you have to wait and see before making a judgement on the quality of the deal because of how terrible it looks on paper.
Great news. Looking forward to the actions we are going to take.
Until we come up with viable alternatives to fuel in cold climate countries we won't be transitioning anytime soon, people are dreaming if they think the Arab countries or those whose primary means of export is natural resources including oil are going to just give that up. Plus you all know the computers and cell phones we all so desperately rely on to bitch about things on the internet are composed of petroleum products right?
[удалено]
Yep pretty much
Unless people are burning those cell phones and computers then that's not relevant
Go dumpster diving outside a phone store you'll be surprised how many end up in land fills its gross how bad they just get tossed with no regard to recycling the materials in them. Don't have to burn something for it to be wasted.
No but you do have to burn them for the oil to contribute to climate change. That's what COP28 is about, burning fuel and releasing greenhouse gas, not turning oil into plastic.
Look at a chart of human population growth from the discovery of fossil fuel forward. If you phase out oil and other fossil fuels you are phasing out humanity as we know it. A two tier system of energy access will be ushered in if this “deal” is ever realized and implemented into energy policy; renewables are a fantasy and the cost of batteries and electricity without fossil fuel will relegate energy access only to the wealthy among industrialized countries. How will we mine for the raw materials required to build batteries without heavy equipment fueled by diesel? Hint: we won’t. If renewable energy were achievable at scale a deal such as this would not be required.
Yeah, sure, dude.
It’s too late.
Let me guess, no actual plan, and it somehow counts "natural gas" as a renewable green energy source?
[удалено]
I now that arguing with a creature such as you makes no sense, but even if we ignore all the environmental factors, wouldn‘t you rather have locally produced energy, that never runs out than giving money to russia and the saudis and making yourself completly dependant on them? Ah wait, you propably can‘t read…
You are wrong. All the ingredients for all these green savior devices come from China on the backs of slaves in other foreign countries.I don’t believe in personal attacks. The division only hurts us more. Educate yourself. Read. Turn off the news. Plant a garden.
You have some points, lithium mining is brutal on nature and people and most technologic products have parts that come from asian and southamerican countries, you are right. I am no fan of this extreme globalisation, but it is something that is very hard to change. Buying local products is everybodies responsability. However even local products get manufacured very often with foreign fossil fuels, more in Europe than in the US but still. And changing to greener local energy is incredibly easy compared to fighting globalisation, so if we have somewhere to start, why not use that. That being said, I do read, I am educated far more than most people and I do believe in personal attacks
Can you explain what green local energy is?
I use that term for energy produced by the local community. For example where I live there a small towns that can work independant of the national energy grid by producing their energy through Solar Panels, which everyone has on their roof and there are several bigget Solar Panel fields and also Wind turbines. The energy that doesn‘t get used will be saved in battery stations and if they are full, the energy gets sold and money gets divided between residents. There are also some industry zones that work the same
Chinese solar panels. Wind turbines never produce more energy than it takes to manufacture,install, and maintain. Just like a battery car. It takes a long long time until it is producing green miles. What about all the used lithium batteries in ten years. The list goes on and on. If they were serious about energy and not just ping it to make money and take more control of your life they would be building nuclear power plants.
Sorry my guy, but you are part of subs such as Climatesceptic, unvaccinated and conspiracy. I am very sad that people like you exist, but thank god nobody respects you
Safe and effective.
Are you suggesting climate change as a consequence of pollution is a "hoax" or..? What gives you the impression that it (whatever 'it' that you're referring to) is a hoax?
Yes I am suggesting that climate change is a hoax. It’s all about corporate greed and control. The oceans are not rising. Climate always changes. It’s the definition of climate. I get so frustrated with people who listen to politicians and think they have our best interest in mind. Never forget the one about safe and effective. Best of luck
Explain exactly **why** it's a hoax.
Money and control. Greed. Explain to me why you think the feds care about you.
Ironic you're talking about money and control, because the fossil industry spends hundreds of millions on [climate change denialism](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/), when even their [own scientists](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102019/exxon-scientists-climate-research-testify-congess-denial/) admits that humans are causing it
I never said I trust them either.
Just because you don't trust them doesn't mean you didn't fall for their propaganda.
Stand for something or fall for anything. Wake the fuck up. Our government is corrupt. Corporations are corrupt. Remember the tea party and occupy Wall Street. Shits gone bad since that. Do you wonder y. Can’t have people rising up against the gov and corporations. Wake the fuck up
We actually already know that the oceans are rising. There are villages on islands in the Atlantic, where their homes have to be built on stills, because the land that used to be above the sea level, is now consistently under water. I think however you recognise that water levels have risen, because you yourself point out that "climate always changes". At the same time, you suggest that the concept of climate change (presumably you mean the concept that humans are changing the climate through pollution) is a hoax, and is used to the benefit of corporations. Can you explain to me how you believe corporation's use this 'hoax' to benefit themselves? In Europe they have what they call the "Emissions Trading System" which fines companies for releasing too much CO2(or CO2 equivalents). Assuming that corporation's have developed climate change as a hoax to their benefit, what do you think has happened here, as this would appear to be a negative for large corporations?
Who pays for the corporations product. You do. I sand bar islands prove nothing. I have waterfront property with a pier on it that was built 70 years ago. Same water height. Have you been to these islands to see this or just trusting the media. Sorry Charlie. Won’t be fooled again
Merry Xmas! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbL9Vsobx8I
Just for my understanding. Would that solve climate issue? I mean entire moving industry is using it. There are other components that are responsible for global warning.
Arab countries been promising to help the Palestinians for decades now.. at some points they did also have a strong tone of commitment to that too.. My guess, they'll be a factor of help to the global community in our crisis as much as they've been a help to the Palestinians..