Climate/Government

UN-led climate meeting ends without any major agreements to cut emissions

After resistance from about a half-dozen major and great powers, a United Nations-led climate summit closed without a major agreement to limit emissions.

The talks were held in Madrid, Spain, and were dubbed COP25. Discussions were viewed as a test of countries’ collective will for more aggressive cuts to so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’ in a bid to close the gap between promises of cuts and lower temperature goals established during the 2015 Paris climate pact.



The U.S., Brazil, China, Australia, and Saudi Arabia led the resistance to a new pact, delegates told Reuters.

At a midnight session on Saturday, Carolina Schmidt, Chile’s environment minister, who served as president of the talks, appealed for consensus.

“I request all your strength to get an ambitious agreement. I count on you to reach consensus,” she said.

Other officials also appealed for countries to sign onto a new agreement but there wasn’t much enthusiasm for new measures.

Talks became mired in disagreements over rules regarding international carbon trading. In this area, Australia and Brazil were among the main holdouts according to delegates.

As such, delegates decided to defer any big actions on climate markets until a later date.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a tweet he was “disappointed with the results of #COP25.”




He added that the summit outcome, in his view, meant that “the international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis.”

At the same time, a counter summit hosted by the conservative Heartland Institute was talking place in Madrid as well, which organizers said aimed to counter the climate change emergency narrative.

“We are here to present a dose of reality and sound science, as opposed to much what we hear from the United Nations,” said James Taylor, Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

4 Comments

  1. You have to believe that if these representatives REALLY believe that climate change was the monumental threat they claim, real action would be taken. I believe they know it is not an existential threat. Not serious enough to stop the forward progress of the world.

  2. Just look at the oceanside estates some of the scientific hypocrites have built with the money taken from grants and foundation donations-tax deductible of course. The supposed rising sea level will engulf those places. Anyone with a basic knowledge of atmosphere and the nature of CO2 can figure the whole concept of CO2 having any effect on the planet other than plant growth rate is nonsense. I have a feeling the “smart ones” in the climate cult know exactly how fake it is but man, the money’s good!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: