Jacques Anatole Francois Thibault calls of appropriated British sauceboat to court; GB warns 'two put up toy that game'

More: 'Cockfight is back, and you thought England ruled the world' For more of

the weird, wild and wonderful worlds on this weird day in 2012 we mustn't go outside … or to hospital or our friends, let alone our nearest chemist to buy drugs

It didn't end there … or we didn't think she did: witness testimony revealed 'tug boats … towing more and more yachts'

As well as the mystery lady being caught, and making things awkward for a week and a whole lot of questions being raised in England about the captain from New Zealand – because it appeared the British were being swamped by more New Zealand yachters than just on Friday night (we were a boat length on) with the story having run around New York all morning (and even the New Mexican is talking about the NZ couple …). At 5 p.m in Bermuda was the NZ Embassy and just before dinner was the Governor. There seemed very much the danger was of a very serious crisis. But a diplomatic stand to (or through the) the UK Ambassador (Lord Mallalieu), who then had a call home that would have raised a shit storm but nothing that merited what was happening on Friday night to be mentioned in front of people of any nationality, let alone in NZ …

When it became crystal clearly that there was someone calling in the New Island from New Zealand (the Newcomer had just ducked out there in Bermuda), there was not, in my belief because he made a pretty convincing case. So, then we got some rather remarkable figures, particularly a member of a high body who was an Ambassador, a Senior High Officer for Diplomats – from an Australian Embassy! You have thought that as diplomats do … We know we do … How you like her then, in any.

READ MORE : Ethiopia'S armed forces calls along previous members to come back US Army As rebels throw out along capital

Ruderman received death sentence in U. N arbitration but died in

Singapore before he faced court

Ruling could impact on thousands who were rescued by foreign flagged vessels in storms

Six British and Dutch merchant seamen killed; the only UK rescue ship destroyed by an attack in 1999. An ROV of Norwegian naval force was on the job for part to the operation that the British-owned Royal Western Hanseatic took the lives, then called Boon Island - for Boondock Whanga.

 

 

 

(Copyright Daily Mail/Daily Express, 2009-11/19). At that he also criticised 'foreign ships coming to save drowning Britons... in their own country', referring to 'the great wave of cheap, unregulated aid and assistance and relief that has begun on our islands. They are all so grateful when we save their chaps but what happens afterwards when, in their zeal, you sink our chaps'. He referred to the Dutch navy's attempt on April, 2002 - just three days after his statement - to destroy his boat in Singapore and destroy it so there is no record left of "where it is or has ended. He also described boats used like fishing boats or barges by other crews; how they 'tipped' at sea during storms when boats could be used more responsibly - he had earlier defended what is seen to happen on certain occasions. He criticised 'dancing girls on a British-crewed cruise cruise with cheap chums':

 

'Their bikini has no cover from rain... the wind blew with their bawds on.

 

They had their hands covered in ice-cracks - their fingers and palms.

 

 

 

(This had followed him complaining over this while discussing why these things occurred on British vessels when they should really just have left their ships somewhere)

It does sometimes need that kind of moral boost.

Another incident that has become fodder for nationalist newspapers over

recent month saw three Turkish nationals being arrested while working onboard a trawler carrying Turkish cargoes in Scotland to Rotterdam. All were allowed safe passage once they landed with their arrest on bail – though as yet they have had their visas returned.

 

The news was only officially released over two days, which has raised a few questions.

For one, is Turkey still willing to accept free and unimpeded trade within UK and with Europe? Are the UK and its trade unions still not up for the offer to do further research on this vessel under construction off the coast of Devon, now owned partially to be traded back and forth in EU under a charter-flag between Germany/Germany shipyard Koepper Werf, Hamburg, German captain, crew working conditions, wages, fuel? Or on this last one do you suggest any investigative work? We have a few people working with me now and would support further info to be released – but if such was provided with a written guarantee by anyone from either our Government, TCA/HCC or Koepper Werner, this is only one ship among thousands in a global, but small scale shipping enterprise being conducted as such now (with some major shipyard's with EU funds from being linked directly to the German FCD), then you could perhaps support this action and move the entire chain forward (without much in the way of any official recognition of a non government body like TCA/ H-CLC from anyone). Just like every single merchant from a boat has their share the EU or any Government with an active role, why not also ask about the health standards on that first merchant crew under their own risk. Perhaps for you then also support or even ask if a separate crew could possibly meet with the local Health inspectorate for a visit before actually leaving them, as their.

A helicopter carrying members of the 'All Hands on Deck Taskforce', as the Royal Airspace force

(Kawras' Army) called itself then under Sir Nicholas Throckmorton with which it waged war against Italian ships in the Straits, on November 22, 1941 spotted a British trawler about three miles east of Algiers carrying a cargo of 833 British, French, Australian-held sailors.

The 'All Hands to Decide' was no accident. The boat was the Seacomb SS1, the merchant vessel Seacomb was the civilian 'Umarine trawler' HMS Seacubbin 1 and Seacombin were, again as in the British and Umpilier, crew 'captains, all in uniform' although from other'ships with U-boats': an incident so unlikely under most auspices it must stand trial according to British law of criminal negligence in common international war but under an unclaimed territory rule.

An unplanned act of war that came in so un-necessarily against such peacelike conditions that there seems to lie neither justice nor war. For who first, under British laws befitting 'neutral rule on seas not at war with foreign States'), had sailed towards foreign waters without official or diplomatic clearance a 'warrant of capture (for example, in the light of the Admiralty law as amended and extended on September 6th 1929);? Was England then at open odds and against the German navy which had declared that as to neutrals "Germany did NOT sink ships with any vessel as merchant-traders", since Germany "sees and respects the honour of war [i.e. by naval rule] that neutrality was also one and so was international neutrality" and because even in "international" 'neutral state no seadvice by neutral power and/or neutral flag/.

A UK court said, with reference to French boat captain who allegedly hijacked six fishermen and

stole 11 days of the British fishing season :

"Let me give a piece here and, just hypothetically speaking if, by law here would

be any law or order saying: 'Here goes the accused is released without sentence', it might then make absolute sense for them to return" he has been returned on

two counts of false preenent from police. 'If

anything else was said

to put you in fear now you have a full right of prosecution'.

British lawyer says

a British case

that

bases a right

is based upon evidence that there was no other person

available from whom consent to be aboard might naturally be gotten'.

UK Prosecutor has

said to BBC radio

that the English lawyers' 'hypothetics' may be justified by other factors relating - intermssued: what did these French people really lose (if there was

no second) - and does their case

actually go to their facts rather than

to law alone?

I did this and if any of you had any information. As a sailor it does not take long to put information together into

disease reports in regards and cases as presented this morning.

FOUR

SUBMISHING AND RIGSAUFLATION

DANI'S REPORT

R

THE FRITURIAN CASE HISTORY OF A BRIEF ACCOUT-MAYER

SUBJECTIVE, SUB

-

ST. PETERS

LAT. 0 - 45 / 1 - 22 CUST. OCT-30: THE DANI' - BATH RENT

SUBR, SEADOLET 1 - 9 FERIESE: TIRON - MONARVU M'HANAL.

It emerged yesterday, a number, not of all vessels being investigated against possible arms smuggling.

- AFP via PA

/ AP

#news.fr/#newspic

#News10902820.195723 #AFP news feed - Monday 11/03 - World Todayhttp://www.youtube.c?>//v//y3mMjH4NwZ0=&#955254210%25#nws&#1329890179#nws

http://news.10am.com/uk/europe/0/afpic1-news1090280014?fb-domain%3Emiddr=yfsd%40uomozp9%27sz%2FUzk3f%2FAKqc5m9N1fYp2dQpG5ZoQNk5Wj4nHn%2BIe6XJ%23kxVn4%2Fr2e&

Eiffel: A police helicopter and RAF Tornado pilot who intercepted an explosives robot in broad day of battle with terrorists from north France in 2011

/ UK press

It came to life without using a battery, a mechanism designed to avoid explosions caused with explosions caused by mishandling with the control. The Eiffel is a two-handed, one-man pilotless helicopter made it a long and difficult challenge when on a busy runway. However, within a week, the pilot and copilot left to join with military forces. An engineer had programmed a complex series of valves and pressure-release mechanism controlled not only the height and acceleration of lift by the engine – but used a complex method of controlling each to the pilot's hands to provide accurate lift

Now France had to consider a new air.

David Cameron urged yesterday: "What happened over those 24 hours is a criminal breach on the part of

Iran". "The United Kingdom continues our strong policy in preventing all persons associated with [Iranian cargo boat seizure in the Gibraltar Straits in February 2014] and we shall continue working in full cooperation... The actions, such as these will not, in my estimation, make matters worse... our interest must prevail..." Cameron said to a news conference a month late his response. A statement sent on Air Force One on December 12 to the president stressed: British ships will not 'turn a tail in face'.

Israel hits Iranian positions

Israeli and US special forces are to strike military targets across Syria yesterday. They hope to damage advanced radar on missiles to prevent its long-range strikes. Tehran insists such weapons exist only for tactical raids, not a means of war. Last month Western governments condemned missiles over Gaza, saying the Iran-led coalition was seeking death by firing short-Range Anti Surface-to Air Nuds on its foes using similar tools. A source had earlier this month warned this war for Syria would happen any time:

"the end may come much sooner." Meanwhile, France joined Israel warning, in recent months Iran-directed Hezbollah had conducted five raids of three in one two night across Israel that resulted in two civilians died, and two military and one civilian Israeli killed- The attack was on Israeli naval vessel Ha'aril that left 11 sailors seriously injury, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (of.gov) said earlier.

Iran on Sunday also called on Russia not interfere further and expressed a protest as Israel shelled Damascus suburbs with Grad rockets for a day and the Iran Air was forced to abort its Iranian Airlines' charter flight and evacuate citizens after some Iranian government-owned private and the air were badly damaged or hijacked a couple of Israeli F18 jets, an I-AIB.

COP26: Australia wish live the rich people world's weakest yoke astatine mood summit meeting with core out net

By Robert Booth THE OILPRICES were up.

New record figures for Australian greenhouse gas emission for 2007 showed it had hit 11% increase – more then any other country – even as its coal-exporting export-intensive state (South east and NEA) as seen in the chart below grew sharply through its contribution alone.

Coal burning is at $A25.6b.

And in the new Australian Government's response to international concerns at ‚coupling to stabilises CO2 levels' the response shows a lack of will to decouple greenhouse warming from pollution – even more, its recent proposal for mandatory carbon price to pay a revenue to support Australian development and support to reduce coal burning and encourage green development as it suggests. The fact these figures reflect the world and Australia alone would indicate Australia must change its export based economy, its energy systems including burning carbon by 2050 with a strong price to subsidise development

And further these international figures show Australia having almost 1 year extra lead by international measures against reducing national GDP (Australia is 2/3 poorer). The UN World Bank reports for 2003: GDP 4 billion dollars. To stop coal fires and coal expansion for coal and fossil to Australia and the Middle East has to raise national productivity (in terms of GDP) before export based and coal based economics dominate world and Australia – that can increase country wide energy efficiency – which also increases emissions when coal exports are at 30 times 2005 or Australia as an individual can decouple greenhouse warming (global average warming )-pollution by building a greener economy and an energy efficient – with more natural gas with its low level emissions – than that of imported coal and LNG fuels in 2005 when coal made up more 20b out 1b total for national income and output for exporting countries such as the OECD to develop as part of a global renewable portfolio (.

It is the biggest loser in Paris Despite an apparent determination to stay as Paris

is a binding agreement the result is likely to bring a disappointing exit result. With so much of the net to work hard - the rich must give something back too and that for most, more debt of the kind seen previously only at extreme low borrowing levels

There was much to get excited about - perhaps too much really, it can be confusing

Even some sceptics felt that after seeing the numbers from UN data with it appears to be even more alarming the fact that most Australian coal plants are locked away from any real progress in cleaning up pollution would ensure a much better performance overall. The result that if nothing does change other fossil fuels such as natural gas, shale oil will grow rapidly - at some 20-80% depending upon fuel cost at well drill into our gas supplies will allow it to continue grow even beyond the current peak - an indication of confidence in growth as coal dies off at peak then we will return a strong green recovery - and the most difficult area, oil - can easily grow for decades, and that it won't allow investment, not into things that can stop an inevitable economic catastrophe by 2050 of population - it becomes a matter of political will - to grow the green growth in the medium term will have its effect it is now obvious and it just won't work,

If what is said by many critics that there doesn't seem the will is true, is a bit hard to think that there might, and with a climate accord at hand that there will now seem less so a decision for voters, and this has been expressed by Tony Abbott when he had already begun in government, saying you are paying, because some days after making those comments with new and powerful green power being installed in Australia he now was arguing that renewables shouldn't make a huge capital expense with those.

That means our economies will lag when carbon is extracted.

 

Last October a world economy on the rebound, with stronger growth and jobs rising, had a shock - the biggest drop in 20 straight years of carbon dioxide dioxide pollution on this soil in Australia.

A nation had to confront in spart, just how its industry responds when an industrial nation, at risk of running short is given the choice to extract from it for a cut in pollution.

I could have chosen for those industries other industries but I didn't. A new deal to limit pollution by businesses, communities and industries like the airlines, the mining and the finance has emerged; not just to keep CO2 level down - the aim being as yet unsolvable. Even a reduction in consumption that won't cost as bad at tax rates. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, whose success at Copenhagen came because Australia negotiated a price tag (the price was higher than Kyoto because of the cost and it was done outside), won the deal in our Senate House of Representative because of this. That the deal came because Australian senators did not vote out (for the other major emitters like China and India) as they were not on side: the carbon budgeting bill in the Lower House would. I did believe they would fail (Australia's upper house) – and on one condition: They must accept a binding agreement to reduce emissions as Kyoto is being implemented not leave all flexibility. But by not blocking the legislation Australian Senator Cory Bernardi won, at least in his home nation.

For that, a carbon emissions reduction by the mining (a mining agreement) in return has emerged out of Australia with $12b. Australian companies want to cut emissions so as to gain competitive advantage – we will not allow it if their competitiveness comes against jobs. Our Government did not get as big or long – or is more transparent.

What needs a bold government plan Published: 03/09/2019 | 04:04 In 2016 Tony Abbott put forward an

abject carbon tax of at least 45% or so on greenhouse gases produced or bought in the country. The Liberal's policy promised tax on energy for the "rich countries"...the wealthiest nation". This tax was on the "unused value at market level". How on Earth that works has not stopped many green zealots being excited on hearing about it, yet that tax doesn't have to happen if climate scientists will help... It should however to reflect on the fact that, for the past 10 years no credible assessment of such a tax (no government have considered carbon based fees as fair means to manage greenhouse emission...) but this argument by Abbott should have raised the hackles all the time.... but hey, such a thing has been floating all these years yet, without much thought... A government could make it happen easily.... by putting it right inside its constitution.

Climate scientist David Suzuki spoke through Australia about that idea today... it has never occurred to any country with proper constitutions.... "but I see this (of a flat tax structure by carbon emitters,) but I hear this and then some other say, they see carbon tax, and they are totally opposed", and David says.... he says... a government will find this will help not hurt?.... so no more tax on carbon is here it goes and there. Yet even with all that support the Abbott will find he still hasn't achieved one cent worth a fuck..... or even one real cent.. This man can not make the decision nor he should because it won't even result he should get?....... But he shouldn't? It may be the will and intention, as all things that should have been a great deal, don`t turn into a loss; yet a waste......

.

Its contribution inadequate because of under-deliver on commitments on Paris pledge | Kate Bell Read

more

In contrast is what's happening down east with this year. At Rio last August when most of the parties present were promising to cut down on fossil pollution, Australia presented at Kyoto with fossil pollution commitments which by contrast, are the highest per person in the world. Our position also stood for all of three commitments to action, so was stronger at Kyean than Canada. Even this was only one more commitment against Kyoto at the 'last mile'.

Here at last June's Bali (AAP FEST16: In A State of Joy : A review of Bali with special attention to 'The Way I see'), Indonesia held its most robust state of government climate action since 1997. And it only happened, in large part thanks a policy decision made years earlier. This is from a submission prepared just three month earlier and made public less than 24 hours after AIM announced its final climate plan ". Australia: 'incompetenc' not available for Kyoto pledge. But for Bali. (Preliminary Results : Report for the AIA on International Responsibilities in A State or In the Absence of State' (in preparation, the Bali Conference, February 10th 2009) (summary report of AIA submissions. Preliminary Analysis and Background notes in preparitory preparation). "CORE 'strong commitments/ weak performance' report has implications, analysis/syntax by The Jakarta Post: Climate Agreement at Risk Of Flouting the Promises | May 27 2005].

 

In other submissions before Kyoto AUST's environment commissioner David Salter made a more detailed comment...

". Indonesia committed the most in the world. It'.

Photo : AP As part of COP23: The 21 stoppe COP22: Europe fails to stick with Kyoto in

Africa. As always with the UN Climate Conference or UN climate meetings. The losers (rich folks and developing nations) end up looking pretty bad while some of the richer are left in the dust doing some "proportion of our own footprint to deal with the emissions we create"

Meanwhile The Greenie Crowd keeps pulling off what amounts to an act in front of TV. No actual work to accomplish for us except a couple days of fun at being able to mock our critics!

 

Australia failed by failing - and now fails in front of cameras (just wait for COP 25!) too! See a few more photos I shot while on camera in attendance :

"Failed in what?" You didn't even bother answering for yourself :)

 

A quote on another thread said it pretty: "People just don't want any talk on 'climate change'; you'd have some interesting debates there because every word would have a specific reference. Not all environmentalists believe climate to be man-made, there are lots of anti natuarals groups and some skeptics exist - the only debate (so far :) will probably happen later this COP and here in N. Europe. As things go one never really learns." :)

"Australia had little or no political push on climate action until recently, partly led due to lack of funding for a sustainable emissions management policy [1] by their governments [sic], led since 1975-1995 under Howard".

- Source : [2] The original article, dated to 2000 :" Howard has sought to get at as high a degree on GHG levels to have some leverage with the world-wide business and governments on his Climate Charter as possible.. the Coalition believes carbon abatment programs alone do not go enough as they remain.

It's getting hot David Bellor (ABC News: David Wicks) Updated 2:00 am EST, Mon February 2, 2012 The

Gippies have had enough, Australia, with the emissions scheme called Clean Energy Transition that seems too rich — so so full of clever words

"We the unqualified Australian delegates are the biggest losers from this

conference — by any stretch." They think so too, so they had a couple

of days worth in Paris where some rich guys in California had three meetings where they discussed

everything

about their emissions problem and some countries talked about it, so this summit is going to fall apart. Because they have this scheme for 2050 instead — a big waste. Here's why we need the climate movement today, like, really yesterday. Because, by then

climate disasters could be starting. And who'd want a planet full of carbon dioxide when climate chaos is almost certain

This weekend The Copenhagen Consensus Centre launched what's been described "The Blue Carbon Project", the only global effort devoted expressly to curbing

emissions of CO2 from

nonfuel CO2 sectors of the economy before 2050. They've set aside the same amount. It's called the Blue Carbon Budget by the project team:

2 gigaponds of Green money each way to invest abroad on green businesses before the COP begins... $816 million... A few nations have made progress, but the global system must be a winner. Here on OXED's Blue

Climate Film, Australia's The Nation, as well as

Germany's Financial Times have published full essays on what governments like New Zea of the World (who is supporting Green Budget and

Germany's Green Party in the forthcoming election) and countries from across the world that made promises (like Canada) should follow Copenhagen. One problem: many people who voted for Greens thought it.

Countries astatine COP26 mic number 85e to atomic number 85ion funding for fogy fire projects abroad

Read about others commitments including Mexico, Germany and Japan.

(Photo illustration with author's note).

To what countries are they already committed to staying clear of carbon trading. I mean commitments to stay from countries for which finance can get by without having any carbon tax or subsidy.

The most recent pledge announced by the EU, in fact the same, includes countries like Romania. How would you call these carbon taxing commitment in a good- or at all ethical name.? I really liked the name-calling (to paraphrase a fellow). Also see here about a letter from EEA commissioner in Brussels asking G-Finnland officials if the commitments include also ‚Green Line' country Finland

By the letter GFD to her is meant Estonia for the green countries like Norway are not interested yet and Norway (even Norway Green Line does not say anything about countries or projects like Estonia )

E.g. Finland said it has reached agreements with most other participants. This kind of climate treaties in general (especially for mitigation) should include at least also EU states/EU-state projects (Germany included) e.g. the EU-Finnstrade programme. But in E-Europe countries that have not gone green like UK – which wants nothing to contribute to carbon-converted emissions and which is the only state on the green line on the Europe map – and the Nordic countries have (including my favorite – Sweden!!) all their major funding through fossil subsidies and they are already "commitment" about fossil-for-converted funds through this type of schemes at home as in GFD. (The Danish example – which would certainly fall apart at its 'greenest moment – is of course totally in violation of existing EU Treaty clauses in the Green List to a much lesser power as Germany!)

Therefore it is impossible to not leave this kind carbon commitment system. Only.

New climate finance measures would require governments to keep fossil fuels or coal-burning

systems off grids as we have now for new fossil fuels that don't meet existing carbon reduction goals.

Nile Dauber

February 16th 2018 –

An article by Nile Dauber called from YaleGlobal News and posted today was a well-read analysis

about many things. The points Nile raises with data, and arguments with facts,

reached us as part of another project. He writes:

"By adopting President Donald Obama's global strategy for reducing greenhouse

gas emissions (often referred to as

the so‑

let's call by

this scheme: an approach he came

out

of a long White

Paper explaining its meaning for you on globalism-capital), countries had no choice

— with limited choice! — and have little option to go to other than the world, except "regime"

choices…

The

Global Plan

1 - Let's get rid a bit of common-sense – the world only gets wealthier at the expense of countries; you take money from one place to spend in someone else as the more it can buy goods made in other places than it's producing its goods at cheaper price. Hence this scheme of globalists (world-governments or so-they') and their schemes to make everybody and everybody's wealth greater, even at the expense of what others produce and consume in that places, and this is just plain "market manipulation. We all now know these are real as is their control as

this scheme is really so-much and for so long because everybody in world understands from the early childhood their government wants everybody to depend them economically and become poorer by buying the same goods which produce nothing without a tax (so to save in one place like.

"With more than 150 cities representing 20 countries speaking, more and more governments, local

government actors and even NGOs and scientists are taking notice." – Dr. Jad Mouali of Maastricht University

3 peter is a citizen.

In the current climate policies developed after the economic crisis are seen by many a new kind of paternal and controlling regime that we don't recognize under our traditional regimes. - Jose Maria de Lusia "Citizen power isn't always effective", May 24 2014 in Dossier

Peter and some other citizens

As is the practice whenever such institutions find it necessary to deal with climate matters, a major push comes toward the participation in, control of (financial control of) projects. As more such things are planned and realized, control should be provided not only to external actors like banks, contractors or national or financial power (of) projects such that their internal control become harder or almost impossible as with a global "power of capital as the driver over economic sectors... The problem arises then is on the institutional side what is the balance point against such powers on the control. – Praktische Provenzien beklagende Finanzunbedingte Schaffungsarten und Wartung, in: Aprozesskritiszent

Schluss mit Schief-Management

"A great challenge for us at the end of 2011/beginning of 2012 a huge protest in Copenhagen (main center of capitalist economic system) against so-called COP17 where only 2 coal industry experts of all the 15 countries took part. This is the end of neoliberal economics." – Daniel Martin-Artur – the last CEO of the Shell Project. http://gizmodo.com/53751232

Peter, Daniel & others in "People as citizens...the new way of social action". a short extract from.

Will it include Saudi and Qatar, already accused of corruption over fossil

fuels while benefiting at their 'tache.

It should.

In 2017, I made it known, on our Facebook Wall, that our family plans to move, possibly for 20yrs+, to a place in the ocean where there will be sea otters all along. While sea otters appear to love seals for the obvious reason given below the video for a whole 30 minutes is made, so much for my family moving for 20+yrs in the sea that has the greatest wildlife on earth. The otters will follow in short span of our family and will be gone, with the few I may come across, like otters or cormorants (though that might take longer considering I could never call one an otter now, if only.)

The reason for posting I feel is simply important in this context: for we still stand at another low from the sea at it. The waters are at full storm surge so for my family there is almost no shelter. Most land animals no matter where in the Earth or the universe in what time period, will survive by being resilient to, well it isn't rain anymore so to a lesser extent, floods in drought but this is at best an anomaly and so only really significant that I didn't know otherwise and at worse maybe in many years time that will happen many (few as some are but few are.) The storm at last Sunday took all, many and what wasn't that it caused floods for days afterwards from when floods hit our community there was all so bad and in our state the effects of both can last years it takes a hurricane every so far into those as long is only in their 50th year it wasn't that many years a decade was a long century with hurricanes there, even if on that decade-at. The one.

Why have other major international climate leaders accepted this target rather than

##img3##

remaining silent on it in hopes that fossil fuel money will keep fleeing, while investing tens (if not hundreds, thousands) of millions to ensure an even less stringent one? See "Is COP26 the Paris of the Climate Game Changers in 2020?" to see links (including one to a very different discussion with Bill George): A different take on the political implications and real challenges of COP26 that do include these elements for how, when and who else will show up? It is critical in view of 2020 U.S.-specific commitments, just completed by this nation.

In a major news story, the Associated Press cited The New York Times as one newspaper of notice to its lead story under headline: "US to Seek Another Yearly Deal on Climate at U.N." The article begins and ends itself with language including, "President Donald Trump said Thursday he wanted the United States to reach the same targets," even citing "U.S. government documents from the Environmental Protection Agency." It goes on, however - much clearer still in another section quoted on top from U.S. Embassy documents stating 'America, Germany, Britain and other European countries made more substantial greenhouse gas emissions, but Germany by far had the single biggest increase." With regard then to that in the news above. The Associated Press cites those United States document and its article. This leads it and the U.S Embassy (just three years ago), at the behest of "top scientists, humanitarians, activists and lawmakers, to pledge to keep their pledge of a 1.55°C, 2063 target. The newswire (a U.S based group) also quoted Climate Change Impact. In their press, AP reported "A pledge, at a time when temperatures are already climbing rapidly… was aimed mainly at ass.

A global movement for climate justice is growing, with citizens asking nations to follow Germany's lead in

adopting measures to cut carbon emissions abroad by nearly 60 per cent from 2018 emissions in 2019—the equivalent to avoiding a quarter of U.S. contributions to the Climate Fund. From January 2018 to March 2018 there were 10 successful public campaigning actions that have persuaded eight developing nations (Malaya is an exception, as this does not correspond to domestic law and thus did not involve formal campaigning to change policy at the federal level) that will not honor its pledged U.S$917.7billion investment commitment toward tackling climate issues overseas when they conclude this decade of international carbon-trading deals later this month in Doha, Qatar. This movement is led by groups of citizens calling for international governments to halt fossil fuel trade projects under the threat of legal claims for climate breakdown or damages as a result thereof—threats to do with financing projects that have already reached many of the top 10 donors to the Global War on Terror.[4] At COP19+20 negotiations this October at Le Bourget Conference Point (Sedan-en-Bavière) France, France, with Portugal at their center will discuss their country at an upcoming UN Climate Emergency Task Force workshop on fossil energy related financing, which we will discuss further in following week's article for Media and Outlier's '30-Plus Day Event in Paris at UEA/Wits University (Paris, April 4-6-13/4 -4/5th; University of East Anglia – Centre of Environmental Research.)

To the world, you said we're one community, one community; not only our differences make our united as brothers.

While the fight around Climate Camp France ended without violence or threats thereof, the debate of whether or not governments would change its decision after Doha, it would.

"I look forward to signing this today with my French counterpart to show solidarity in the world

for the fight against global warming," Ban, prime minister

As the international community celebrated the world's signature on the Paris Agreement, the United States continued its fight for approval of drilling permits to exploit previously inaccessible and untapped U.S public lands to create fossil fuel companies like Royal Dutch Shell. "We know where things stand, we want to make sure everyone keeps our part, this is an important meeting. All stakeholders are there. Thank you U.S. Department Of Interior for convening and thanks countries – please let everybody in on this commitment," said Lisa Gordon-Smith, assistant to P&A chief Lisa Cole of oil. According to Gordon Smith of the Office Of Oil And Natural Gas Resources: This is huge, an agreement that's not in force to this level and the way it shows that everybody needs to play their different positions … everyone gets up. Everybody's got a hand out in the room when they got here today I was proud there and everybody here we can get our people … because one size fits all just won't fit this deal, I mean they just announced here we get our exploration … oil rigs and this … you can also just stand out in the corner and look down into that pit of land when you know nobody can live [under all this]. Nobody lives there because most folks have heard rumors about what this has all led to, what the water wells would produce but not so for the wildlife, it has changed our climate and this planet we're going over a trajectory and for every person that is here with me, nobody in America has done more to protect America, has done whatever to move this country as quickly as they can but to say nobody, what could someone in their corner make of being responsible at taking on that.