Skip to content
Chris Sutton reckons goalkeeper Kepa Arrizabalaga is the “worst value signing” Chelsea have made “in the Premier League era”.
Sadio Mane blocked Kepa’s laboured clearance and tapped home his second goal as 10-man Chelsea succumbed to Jurgen Klopp’s defending Premier League champions at Stamford Bridge.
Andreas Christensen’s red card handed Liverpool an advantage they fully exploited, but Blues boss Frank Lampard conceded Kepa was at fault for the second goal – and is in desperate need of a confidence boost.
OPINION: Premier League winners and losers
Lampard revealed veteran Willy Caballero will start Wednesday’s League Cup clash with Barnsley at Stamford Bridge, but insisted that was always the plan, even before Kepa’s latest costly error.
And Sutton told the Daily Mail: “You can spend a king’s ransom on your attack but if your goalkeeper can’t even catch a cold, then what’s the point?
“Kepa Arrizabalaga cost Chelsea £71.6m in 2018 but has never proven worthy of being the world’s most expensive goalkeeper.
“In committing another clanger he further established himself as Chelsea’s worst value signing in the Premier League era.
“Maybe their worst since I cost them £10m! I moved to Stamford Bridge for big money in 1999. It didn’t work out and a year later I was sold to Celtic for £6m.
“It happens. Sometimes it’s best to move on. You could also name Fernando Torres at £50m (though a few Chelsea fans might say that historic semi-final goal against Barcelona was worth the fee alone). Andriy Shevchenko at £30m, too.
“But Kepa surely beats all of us. Sadio Mane’s goals on Sunday meant he had conceded 11 of the last 16 shots he’s faced.
“In football, you always get a chance to redeem yourself. I got that at Celtic, and Kepa might have to go prove himself elsewhere, too.
“Edouard Mendy cannot arrive from Rennes soon enough for Frank Lampard, who is under big pressure to win a trophy this season.
“Chelsea aren’t the type of club who say: ‘No problem – have another go next season!’ Lampard knows as well as anyone that silverware is a must.”
Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks
Open Internet advocates and lawmakers were urging supporters on Friday to help secure one last vote in the Senate in favor of reversing the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) unpopular net neutrality decision.
The FCC sent its official order to roll back net neutrality protections on Friday, following its vote in December.
With the Republican-led panel’s 3-2 decision along party lines, internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon and Comcast will be free to give preferential treatment to wealthy internet companies that can afford to pay for faster service—essentially creating “fast lanes” and “slow lanes” for the internet.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Immediately after the vote—which was opposed by 83 percent of Americans, according to a University of Maryland poll—Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced his plan to introduce a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution under which the Senate could vote to reverse the FCC’s decision.
With the order now officially on Capitol Hill, it only needs to be sent to the House and published in the Federal Register, after which Market will have 60 days to gather enough support for a vote to nullify the decision.
The 50 senators who have said they would vote to restore net neutrality include one Republican—Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)—as well as all 47 Democratic senators and both Independents.
On Thursday, Louisiana constituents joined advocacy groups Fight for the Future and Free Press to deliver 6,000 petition signatures to the office of Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), urging him to throw his support behind the CRA.
“The internet has become an invaluable tool for many people who work from home or have their own businesses,” said Jas Duplessis, a Louisiana resident who protested outside Kennedy’s office. “Restricting it minimizes the opportunity people have to make their own place in the world financially, destroys a large aspect of the free market and takes away from the American dream.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Bolstering his “image as an aspiring dictator” and further demonstrating that he has zero interest in drawing down the endless U.S.-led wars overseas that have killed millions, President Donald Trump has reportedly ordered the Pentagon to begin planning for a massive military parade in an effort to celebrate American military power and fuel his own ego.
“We must try to stop this colossal waste of money and display of authoritarianism.”
—Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK
“The marching orders were: I want a parade like the one in France,” a military official told the Washington Post, referring to the Bastille Day festivities that so impressed the president during his Paris visit last year.
Given that the U.S. is currently bombing seven countries and that civilian casualties have soared since Trump took office, anti-war groups were quick to denounce Trump’s “marching orders” as “totally disgusting.”
“It’s a gross example of Trump’s narcissism,” Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK, told Common Dreams on Tuesday. “He wants thousands of soldiers to publicly salute him, as he recklessly sends them off to escalate wars from Afghanistan to Syria and start new conflicts with North Korea and Iran. We must try to stop this colossal waste of money and display of authoritarianism.”
Benjamin added that if the parade is successfully planned, counter-demonstrations—such as a “massive Bikes Not Bombs contingent” and a “Healthcare Not Warfare brigade of doctors and nurses”—should be organized in an effort to “ask the American people which vision is more appealing.”
News of Trump’s demand for a military march, which he has openly desired since before his inauguration, comes as the president is also calling for a major increase in the already bloated military budget. According to news reports, Trump is expected to ask for a $716 billion Pentagon budget next month—a seven percent boost from last year’s request, which has not yet passed Congress.
As the Washington Post notes, Trump is hardly the only president who has liked the idea of a huge military march.
Former President George W. Bush “would have loved a big parade,” his former aides told the Post. But there was just one problem: “The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War, argued in a statement on Tuesday that a parade of the kind Trump envisions would only signal the president’s desire to continue these endless wars and “reinforce the notion that America’s foreign policy is military first (and second, third, and fourth)—particularly at a time when diplomacy is needed most.”
“The truth is the money wasted on feeding Donald Trump’s desire to see tanks and missiles paraded past his luxury hotel is money our nation desperately needs turning the lights back on in Puerto Rico, providing treatment for the opioid epidemic, making college affordable, and countless other needs Donald Trump seems to have no interest in meeting,” Miles added.
Critics also had a field day with Trump’s parade request on social media.
Foreign policy expert Micah Zenko outlined how the military parade could accurately depict America’s disastrous foreign policy:
The Intercept‘s Jeremy Scahill had a rather different suggestion:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Boosting hopes for a strict EU-wide ban on the pesticides, a new report by the European Union’s food safety watchdog confirms that neonicotinoids, also known as neonics, pose a threat to bees.
The report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which upates its assessment from 2013, and draws from over 1,500 studies, looks at the impacts of three specific neonicotinoids—clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam—on honeybees and wild bees.
“The availability of such a substantial amount of data as well as the guidance has enabled us to produce very detailed conclusions,” said Jose Tarazona, head of EFSA’s pesticides unit.
“We have been playing Russian Roulette with the future of our bees for far too long. EU member states must now support a tougher ban on all outdoor use of these three bee-harming chemicals—a move that is fully justified by this report.”
—Sandra Bell, Friends of the Earth Europe
“There is variability in the conclusions, due to factors such as the bee species, the intended use of the pesticide, and the route of exposure. Some low risks have been identified, but overall the risk to the three types of bees we have assessed is confirmed,” he said.
The Independent notes that there “is currently a ban on neonicotinoid use on flowering crops in the EU. However, the new report suggests this is not sufficient, as the use of these chemicals in any outdoor setting poses a high risk to bees.”
Indeed, said Dave Goulson, professor of biology at the University of Sussex, and author of books included A Buzz in the Meadow, “Since 2013, it has become clear that neonicotinoids do not only pose a risk to bees when used on flowering crops. They can pose a risk to bees via contamination of follow-on crops (judged to pose a high risk to honeybees and bumblebees) and via contamination of wildflowers in field margins (also judged to pose a high risk to honeybees and bumblebees).”
The EU has a chance soon to broaden the ban, as Reuters notes:
According to the Guardian, the new findings make “it highly likely that the neonicotinoid pesticides will be banned from all fields across the EU” when that vote happens.
Unsurprisingly, EFSA’s new report drew reactions from numerous conservation organizations.
Friends of the Earth Europe bee campaigner Sandra Bell, for one, said that the “long-awaited report highlights yet again the huge threat these neonicotinoid pesticides pose to our bees. We have been playing Russian Roulette with the future of our bees for far too long. EU member states must now support a tougher ban on all outdoor use of these three bee-harming chemicals—a move that is fully justified by this report.”
The British Beekeepers Association (BBKA) weighed in as well, saying, “until there is convincing independent scientific evidence that neonicotinoid pesticides are not harmful to honey bees, we will support the continuation of the EU moratorium on their use.”
“While it is good news that the regulators have definitively concluded that neonicotinoids pose a high risk,” added Matt Shardlow, CEO of Buglife, “it is a tragedy that our bees, moths, butterflies, and flies have been hammered by these toxins for over 15 years, causing severe declines in wild pollinators and the pollination services they undertake. Not only should EU countries now ban their use entirely, they should also urgently approve and implement EFSA’s bee risk assessment process so that the blunder is not repeated.”
Another step to take, said FOE’s Bell, is a total shift in widespread agricultural practices.
“Any ban on these damaging pesticides must go hand in hand with a fundamental reform of agriculture policy to help farmers work in harmony with nature —not against it. A major shift to agroecology is needed to allow nature to thrive.”
Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity, took to Twitter to note that EU’s science science-based evaluation comes as “the U.S. EPA refuses to do anything but the bidding of pesticide companies.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Americans are calling urgently for solutions to two major crises confronting the U.S.—gun violence and expiring DACA permits, which will leave thousands of young immigrants vulnerable to deportation. But instead of heeding these demands, Senate Republicans and a dozen Democrats are teaming up this week to push through legislation that would further enrich Wall Street and heighten the risk of another financial crash.
“This is not a community bank bill. They say it is. It’s like the tax cuts weren’t a middle-class tax bill; they want to say it is. This is a bill that helps some of the largest banks.”
—Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
“The national conversation at the moment is rightly focused on gun safety, but the Senate is taking up a totally unrelated bill to deregulate big banks,” Chad Bolt, senior policy manager at Indivisible, said in an interview with Buzzfeed on Sunday. “It’s totally out of touch.”
Introduced by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) last November and co-sponsored by 13 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, the so-called “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act” has been portrayed by its backers as a bill that would provide much-needed relief to community banks overburdened by post-financial crisis regulations.
In addition to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), the 12 Democratic senators currently co-sponsoring the deregulation measure are: Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Chris Coons (Del.), and Tom Carper (Del.).
A look beyond the measure’s “Orwellian” name and at its actual content reveals that supporters’ “community bank” talking points are little more than an attempt to mask the bill’s enormous gifts to large institutions.
As The Intercept‘s David Dayen reported last Friday, Crapo’s legislation—which is set to hit the Senate floor for a procedural vote on Tuesday—has been used by lobbyists as a vehicle to ram through changes to Wall Street regulations that will allow them to “ramp up risk” and further boost their bottom lines.
“A bill that began as a well-intentioned effort to satisfy some perhaps legitimate community bank grievances has instead mushroomed, sparking fears that Washington is paving the way for the next financial meltdown,” Dayen noted. “Aside from the gifts to Citigroup and other big banks, the bill undermines fair lending rules that work to counter racial discrimination and rolls back regulation and oversight on large regional banks.”
As the measure has soared through committee and as more Democrats—including Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)—are reportedly considering supporting it, grassroots groups have ramped up pressure on lawmakers by driving calls and delivering petitions demanding that lawmakers kill the deregulatory effort.
“The bank lobbyists have been hitting Capitol Hill hard, and they have a Dodd-Frank rollback bill lined up with the support of every Republican and twelve Democrats.”
—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass)
Meanwhile, progressive Democrats in Congress have also fiercely denounced the bill as a giveaway to the very same banks whose fraudulent activity sparked the devastating 2008 financial crash.
“The public is not asking for bank deregulation,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in an interview with the Washington Post on Sunday. “This is not a community bank bill. They say it is. It’s like the tax cuts weren’t a middle-class tax bill; they want to say it is. This is a bill that helps some of the largest banks.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has been voicing her opposition to the deregulation bill since it was introduced last year, argued in a recent email to supporters that the deregulatory push is clear evidence that lobbyists dictate policy change in Washington.
“The bank lobbyists have been hitting Capitol Hill hard, and they have a Dodd-Frank rollback bill lined up with the support of every Republican and 12 Democrats,” Warren wrote. “We need to make some noise about this big wet kiss to the big banks by reminding senators as loudly as possible: they work for the American people, not for big bank lobbyists.”
Ahead of a vote on Crapo’s legislation—which appears likely to pass, thanks to Democratic support—commercial banks have been dumping contributions into the coffers of senators backing the measure.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)—all of whom are co-sponsoring Crapo’s bill—are the top three recipients of commerical bank cash this election cycle.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
A vigil for the 17 people who were killed in Wednesday’s shooting at a Florida high school was marked by anger and demands for policy changes as well as grief.
Students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland broke out in chants of “No more guns!” echoing several calls by community members who have demanded reforms that could have kept alleged gunman Nikolas Cruz from obtaining the AR-15 that was used in the shooting.
Parents of students who were killed expressed shock that such an attack could happen in the Miami suburb—repeating sentiments heard after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012 and the 185 other school shootings that have taken place since.
“Don’t tell me there’s no such thing as gun violence,” Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter Jamie was killed, said at the gathering. “It happened in Parkland… What is unfathomable is that Jamie took a bullet and is dead.”
Anthony Rizzo, a baseball player for the Chicago Cubs and a 2007 graduate of the school, was also among the speakers.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“While I don’t have all the answers, I know that something has to change, before this is visited on another community, and another community, and another community,” Rizzo told the crowd of thousands.
The immediate furious response of community members, directed at President Donald Trump and legislators who have insisted that now is not the time to debate gun laws, has made the Parkland shooting unique in a nation where such attacks are frequently followed by calls for unity and expressions of “thoughts and prayers” from politicians.
While conservative commentators including Tomi Lahren and lawmakers including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have repeated familiar calls to allow the Parkland community to mourn without discussing gun legislation—those closest to the shooting have strongly pushed back.
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel received a standing ovation when he spoke directly at the vigil about the need to vote pro-gun politicians out of office.
“If you are an elected official and you want to keep things the way they are and not do things differently, if you want to keep the gun laws as they are now—you will not get re-elected in Broward County,” he said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
As busloads of students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School traveled to Florida’s capital to demand stricter gun control measures in the wake of last week’s deadly shooting, students from the nearby West Boca Raton High School staged a massive walkout on Tuesday to express solidarity with their peers.
“We’re all here because we need to strive for change.”
—Kai Koerber, junior from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
The West Boca Raton walkout was just one of many that took place throughout Florida on Tuesday.
“Students at other area schools also staged walkouts, including Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood McArthur high schools,” according to the Miami Herald. “Hialeah High is reportedly planning a walkout on Wednesday.”
Followed by a convoy of police cars and filmed by helicopter cameras, hundreds of students marched along State Road 44 in the direction of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School—the site of last week’s shooting that left 17 dead—carrying signs and chanting “We want change!”
Watch:
The walkouts and demonstrations came as hundreds of Marjory Stoneman Douglas students were en route to Tallahassee, where they plan to meet with state lawmakers on Wednesday and attend rallies organized by local activist groups.
Tallahassee-area schools have said they will excuse the absences of students who choose to join their peers in demonstrations.
“We think that we’re going to be able to start a conversation. People need to get talking about this. This is not an issue that needs to recur,” Kai Koerber, a junior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, told CNN before boarding a bus headed to Tallahassee. “We’re all here because we need to strive for change.”
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us, and you’re against saving the lives of innocent children,” added senior Chris Grady. “And we’re going to be voting you out.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
For all the reasons to be concerned about President Trump’s nomination of current CIA director Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, experts on Tuesday warn that an increase risk of a U.S.-initiated war with Iran should be at the top of the list.
In a reaction on Tuesday, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), worried openly that Trump’s nomination of Pompeo “could have profound implications for the fate of the Iran nuclear deal and the prospect of a new war in the Middle East.”
Jon Rainwater, executive director of Peace Action, also expressed grave concerns. “By tapping Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State,” said Rainwater, “Trump is handing over the reigns of U.S. diplomacy to one of the most hawkish members of his administration. For all of Tillerson’s flaws, he served as a check on Trump’s more hawkish positions. With Pompeo, Trump’s worst instincts on Iran and North Korea will be reinforced.”
In November of 2016, as CNBC notes, Pompeo warned that the Iranian government was “intent of destroying America,” characterized the nuclear deal forged by the Obama administration as “disastrous,” and said he was looking forward to “rolling back” the agreement.
At a time when Trump has repeatedly threatened to rip up or nullify the deal, Rainater lamented how Pompeo’s “extreme policy views threaten to gut U.S. diplomatic capacity further by making war the go-to option rather a last resort.”
Given that Pompeo has also suggested military strikes would be more effective than diplomacy when it comes to Iran, NIAC said there are “serious questions about his fitness to serve as America’s top diplomat.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
According to NIAC president Trita Parsi, Pompeo as head of the State Department is “a recipe for war.”
“The firing of Tillerson and appointment of Pompeo furthers a dangerous trend in which Trump is increasingly surrounding himself with foreign policy hawks who fully support his erratic and belligerent foreign policy,” Parsi later added in a statement to Deutsche Welle. “Though Tillerson was not very effective, he nevertheless was an obstacle against Trump killing the nuclear deal with Iran. Pompeo, on the other hand, has been an ardent opponent of this multilateral agreement. The Iran nuclear deal is increasingly on life support as a result of this decision.”
In fact, Trump explicitly cited Pompeo’s thinking on Iran when he was asked by reporters on Tuesday morning about Tillerson’s ouster.
“We disagreed on things,” Trump said of the outgoing secretary of state. While Trump said he believes the Iran deal is “terrible,” he said Tillerson that it “was okay.”
“So we were not really thinking the same,” Trump added. “With Mike Pompeo, we have a very similar thought process. I think it’s going to go very well.”
For those concerned about Pompeo’s aggressive and hawkish positions, however, it’s not at all clear that the results will be anywhere near very well.
“Unfortunately,” NIAC warned in its response, “the net effect of Pompeo at State may not just be be the further isolation of America and erosion of our credibility on the world stage, it may result in a dramatic escalation of tensions in the Middle East and a war with Iran.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Going backward in the era of Trump—and despite international efforts to curb the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels—a new study out Wednesday details how major banks invested heavily in the world’s dirtiest energy sectors in 2017, pouring $115 billion into tar sands, offshore oil drilling, and coal mining projects.
“Every single dollar that these banks provide for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is a dollar going to increase the climate crisis,” said Stephen Kretzmann of Oil Change International, one of the groups behind the study (pdf).
The findings of the report—entitled “Banking on Climate Change”—were described by author and activist Naomi Klein as “terrifying.”
Until they end their funding of dirty energy, Kretzmann added, “these banks will be complicit in our climate catastrophe, plain and simple.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Institutions including JP Morgan Chase, TD Bank, and Bank of America increased their funding of dirty energy by 11 percent from 2016 to 2017, flouting the Paris Climate Agreement.
The tar sands sector, known as the dirtiest source of energy on the planet, received major support from banks last year, with financing going up by 111 percent to $98 billion. JP Morgan Chase quadrupled its funding of the industry, a year after researchers found tar sands operations were a major cause of pollution.
Environmental campaigners also denounced banks for their support of industries that have caused destruction to communities by building pipelines with no regard for citizens’ homes and human rights. Dirty energy projects funded by financial institutions in 2017 included the Line 3 Tar Sands pipeline proposed by Enbridge, which TD Bank, Citibank, Royal Bank of Canada, and MUFBGall invest in; and new coal plants expected to be build across Southeast Asia, bankrolled by Mizuho, MUFG, and SMFG.
“These banks fund the projects that are killing the planet, destroying indigenous sacred sites, and violating the human rights of citizens.” —Tara Houska, Honor the Earth
“These banks fund the projects that are killing the planet, destroying indigenous sacred sites, and violating the human rights of citizens,” said Tara Houska of Honor the Earth. “The financial industry is on notice—the human rights policies banks claim are in place must be enforced. Stop funding fossil fuels and move into a green economy.”
While major banks have continued funneling money into planet-killing energy projects, the report noted, the World Bank announced last year it would cease funding of oil and gas extraction after 2019. Last fall, the Norwegian government announced it would divest its sovereign wealth fund—the largest in the world—of all its oil and gas shares.
“It is not surprising that we see the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund managers no longer prepared to take the increasing risk associated with oil and gas assets, which do not have a long-term future,” said Paul Fisher of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, when Norway made its announcement.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
A new groundbreaking report out Thursday details how one of the most influential organizations in the world when it comes to the global energy system, the International Energy Agency (IEA), is holding back governments from making the necessary transition away from fossil fuels and towards the kind of rapid transition to renewables that scientists say is necessary to ward off the worst-case scenarios of global warming and the climate crisis.
Published by Oil Change International and the Institute for Energy Efficiency and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the report—titled Off Track:How the International Energy Agency Guides Energy Decisions towards Fossil Fuel Dependence and Climate Change (pdf)—concludes that the IEA’s ongoing guidance to countries that have agreed to do everything possible to meet the goal of the Paris climate agreement is undermining those commitments by painting a picture of a world that remains much too wedded to the use of oil, gas, and coal.
“The IEA promotes a vision of the future where the world remains dependent on fossil fuels,” warns Greg Muttitt, research director at Oil Change International and lead author of the report. “As a basis for policy and investment decisions, this is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. All 30 of the IEA’s member countries have signed the Paris Agreement, so the IEA should be helping them achieve climate goals, not holding them back.”
With a close look at the IEA’s annual “New Policies Scenario” (NPS) report—arguably the most influential of its kind among world leaders and governments— Muttitt’s analysis reveals that the scenarios it lays out are in direct contradiction to the goals agreed to in the Paris accord. Specifically, it notes:
- The NPS implies burning an amount of fossil fuels that would exhaust the carbon budget for the 1.5°C target by 2022, and for a 2°C limit by 2034.
- Of the NPS’ recommended upstream oil and gas investment, between 78 and 96 percent – US$ 11.2 to 13.8 trillion over 2018-40 – is incompatible with the Paris goals.
“The IEA provides an energy roadmap that is supposed to lead us to safety, but in fact it takes us over the cliff,” Muttitt told the Guardian in a separate interview. “Any government or financial institution that uses these scenarios as a basis for investments in oil and gas is getting seriously bad information. It’s shocking how far off the Paris agreement they are.”
Click Here: geelong cats guernsey 2019
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.