The reason why we have the 1.5 degree threshold in the Paris climate agreement is because island nations stepped up and demanded it. Now, the same nations that signed those policies are preventing a conflict-of-interest policy to address the climate crisis. And we know today the culture around tobacco has changed: Tobacco is heavily taxed and its power has been reduced dramatically. The precedent was set by the World Health Organization when they banned big tobacco from their health conferences, and the impact was tremendous. This conflict-of-interest policy is not a pipe dream. This means not just the removal of corporate sponsorship, but the prevention of lobbying, and the prevention of making line edits in the Paris climate agreement. We are demanding a conflict-of-interest policy within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Shell, Chevron, and Exxon know better than to have their logos displayed at COP.

There are new companies targeting the youth, like One Young World-but One Young World, which is a principal sponsor, is funded by BP and Shell. The conference that is supposed to be solving climate change is being funded by fossil fuel companies. The truth is missing from this conference. What does that mean for rhetoric? What does that mean for trade? What does that mean for policy? It means you get to dance around the problem.

How can this conference suggest that they are helping create the solutions when they have handed the pen to the villains? Oil isnвЂ™t explicitly addressed at COP26 as the leading cause of the climate crisis.

Madea christmas shirt