It’s not just religious liberty though, in fact it’s not even primarily religious liberty. It’s also, of course, not just conservatives.

In a ruling hailed as a major victory by conservatives, Virginia’s Supreme Court on Thursday revived a lawsuit by a teacher who claims his religious liberties and free-speech rights were violated when school officials fired him for refusing to use the pronouns of a transgender student.

It should never be a job requirement to have to remember anyone’s specialty pronouns.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative Christian group that is representing Vlaming, called the ruling a “sweeping victory” for free speech and religious rights, and Virginia Attorney General Jason S. Miyares (R) said “it dramatically expands the protection of religious liberty.”

But legal counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), which has followed the case, called it “dangerous and misguided” and said it gives teachers a right to discriminate. 

Well teachers do have a right to discriminate. They have to do quite a lot of discriminating as part of their job – discriminating between good work and bad work, brilliant work and terrible work. They have to discriminate between wrong answers and right ones.

Shannon Minter, legal director for NCLR, said in a statement that the ruling ignores teachers’ obligations under the law.

“Requiring teachers to treat transgender students equally when they address them in class is about prohibiting discriminatory conduct, not speech,” Minter said. “Such a rule no more restricts protected speech than requiring teachers to treat any other group of students equally.”

But it’s not “equally.” What does remembering to use the wrong pronouns have to do with equality? Nothing.

Vlaming, who taught French, claims in his lawsuit he couldn’t refer to a transitioning student assigned female at birth by masculine pronouns because it violated the tenets of his Christian faith.

Well it doesn’t really. Jesus never said anything about pronouns. It’s not a faith issue at all, it’s a language issue, a reality issue, a truth issue, a nuisance issue. It’s a nuisance to have to remember to use opposite pronouns; it’s not something that comes naturally.

Vlaming, a six-year teacher, told the student he would use the student’s male name in class and try not to use pronouns in an effort to balance the student’s wishes and his own religious beliefs, according to the lawsuit.

But school administrators told him it would violate a nondiscrimination policy to not use the student’s masculine pronouns and issued Vlaming warnings, according to the suit. When Vlaming still refused to use the masculine pronouns, the lawsuit says, the school board fired him in December 2018.

That’s so ridiculous. What does a nondiscrimination policy have to do with using the wrong pronouns for some but not all students?

The ACLU of Virginia said in a statement that “public school officials are still bound by federal law to not discriminate against their students.”

But it’s not “discriminating against students” to fail to memorize specialty pronouns. Ordering teachers to use specialty pronouns is more like discrimination than failure to use them is.

Updating this to add – the image Finn MacKay tweeted doesn’t show so here it is:

MacKay is using that ridiculous photo as evidence that “women’s personalities are expressed so similarly.”

Wait, what??

So many?

So many women’s personalities are expressed via tiny skirts and towering heels? I don’t know any women who fit that description. Not one. Women like that are a confection of the advertising-entertainment industry; they have nothing to do with real life.

No, we don’t mean “the rights of trans people”; we mean the stupid nonsensical contorted garbage that makes up the belief system behind the idea that there is such a thing as “trans people.”

Mackay isn’t really that dumb, surely? Just identifies as that dumb?

Fiona McAnana on how cheerfully people urged men to ruin women’s sports:

In truth, a male athlete’s testosterone levels are largely irrelevant to this debate. Testosterone suppression cannot reverse the changes wrought by male puberty, which is where most of the physiological advantages that men enjoy come from.

Nevertheless, the IOC duly updated its guidance and the UK’s sports councils followed suit. As it turns out, these changes had their biggest impact on non-elite sports. In practice, no one has any idea of their testosterone levels at any given moment and most amateur athletes do not regularly measure their levels. This meant that the male population eligible to compete against women was broadened from just a handful of athletes – that is, those who had undergone surgery and had legally changed their sex – to anyone who merely claimed to be the other sex.

Some sports, like cricket and tennis, dispensed with testosterone-suppression requirements altogether, arguing that anyone should be accepted as whatever they say they are. The UK’s Lawn Tennis Association acknowledged in 2019 that ‘there may be some concerns about fairness in the women’s and mixed game’. But not to worry, explained the association:

‘Our policy assumes that transwomen (male-to-female trans persons) wishing to compete in mixed or female-sanctioned tennis competitions do so with the best of intentions and with no intent to deceive about their status to gain any competitive advantage. Accordingly, you should accept people in the gender they present and verification of their identity should be no more than that expected of any other player.’

My eyes all but popped out of my head on reading that. Why would such a policy assume such a ridiculous thing???

“Our policy assumes that no one ever does anything selfish and dishonest. Accordingly, you should always believe men who say they are women with no backtalk, bitches.”

The main problem is that the whole issue was framed wrongly from the start. It was positioned as being about trans people rather than about who should be eligible for female competitions. Trans-advocacy groups were consulted on these changes, but women’s groups and female athletes were not.

That’s a very polite way of putting it. I’m not as polite as that. I think the issue was framed as being about trans people because women were framed as not mattering. I think the brazen, shocking indifference to women came first, leading to the framing as being about trans people.

People who work in sport are all too aware of the differences between male and female athletic performance, so what were they thinking? I have to conclude that many of them were not thinking at all.

At least, they weren’t thinking about women at all.

Campaign group Fair Play for Women, where I am director of sport, has been pointing out for years that so-called trans-inclusion measures are leading to the exclusion of women and girls. Across most sports and at all levels, we hear personal accounts of how having to compete against a male, or share changing rooms with a male, is turning women and girls away from sport. For a long time, we had found very little media interest in reporting these stories. Sports bodies weren’t hearing them either, because the inclusion of trans-identifying males on their own terms had become an article of faith.

And because it’s so god damn easy to shrug off the concerns of women because women just don’t matter that much.

What a massively creepy intrusive You Will Think What We Tell You To Think letter.

“I am disappointed” – oh shut up with that passive aggressive crap. You’re not her mother.

“after last week’s workshop on inclusion and gender diversity” – as if having a “workshop” means people have to believe everything they’re told there. Guess what: not all women are delighted to be told we have to be “inclusive” of men who claim to be women. Guess what else: you can say something, but other people can think what you say is horseshit. The fact that you said it doesn’t make it true. The fact that a workshop said it doesn’t make it true.

You (the acting Lord Mayor) rebuke Councilor Elliott for saying the workshop was imposed on her, and then remind her that it was a Council decision. It was a Council decision that there would be a workshop that she would have to attend, no? So it was imposed on her, no? So what’s your point?

You ask a fatuous question about being “disrespectful” to the bullying deluded bureaucrats who are trying to force everyone to deny the reality of mammalian sexes. Did you mean to be disrespectful to the Councillor? You certainly are bullying and intrusive to her.

Refusing to pretend that men can be women is not “speaking out against” any people, it’s just awareness of reality.

Thanks for the misuse of “refuted” though. Nice inadvertent admission of reality.

I hope the jury decides Giuliani should pay $44m.

Jurors have begun deliberating in the multi-million dollar defamation case against Rudy Giuliani.

Ex-poll worker Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss are suing Mr Giuliani after he falsely claimed they played a role in election fraud.

They are seeking damages of up to $43m (£34m).

How about $45m?

A judge has already found that Mr Giuliani defamed the two and it is now up to eight jurors to decide exactly how much he will have to pay. In closing arguments on Thursday, Joseph Sibley, Mr Giuliani’s lawyer, urged the jury to be measured as they consider the penalty.

Lawyers for Ms Freeman and Ms Moss are “asking you to reward a catastrophic amount of damages”, he argued. He said that, although the former mayor of New York did spread lies after the 2020 presidential election, he was not as responsible – or as malicious – as lawyers for the two have argued.

Oh come on. Look at the power imbalance – the everything imbalance. On the one hand two poll workers, and on the other hand the former Mayor of New York and current buddy of the ex-president. Please explain to all of us how he was not all that malicious when he told lies about these two obscure women to help out his filthy rich filthy corrupt filthy criminal buddy who is hell-bent on driving this country into a sewer.

Golly, look what RTÉ has just broadcast and published:

Leading doctors report HSE to HIQA over transgender care

The two most experienced clinicians involved in transgender healthcare in Ireland have made a formal complaint to the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) about the Health Service Executive’s (HSE) treatment of children with gender identity issues, Prime Time has learned.

Professor Donal O’Shea and psychiatrist Dr Paul Moran of the National Gender Service (NGS) allege that the HSE has been directing children to services overseas that adhere to a so-called ‘gender-affirming’ Model of Care.

Prof O’Shea and Dr Moran say that the gender-affirming model can damage children and is associated with a greater readiness to start on inappropriate medical treatment for patients presenting with gender identity issues.

How very interesting.

What we’re supposed to think, you know, is that being trans is a wonderful thing, and that no one should be discouraged or slowed down from embracing it. We’re supposed to think it’s only social disapprobation that makes being trans less than fun, and if only everyone everywhere embraced it like a long lost puppy, all would be peaches and cream.

Ireland, along with other countries, has seen a surge in cases of gender-questioning adults and especially children in recent years.

A Children’s Ombudsman survey last year of children aged 12-17 suggests that one in 25 identifies either as non-binary or as being a gender different to their biological sex.

Good god. That’s a lot.

How these children should be treated is at the core of the dispute which is often heated.

The gender-affirming Model of Care, favoured by transgender activists and some clinicians internationally means accepting a patient’s own view of their gender identity.

This approach is supported by World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an organisation made up of both activists and clinicians specialising in trans healthcare. The WPATH model is supported by the Irish Government.

I wonder how separate the clinicians who specialize in trans healthcare are from the activists and their activism – in other words I wonder how activist those clinicians are. My guess is more than zero%.

Dr Moran and Prof O’Shea argue that an exploratory Model of Care based on “probing assessment” should be used. They argue that this approach has a stronger role for psychiatry and is more comprehensive and safer.

Niamh Ní Féineadh from Trans Healthcare Action says that instead of causing harm, the gender-affirming model relieves distress for those needing healthcare.

Circular, mate. How do we know those needing healthcare do need healthcare? How do we know they “need healthcare” in the form of gender affirmation? We don’t. That’s the point.

Ms Ní Féineadh supports a gender-affirming model of care over an exploratory model.

“The patient-centred gender-affirming model means that doctors, patients and their parents should work together as a team. They should have a trust relationship. They should understand the patient’s needs at any one given moment,” she said.

The doctors should then present the treatment options and information to the patient, she said.

“The patient should be supported in whatever decision that they make. It’s kind of like supporting a child who wants to learn a language or an instrument,” she said.

Yeah no it’s not. It’s not like that at all. It’s not remotely like that. Learning a language or an instrument pretty much never does anyone any harm. It certainly never alters their bodies in drastic ways that can never be fully undone. It may bore them or tire them but that’s pretty much the worst that can happen. Trying to change sex via surgery and/or hormones? Not so much.

For adults to be referred for gender confirmation surgery in Ireland through the NGS, up to three further interviews can take place, she said.

“Those are very in-depth, and they talk in very specific and graphic detail about your sex life, what sex acts you enjoy, and how the surgery is going to impact those…That depth of conversation is unnecessary.”

“What other medical procedure do you have multiple in-depth interviews before you proceed with it? Do you have an in-depth interview with a clinical psychologist before you get an appendectomy?” she asked, describing as a “pathologising of transgender healthcare.”

But trying to change someone’s sex isn’t a “medical procedure.” It’s quackery intended as a kind of psychic or mental procedure, but it entails ruining the body. Trying to change someone’s sex is in no way like an appendectomy unless the patient has no need of an appendectomy – in which case it’s stark malpractice. Refusing to ruin a patient’s body, not so much.

Prime Time understands that the complaint made by Dr Moran and Prof O’Shea highlights concern over a clinic in Belgium and England’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) based at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London, where clinicians generally follow a gender-affirming Model of Care.

Ah good – the Tavistock is internationally famous for its destructive haste in these matters. What an accolade.

The Tavistock was shut down for new referrals last year, leaving children in need of specialist gender assessments in the lurch. Children already being treated by the Tavistock continue to receive treatment there.

The closure of the Tavistock to new patients came after reviews by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass revealed unsatisfactory levels of care and a service overstretched by a 26-fold increase in referrals from 136 in the year to March 2011 to 3,585 in the year to March 2022.

The Cass review found that some Tavistock staff felt “under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.”

In other words just the approach Ms Ní Féineadh assures us is the only right one. Quick, slice out those genitals before she/he changes her/his mind.

An article from the CDC: 2,500-year Evolution of the Term Epidemic:

The term epidemic (from the Greek epi [on] plus demos [people]), first used by Homer, took its medical meaning when Hippocrates used it as the title of one of his famous treatises. At that time, epidemic was the name given to a collection of clinical syndromes, such as coughs or diarrheas, occurring and propagating in a given period at a given location. Over centuries, the form and meaning of the term have changed. Successive epidemics of plague in the Middle Ages contributed to the definition of an epidemic as the propagation of a single, well-defined disease. The meaning of the term continued to evolve in the 19th-century era of microbiology. Its most recent semantic evolution dates from the last quarter of the 20th century, and this evolution is likely to continue in the future.

At the start of the 21st century, epidemics of infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, avian influenza, and HIV/AIDS have, in recent years, supported the reality of this threat. Civil wars and natural catastrophes are sometimes followed by epidemics. Climate change, tourism, the concentration of populations in refugee camps, the emergence of new human pathogens, and ecologic changes, which often accompany economic development, contribute to the emergence of infectious diseases and epidemics (1). Epidemics, however, have occurred throughout human history and have influenced that history. The term epidemic is ≈2,500 years old, but where does it come from?

H/t Gordon Campbell

When museums and galleries tell us lies.

That’s so ridiculous. There were no “LGBTQIA+” groups in 1988. That wasn’t a thing.

Trans ideology along with all its other flaws is gruesomely imperialist. Get outta the way you boring lesbians and gays, trans people and “queer” people are way more interesting and exciting than you.

If you want to learn more from pink suit guy here he is:

Jo Bartosch at Unherd:

Badenoch has never compared “children coming out as trans” to a disease. She has, however, referred to the surge in referrals to NHS gender identity services as “almost an epidemic”. And while it might be an emotive word, there has been a 1,607% increase across the past decade in referrals to NHS Gender Identity Services (Gids) at the NHS Tavistock and Portman Foundation Trust. Although the Tavistock clinic has now been shut following a report which slammed the service as “not safe” for children, there are still 8,000 youngsters on the NHS waiting list for help with gender confusion. This unprecedented rise in need for Gids can rightly be understood as an “epidemic”.

In the figurative sense rather than the literal one, but the figurative sense has been around for a hella long time.

More widely, “epidemic” is one of those words that gets lazily tossed around by politicians. Osborne has herself referred to a drink “spiking epidemic”, a “child poverty epidemic” and an “epidemic of violence against women and girls”. Yet outside of the murky depths of social media, no one would seriously accuse Osborne of suggesting that the victims of drink spiking, children living in poverty or female survivors of male violence are diseased.

Because in general we know perfectly well that words can have both literal and metaphorical meanings. It’s also true that we know metaphorical meanings can be dog whistles. It’s complicated.

Here we go.

This is the thing, you see – like a lot of words, “epidemic” has a narrow literal meaning and an expanded, somewhat metaphorical one. I think “epidemic” probably originally referred to disease only, but it’s been used to mean “[undesirable] trend” and the like for a hella long time. Kate Osborne isn’t wrong to say that it’s not a hooray word – it’s used of trends the speaker dislikes or disapproves of, not of trends she welcomes and embraces. We don’t talk of an epidemic of politeness or safe driving. We do however often talk about epidemics of [thing I don’t like] without meaning “disease.”

So, Osborne would have been on safer ground, I think, if she’d said that using the word epidemic is a dog whistle. She would have been wrong, I also think, but not as close to slanderous as she was.

Why do I think she would have been wrong? Because Badenoch wasn’t saying there’s an epidemic of these horrid people, she was saying there’s an epidemic of bad things being done to people. Transing teenagers is bad, and an ideology that urges the transing of teenagers is bad.

The war between the literal and the metaphorical continues.

What is “the gender police v Kemi Badenoch” that the BBC is not reporting on? I was thinking I’d already posted about it but I hadn’t. I can’t give you the tidy BBC version because they haven’t reported on it at all so here is the TalkTV version instead:

Minister Kemi Badenoch accused Labour MP Kate Osborne of ‘lying’ in a fiery clash over language used to describe transgender children

Kemi Badenoch accused Labour MP Kate Osbourne of lying during a fiery clash that erupted over language used to describe transgender children in an appearance at the Women and Equalities Select Committee on 13 December.

The Cabinet minister hit back at [rebuked] Ms Osborne for accusing her of previously using “inflammatory language that likens children and young people coming out as trans to the spread of a disease”.

Ms Badenoch, who is also the Business and Trade Secretary, said: “I have never said that, that is a lie. That is a lie and I think you should withdraw that statement. That is a lie. You are lying.”

MP for Jarrow Ms Osborne affirmed she was not lying, but Ms Badenoch responded: “You are lying. I have never used the word ‘disease’ and this is exactly what I am talking about — you are making statements at a select committee that are untrue.”

Conservative committee chairwoman Caroline Nokes interrupted to say: “Can I just remind the minister that that is unparliamentary language to use?”

Ms Badenoch replied: “What she said is not true. We have to use facts in this room, we can’t just make stuff up.”

It’s what trans ideology does though. This isn’t Parliament, so I can say that. Trans ideology just makes stuff up all the time – it’s based on just making stuff up.

Interesting. If I’m reading this correctly the BBC is not reporting on the gender police v Kemi Badenoch.

Josh Parry is the BBC’s “LGBT & Identity” producer. (Who knew they had one? Who knew there is such a thing?)

From last year, but still worth a look.

My favorite part is the subtitled “laughter”.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? at Miscellany Room.

I’ve just started reading philosopher Val Plumwood’s Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason, a 2002 follow-up to her 1993 work Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. I’m barely past the introduction and I’m already amazed. It feels like every other sentence or two is a “Holy shit!” moment, where she either puts things into a perspective I’ve never thought of before, or encapsulates ideas that have been rattling around in my own head for quite some time. If Feminism and the Mastery of Nature was an examination of the origins of our current crisis in the foundations of Western thought, this book looks to be an even more detailed look at the path we’ve travelled since, and a proposal as to how to get through and out of the multiple crises we’ve triggered. The latter is a tall order indeed: she’s proposing the re-examination and uprooting of several millennia of ingrained thought and its distortion of our understanding of our relationship with the rest of the living world and the material and energetic cycles that sustain it. Here’s how she outlines the problem in the introduction to Environmental Culture:

The deterioration of the global ecological context of human life demands from our species a clear and adequate response, but we are seemingly immobilised, even though it is clear that at the technological level we already have the means to accomplish the changes needed to live sustainably on and with the earth. The problem is not primarily about more knowledge or technology: it is about developing an environmental culture that values and fully acknowledges the non-human sphere and our dependency on it, and is able to make good decisions about how we live and impact on the non-human world. For the dominant global cultures of the west, the response to the crisis must be either about democratic cultural change of this kind or it must be about top-down solutions imposed on a supposedly recalcitrant citizenry….

You can read the Introduction and some of the first chapter here.

Having enjoyed Feminism and the Mastery of Nature I’m looking forward to reading the rest of this book.

Originally a comment by Sastra on Part of a network.

It is important to say these things at the outset of this report because society regularly tells LGBTQ+ people that they are not normal

And right here is the fundamental divide, the problem with coupling homosexuality and gender nonconformity with transgender. The society that regularly tells people who don’t abide by the conventions associated with their sex that they’re perverted, wicked, or sick is not the same part of society which views sex as a biological category we can’t choose to follow or not. The reasoning is completely different. The issue is completely different.

We do not believe that psychics are not normal. We question the existence of psychic powers.

We do not believe that reincarnated people are not normal. We question the existence of reincarnation.

We don’t come up with elaborate excuses for why prophets aren’t really prophesying because we don’t like how they’re different than the rest of us, and so we are disgusted or fearful.

I’ve talked to many people who believe in the paranormal and abilities associated with the paranormal. When I ask them what they think motivates skepticism, they seldom bring up anything having to do with evidence or science. They almost all talk about how skeptics are afraid of what is different. They frame skeptics not accepting ESP the way the SPLC frames critics of gender ideology: through ethics rather than reason. A form of Argumentum ad Hominem.

Of course they did.

What’s trans ideology got to do with Southern poverty and law?

Not one damn thing.

The SPLC turns its attention from Southern poverty law to talk instead about luxury idennnies and the evil demons who don’t bend the knee to them.

Opening line:

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) people exist in all societies across the world and thrive in all areas of life. 

What are “Queer” people? How do they differ from lesbian and gay people? Why are they part of this discussion?

And why are transgender people part of this discussion? They’re the opposite of lesbian and gay, rather than being a branch of lesbian and gay.

And what does the “+” mean?

It is important to say these things at the outset of this report because society regularly tells LGBTQ+ people that they are not normal.[vi] The assumptions that LGBTQ+ people are abnormal are called heterosexism and cisnormativity, and they are pervasive in our culture.

Called by whom? I don’t call anything “cisnormativity.”

These assumptions also show up in faulty scientific studies that sustain medical and policy industries dedicated to changing who LGBTQ+ people are and limiting LGBTQ+ rights by promoting conversion therapy, de-transitioning, bans on gender-affirming health care, bans on transgender people playing sports, censorship of LGBTQ+ topics in public schools, bans on public expression of LGBTQ+ culture like drag performances, and other politically motivated attempts to erase LGBTQ+ identities. 

Note that sly but stupid “bans on transgender people playing sports.” This is how far the SPLC has fallen. It’s pathetic.

This report examines recent developments in the anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience industry. In Chapter 1, we offer an overview of pseudoscience as an enforcement mechanism of white, heterosexual, cisgender supremacy.

Note the obligatory meaningless “white.”

This is embarrassing.

It looks as if the whole thing is about 8 billion pages, and I don’t think I have the will to read much more of it.

I’m so tired of stupid.

The way they talk about this!

What did she say?

Many of the countries that are providing surrogacy at the moment internationally are closed to same sex couples, it’s against the law in those countries that same sex couples would avail of it.

Wait slow down. “Countries are providing surrogacy”??? Wtf does that mean? Countries can’t gestate babies for people. It’s only women who can do that – individual women who “provide surrogacy” by gestating one baby at a time. That’s what she meant but it’s not what she said, and what we say about this matters. “Providing surrogacy” makes it sound so tidy, so official, so acceptable. It’s none of those.

The whole conversation rests on the assumption that women’s bodies are a commodity.

But will it make a difference? Probably not.

The agreement reached in this glitzy metropolis for the first time nails the role of fossil fuel emissions in driving up temperatures and outlines a future decline for coal, oil and gas. In UN terms that is historic, and the biggest step forward on climate since the Paris agreement in 2015.

But by itself, will this deal be enough to save the “north star” of this COP – keeping temperatures under 1.5C this century? Most likely not.

And that’s not just because of the petrostates.

A key factor in softening the text was the attitude of middle-income developing countries who were very uncertain about the much hyped phased out of fossil fuels. For Nigeria, Uganda, Colombia and others there were complaints that they needed to use revenues from the sale of coal, oil and gas to ensure they could pay for the transition to greener energy.

Colombia complained that by moving away from fossil fuels, credit agencies had downgraded their rating, meaning that international loans to go green would cost them far more.

Humans just aren’t wired to be able to put the future ahead of the present. If you have starving children you’re going to feed them the seeds for next year’s crop.

What the COP agreement says:

The decision text from Cop28 has been greeted as “historic”, for being the first ever call by nations for a “transition away” from fossil fuels, and as “weak and ineffectual” and containing a “litany of loopholes” for the fossil fuel industry. 

First ever call to do something they have no intention of doing.

The text states the huge challenge with crystal clarity:

Limiting global warming to 1.5C [above pre-industrial levels] with no or limited overshoot requires deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 relative to the 2019 level and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. [Countries] further recognise the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with 1.5C pathways.

The problem is that carbon emissions are not plunging as required – they are still rising. So the text on action is vital.

Well, the text on action is vital if it can change anything, but can it? Nobody is doing anything resembling deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If they were there wouldn’t be all these billions of cars on the streets and planes in the skies and ships on the seas.

Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power.

This is no stronger than the text from Cop26 in 2021, which is disappointing as the dirtiest fossil fuel must unquestionably be phased out rapidly. 

There’s a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks near where I live. I cross it often to get to the park where the grain terminal is, on the edge of Elliott Bay. If a train is going by I like to watch it doing so from above…except sometimes what it’s hauling is 50 or 60 or however many it is cars full to the brim of…coal. It’s like a horror movie.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.

Extraordinary as it might seem, this is the first time the root cause of the climate crisis – fossil fuels – have been cited in a decision text in nearly 30 years of UN climate talks. But “transitioning away” is weaker than “phasing out”. The latter was supported by 130 countries but fiercely opposed by petrostates. In the real world, fossil fuels are actually being phased up, with many new fields being exploited. Is “transitioning away” a strong enough signal to halt these investments? Probably not, but at least the direction of travel is finally clear.

“Probably not” is quite the understatement.