Glad he's only slammed them; he could've bashed or blasted them!

The UN is more of a communication platform - it has no way of enforcing anything, so I agree.

Wind and Solar are 'support' sources of energy at best. Viable for houses facing a certain direction, viable to power small companies, viable for expeditions, or to power a coastal village.

They will NOT work, if you want to power a multi-milion city, an industrial park, a huge port, or a science project. Nuclear, both fission and fusion are necessary green energy projects until we find a smarter way of producing renewable energy, which is NOT solar farms the size of a small city or engulfing entire coasts and hills in wind turbines, that constantly break down and kill birds. And both require massive amounts of lithium for batteries, mining of which is toxic and has a huge carbon footprint.

You can't,but you can make it a part of a deal i.e. "Ban mazut use and we'll invest in your infrastructure." or something like that.

Not each government, but all of them at once need to agree and adhere to the same rules. Otherwise environmental taxes just make businesses migrate to countries, which couldn't give less of a damn about the future, putting the ones that do at an economic disadvantage.

G. Thunberg put in one headline with the UN makes UN seem as relevant as a 19yo activist popstar, who's anti-nuclear and holds a lot of anti-science views herself. This is bad, as it aims to polarize and divide instead of getting right-wing people to consider their stance on climate change-related issues.

I'd slam these journalists.

Iran and Belarus are the Italy and Bulgaria of the present.

It's like not having a mirror, but being able to feel your face. We're "feeling" the stars with telescopes and can model of what we see based on our observations.