I know that. You have difficulty reading what I wrote … again. I mentioned NGOs separately to IMO and WHO. That means (in English) that they are separate.
Deal with the issue. The Issue I raised (without saying it) is that IMO is meddling in stuff that is causing major members to consider withdrawing.
Why? It simply means what it says. I know you find those sort of things confusing but English can be precise, and in this case, it is.
Is there some sort of pro pollution international organization one could join? Perhaps if all the pro polluters banded together they could improve everyone’s life. They could move to one location, build their industries, transportation systems etc., and demonstrate the advantages of living in a world they espouse?
Yes, there is. It’s called the real world. You know. Where real people live. People who understand that it’s the brainless idiots who call CO2 “pollution” … despite contributing themselves to this “pollution” every breath they take. There’s an easy solution in there somewhere for those so inclined to reduce “carbon pollution” … and increase average IQ.
We are talking about “Greenhouse Gas emission”, not "Pollution:
I see we both agree.
It is semantics whether pollution is the proper term when speaking of greenhouse gases. But AI says:
Yes, pollution, particularly from human activities like burning fossil fuels, does contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming and climate change
In any case, the shipping world goes on with the effort to reduce GHG emission from ship, with or without the US playing on the team:
PS> Particle and sulphur pollution is largely being solved with scrubbers and LSHFO.
In which case AI is simply wrong … again. It’s been taught by people who were wrong when they wrote whatever they said.
CO2 cannot be pollution. It’s natural and essential to all life on earth. We can breathe it in the air. It’s emitted naturally from volcanoes, warming oceans, animals, decomposition and natural fires.
Is water vapour, the most important GHG, also “pollution”? Never seems to be mentioned.
Care to bet on that? What might Trump do to nations rejecting US ships on silly grounds?
So what’s your argument?
Mine is that net zero will never happen. People (and nations) are realising net zero is just a satanic control mechanism to increase energy costs and destroy productivity.
Does “Splash” ever have articles saying that? Why can’t it tell the truth?
You are free to ask them directly. Their mailing address is:
Asia Shipping Media Pte Ltd
30 Cecil Street
#19-08 Prudential Tower
Singapore 049712
Singapore
I asked for YOUR argument.
That should be well known by now. I don’t want to repeat it here, to avoid insulting anybody by questioning their intelligence, repeating it incessantly..
Here is something IMO have done that both US and Russia agree on (so far):
PS> I’m sure somebody can find something wrong with this too. 
What do they want? Back to coalfired steamships and plastic filled rivers and seas?
“The Trump Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens,energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists,” the statement said.
Excellent! I agree totally and suggest the world should follow.
Aaaah yes. The eco-zealots are always so moderate, understated and sensible in their predictions of disasters … which never seem to happen when the due date arrives.
There are “plastic filled rivers and seas” aplenty already (as you know) … not being cleaned by current IMO regulations.
Why are you terrified of “coal fired steamships” - as common as rocking horse shit and just as likely - and not nuclear powered steamships?
A reference site for you.
Not everybody has heard Trump’s treats by the look of it:
Saw a lot of that going on at L.A. West Basin starting about ten years ago.
I’ve never heard of anything so stupid.
