Gifted link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/climate/cop28-climate-agreement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk0.DUvZ.j8WzOxDBzTqx&smid=url-share Given the tensions surrounding the opening of this...
Given the tensions surrounding the opening of this climate summit, I am surprised that there seems to have been a breakthrough of sorts. While I am skeptical that climate agreements from summits like this have any sort of binding political effect, I do think they help to shape what is seen as the "baseline" for national policies. Certainly this is a better outcome than if we saw no such agreement.
In a way, the weak draft that didn't reference fossil fuels may have ended up being helpful. It was clearly unacceptable to the point that it generated significant outrage, gave little time to...
In a way, the weak draft that didn't reference fossil fuels may have ended up being helpful. It was clearly unacceptable to the point that it generated significant outrage, gave little time to negotiate a more nuanced new draft, and created significant pressure specifically to include fossil fuel phaseout. Had the previous draft not been quite so weak, and had it been more carefully written to avoid the level of controversy, it might have managed to get through.
Alternately, maybe the reason for the somewhat ludicrous statements near the beginning that there was no scientific basis to transitioning off fossil fuels was intended to lower the bar so much...
Alternately, maybe the reason for the somewhat ludicrous statements near the beginning that there was no scientific basis to transitioning off fossil fuels was intended to lower the bar so much that people would see this as a win, despite the fact that we kind of already all understood this going into the summit.
From the article, this resolution does not seem to require any action on the part of signatories. It's more of a proclamation that we really ought to do something about all this.
Is this a breakthrough though? The bar set seems to be extremely low compared to what's needed to "save the world". UN-led efforts have led to massive promises of emission cuts and future targets....
Is this a breakthrough though? The bar set seems to be extremely low compared to what's needed to "save the world".
UN-led efforts have led to massive promises of emission cuts and future targets. There seems to be vanishingly little political will to enact the changes in society needed to reach these aims. Both for emission targets as near in the future as 2030, and even more so for targets in 2050 and beyond.
Pretty much every country to support the Aichi biodiversity targets that were to be accomplished by 2020 have failed miserably.
Are these words the type of agreements made with the League of Nations a century ago, that will be ridiculed by all of history later as idealistic pies in the sky as the world is headed for disaster?
I think so. The words seem to be just words, decoupled from reality. A much better result from this summit would be no agreement because the text is so weak.
That'd show the world, and the future, how bad things are now, and how desperate the situation is, and at least a modicum of recognition of that fact.
So is it just me, or does the framing of this whole thing feel like "We are rich and control our nations because of our oil production and if the world starts to move away from that we need a way...
So is it just me, or does the framing of this whole thing feel like "We are rich and control our nations because of our oil production and if the world starts to move away from that we need a way to remain powerful and in control of our respective countries"?
As long as people worship the economy as some kind of perpetual growth machine, then yes. We as humanity have to come to the realization that for the past 100 years we've tasted the fruit of year...
As long as people worship the economy as some kind of perpetual growth machine, then yes. We as humanity have to come to the realization that for the past 100 years we've tasted the fruit of year on year innovation, economic growth and globalization. Sadly we've now come to a point where the rich have now become so powerful and wealthy money to them has no meaning other than getting whatever they want. Companies becoming bigger than whole nations financially speaking is a scary route I don't wish to see come to its end.
Fossil fuel companies need to either move away from their core business and diversify into alternatives and make a name that way or accept shrinking and hanging up their hats. Sticking to what was seen as profitable yesterday shouldn't necessitate lobbying for it today or even tomorrow.
What we need is realism and not a blind faith in growth at the cost of people, nature, the fabric of society and our whole world.
And while I feel this agreement is a solid good step, cynicism isn't far away to see people say one thing, then do the other.
The part I'm interested in: Emphasis mine. These climate goals are literally impossible unless wealthy Western nations find a way to decrease the cost of financing and installing renewable and...
The part I'm interested in:
Many African countries sharply criticized the idea that all countries should reduce their fossil fuel use at the same pace. Without outside financial help, they argued, African nations would need to exploit their own oil and gas reserves in order to grow rich enough to fund the clean energy transition.
“Asking Nigeria, or indeed, asking Africa, to phase out fossil fuels is like asking us to stop breathing without life support,” said Ishaq Salako, Nigeria’s environmental minister. “It is not acceptable and it is not possible.”
Some world leaders criticized wealthy emitters like the United States, Europe and Japan for failing to provide enough financial support to low-income countries to help them transition away from fossil fuels. In places like Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, developing nations are facing soaring interest rates that have made it difficult to finance new renewable energy projects.
The new agreement nods to the importance of finance, but countries agreed to tackle the issue at the next round of climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, next year.
“The text calls for a transition away from fossil fuels in this critical decade, but the transition is not funded or fair,” said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, an environmental group. “We’re still missing enough finance to help developing countries decarbonize and there needs to be greater expectation on rich fossil fuel producers to phase out first.”
Emphasis mine. These climate goals are literally impossible unless wealthy Western nations find a way to decrease the cost of financing and installing renewable and low-emissions technology in developing countries; because those countries simply do not have the resources to do so themselves at this time. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait until next year to even begin to address the issues of climate finance in developing countries, which produce most emissions. Without this, it is not realistic to reach Paris Accord goals.
Gifted link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/climate/cop28-climate-agreement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Fk0.DUvZ.j8WzOxDBzTqx&smid=url-share
Given the tensions surrounding the opening of this climate summit, I am surprised that there seems to have been a breakthrough of sorts. While I am skeptical that climate agreements from summits like this have any sort of binding political effect, I do think they help to shape what is seen as the "baseline" for national policies. Certainly this is a better outcome than if we saw no such agreement.
I agree, I wasn't expecting anything at all from this meeting. Glad to hear they managed to agree on something.
In a way, the weak draft that didn't reference fossil fuels may have ended up being helpful. It was clearly unacceptable to the point that it generated significant outrage, gave little time to negotiate a more nuanced new draft, and created significant pressure specifically to include fossil fuel phaseout. Had the previous draft not been quite so weak, and had it been more carefully written to avoid the level of controversy, it might have managed to get through.
Alternately, maybe the reason for the somewhat ludicrous statements near the beginning that there was no scientific basis to transitioning off fossil fuels was intended to lower the bar so much that people would see this as a win, despite the fact that we kind of already all understood this going into the summit.
From the article, this resolution does not seem to require any action on the part of signatories. It's more of a proclamation that we really ought to do something about all this.
Is this a breakthrough though? The bar set seems to be extremely low compared to what's needed to "save the world".
UN-led efforts have led to massive promises of emission cuts and future targets. There seems to be vanishingly little political will to enact the changes in society needed to reach these aims. Both for emission targets as near in the future as 2030, and even more so for targets in 2050 and beyond.
Pretty much every country to support the Aichi biodiversity targets that were to be accomplished by 2020 have failed miserably.
Are these words the type of agreements made with the League of Nations a century ago, that will be ridiculed by all of history later as idealistic pies in the sky as the world is headed for disaster?
I think so. The words seem to be just words, decoupled from reality. A much better result from this summit would be no agreement because the text is so weak.
That'd show the world, and the future, how bad things are now, and how desperate the situation is, and at least a modicum of recognition of that fact.
So is it just me, or does the framing of this whole thing feel like "We are rich and control our nations because of our oil production and if the world starts to move away from that we need a way to remain powerful and in control of our respective countries"?
As long as people worship the economy as some kind of perpetual growth machine, then yes. We as humanity have to come to the realization that for the past 100 years we've tasted the fruit of year on year innovation, economic growth and globalization. Sadly we've now come to a point where the rich have now become so powerful and wealthy money to them has no meaning other than getting whatever they want. Companies becoming bigger than whole nations financially speaking is a scary route I don't wish to see come to its end.
Fossil fuel companies need to either move away from their core business and diversify into alternatives and make a name that way or accept shrinking and hanging up their hats. Sticking to what was seen as profitable yesterday shouldn't necessitate lobbying for it today or even tomorrow.
What we need is realism and not a blind faith in growth at the cost of people, nature, the fabric of society and our whole world.
And while I feel this agreement is a solid good step, cynicism isn't far away to see people say one thing, then do the other.
The part I'm interested in:
Emphasis mine. These climate goals are literally impossible unless wealthy Western nations find a way to decrease the cost of financing and installing renewable and low-emissions technology in developing countries; because those countries simply do not have the resources to do so themselves at this time. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait until next year to even begin to address the issues of climate finance in developing countries, which produce most emissions. Without this, it is not realistic to reach Paris Accord goals.