Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Files Suggest Climate Summit's Leader Is Using Event To Promote Fossil Fuels (nytimes.com) 139

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: As the host of global climate talks that begin this week, the United Arab Emirates is expected to play a central role in forging an agreement to move the world more rapidly away from coal, oil and gas. But behind the scenes, the Emirates has sought to use its position as host to pursue a contradictory goal: to lobby on oil and gas deals around the world, according to an internal document made public by a whistle-blower. In one example, the document offers guidance for Emirati climate officials to use meetings with Brazil's environment minister to enlist her help with a local petrochemical deal by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, the Emirates' state-run oil and gas company, known as Adnoc. Emirati officials should also inform their Chinese counterparts that Adnoc was "willing to jointly evaluate international LNG opportunities" in Mozambique, Canada and Australia, the document indicates. LNG stands for liquefied natural gas, which is a fossil fuel and a driver of global warming.

These and other details in the nearly 50-page document -- obtained by the Centre for Climate Reportingand the BBC -- have cast a pall over the climate summit, which begins on Thursday. They are indications, experts said, that the U.A.E. is blurring the boundary between its powerful standing as host of the United Nations climate conference, and U.A.E.'s position as one of the world's largest oil and gas exporters. [...] In private, delegates preparing to travel to Dubai expressed concerns that the cloud surrounding the host nation threatened to discredit the talks themselves. The allegations, they said, risked undermining what many have hoped the negotiations will yield: a deal to replace polluting fossil fuels with clean energy such as wind and solar power. But many said they were reluctant to speak out publicly, for fear of jeopardizing their ability to negotiate.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Files Suggest Climate Summit's Leader Is Using Event To Promote Fossil Fuels

Comments Filter:
  • by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Tuesday November 28, 2023 @10:33PM (#64039997) Homepage

    I'm really not sure what people expected.

    • The real question is: how many will take the bait?

      • by jmccue ( 834797 )

        Yeah really, this is what junkets are for, what's the big deal?

        The real question is: how many will take the bribes?

        FTFY

      • Biden ain't going, which speaks well of him. Especially after how well the fist bump was received, he had to do something to snub the house of Saud.

        • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

          How does not going to an event hosted by the house of Al Falasi snub the house of Saud?

  • by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Tuesday November 28, 2023 @10:35PM (#64039999)

    Well not that shocked.

  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Tuesday November 28, 2023 @10:38PM (#64040013)

    That the attendees of the summit will use to get there. Because it's only evil when I fly. Not when they fly.

    Or perhaps to run the oil and gas power plants that will need to pick up the slack for when the wind doesn't blow (or blows too fast) and the sun doesn't shine. Because nuclear power has the unfortunate property of being both clean *and* reliable. So if we use it, no more emissions to scream bloody murder about and no blackouts to blame on $political_scapegoat.

    No. I'm sure it's something else.

    Like keeping the oil flowing cuz even Ned Lamont (D-Conn) has finally realized that we won't be driving electric cars on the Moon any time soon, and being green is nice but not being destitute is even better.

    • Oh, you're going to be so embarrassed when we have reliable, consistent, cheap renewable energy that's better than anything we've ever had before.

      When I say "we," I mean parts of the world that actually want to change for the better.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @03:39AM (#64040299)
          Well, the EU & other countries are developing their rail networks to cover the large number of very short flights that people take every year. Modern, high-speed city centre to city centre trains work out less expensive, more comfortable, more convenient, & quicker in many cases than air-travel. For journeys of more than 8 hours, overnight "sleeper" trains that serve breakfast are an increasingly popular option (instead of travelling by day & then staying in a hotel which takes more time out of your life). If more countries/regions follow suit, as many seem to be doing, that'd significantly reduce jet CO2 emissions. Then we can talk about the longer-haul flights.
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • by tijgertje ( 4289605 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @05:34AM (#64040425)
              That only proves ones again that the USA is a crap country to live in.
              High speed rail (not what you guys have) goes 350 a 450KM per hour. And that is with normal rail.
              If we would go the maglev-route (expensive) it can go up to 800KM/hour. (note 1,192 km/h is the speed of sound)

              And yes the high speed rail in Europe is big city to big city. Like from capital to capital.
              From there you transfer to the slower, local trains for the last mile.
            • Well, I guess the USA is doomed to fall behind then.
            • One high speed train can carry several hundred passengers, some over a thousand. How many EV kms is that?

              And, why did you pick Madrid to "Stockholm"? You know that Stockholm & many other Scandanavian cities are poorly connected to continental rail networks, right? Why not pick a city in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or Italy?

              Re: Amtrack, yeah, I wouldn't use it either. I am, however, perfectly happy to use European high-speed rail. Short-haul flights are horrible compared to trains
              • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                • And remember that I identified short-haul flights as ideal candidates to be replaced by rail? So you're saying you have no objections to the idea? That'd put you in line with the EU, China, and whole bunch of other countries & regions. If the USA can't/won't do it, that's their problem.
        • by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @04:32AM (#64040345)

          subjectively inferior electric experience.

          Keyword here is "subjectively". Which actually means that you are used to your gas stove, and the force of habit makes you think it is superior. That, and it usually reminds you of your childhood, so it brings back comforting memories. Plus seeing controlled fire also talks to the primitive part of our brain, because "fire, fire is good".

          However, there is a reason why starred chefs in France now prefer induction cooking. And guess what: that reason is because it objectively is a superior experience.

          I do agree with you that having zero kids is the best thing you can do though. Kinda linked to that, there were talks and studies about a "CO2 passport" in the EU a while back. Where people could see how much CO2 emissions they were responsible for (based on travels, the goods they would buy, their eating habits, their homes...). The more I think about it recently, the more it makes sense: if someone wants to use his CO2 quota to use a gas stove, why not. If someone else prefers induction cooking, but instead buy a carbon bike, why not. It would actually allow people to make their own choices. Including the choice to resell some of their quota to wealthy people of course.

        • Well, since his initial point was about flying and there's no renewable energy source I'm aware of that can replace jet fuel in the aviation application, I think you're both wrong, lol.

          His point was about hypocrisy. It's about those who lecture us and claim to be "green" yet are the highest users of fossil fuels by a country mile. It's just another all-too-obvious confirmation that we are their inferiors and need to do without so that they can continue in comfort and custom. I might listen to the message if those who bring it lead by example. And buying carbon credits ain't that.

        • There's at least one airline that says it has: https://corporate.virginatlant... [virginatlantic.com] Apparently, waste fat & sugar from food manufacturing. I've not idea how actually low-carbon it is & I suspect there's a bit of greenwashing going on with this one but, never say never!
      • Oh, you're going to be so embarrassed when we have reliable, consistent, cheap renewable energy that's better than anything we've ever had before.

        Call me when that happens.

        In other words: betting your future and the one of your kids on a potential solution that has no proven track record, in a game of life where you can't reload a savegame when you realize you messed up, is not the smartest move.

        Of course, if you replace your assertion by "reliable, consistent, cheap low-carbon energy", then I would agree with you.

      • I live in Massachusetts, which is about as "we" as you can get without being California or Texas in terms of wind and solar. But it's close. We shut down our last nuke a few years back and the promised powerlines to Canada and offshore wind have yet to materialize and are not likely to any time soon, leaving an ever dwindling supply of gas plants to pick up the slack in the winter, with what is now an annual tradition of warnings about potential wintertime and summertime blackouts.

        We're just behind Californ

    • If I use a petrol car to go to work and build EVs am I evil? Or do you not realise that the decisions and agreements made at these places have many orders of magnitude larger impact than the plane used to get there?

      Grow up.

  • by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) * on Tuesday November 28, 2023 @11:11PM (#64040047) Homepage Journal
    There is nothing in the source NYT article to indicate the Emirates who are hosting this one summit in a series of summits are "Leading" the summit.

    Your headline is excessively clickbait-y.
    • The "president of the United Nations climate conference" ... "is an oil executive in the United Arab Emirates".

    • There is nothing in the source NYT article to indicate the Emirates who are hosting this one summit in a series of summits are "Leading" the summit.

      The host of these summits always lead the summit and play a pivotal role in how they progress. This isn't clickbaity-y. This is an insanely fucking relevant headline. Also the term "leader" is literally in the NYT headline, so you're quite wrong that there's nothing in the source indicating they are the leader.

      But if you need some more concrete source, then go to the original source itself: https://www.cop28.com/en/cop28... [cop28.com] who themselves highlight quite prominently who is "leading" the summit.

      Scroll down t

    • by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      Stop interfering with our purity spiral. You're destroying democracy.

  • Unless and until all these anti-hydrocarbon dickheads go completely renewable in their personal lives and organizations, I don't want hear another Monkey Fighting thing out of their Monday-Friday mouths.
    • So until they go and live in a different society, one with no access to communication devices and no abillity to be heard, you are going to refuse to listen to them? That's a really effective way to stick your head in the sand. It is not possible to be completely carbon neutral, or to rely entirely on renewables, while living in a society that has been built on fossil fuels. It is possible to try to minimise their use as much as possible but much of this is structural and not possible for individuals. Struc

    • You have to play the hand you're dealt, dickhead. That hand includes fighting one of the most heavily subsidized industries on the planet, and their 50 years of bribing governments for favourable laws.

      I can't decide whether you're flat-out dishonest, or just plain stupid.

      • Just not playing your WEF drive-everyone-into-penury game.
        • That's not my game, or anybody's. It's just a lie told by scumbags like you who are either too dishonest or too viciously stupid to understand an inconvenient reality.

          Your children, if you ever have any, will spit on your grave.

  • Next... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @02:55AM (#64040253)
    ...a consortium of breweries & distillers are to take over management of Alcoholics Anonymous & administration of alcohol related public health campaigning. They've set out their sincere commitment to reduce consumption of their products & reduce returns to their shareholders & investors.

    After that, McDonald's, KFC, Burger King, et al. to take over national agencies that research, design, & promote dietary advice.

    Yeah, what's wrong with giving oil producers a central role in organising the negotiations over the future of fossil fuels consumption?
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Junk food manufacturers did in fact try to promote their own dietary advice. Back in the early 2000s I think, maybe the 90s. They ran ads telling viewers that it was okay to eat chocolate bars on days where they got some extra exercise, but that they should lay off at other times. It's bad advice of course, but helps sell chocolate bars.

      • The one I like the best is how the owners of Subway named the holding company 'doctors associates'. Where I used to live, they would promote their meals as an alternative to junk food and add a line to the bottom of their adverts saying 'endorsed by doctors associates'. Most people thought this meant some kind of medical professional group was endorsing their products, when it was actually just the corporate name for subway.

  • Why Dubai? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Meneth ( 872868 ) on Wednesday November 29, 2023 @04:15AM (#64040317)

    The decision to hold the conference there, of all places, is not readily apparent. From what I can see, the decision was made mostly in secret.

    Jan 2023: "In January, the UNFCCC Secretariat declared Asia-Pacific Group’s decision for the UAE to be the host, with Sultan Al Jaber, its minister of industry and advanced technology, at the helm as the conference’s president. Six months later, the UAE announced that COP28 will take place at Dubai’s Expo City." [1] [newscientist.com]

    "This year, it was the Asia-Pacific group’s turn to host, and the United Arab Emirates made an unopposed bid in May 2021." [2] [archive.is]

    May 2021: "The United Arab Emirates has launched a bid to host a landmark United Nations climate change conference" [3] [cnbc.com]

    • Why not. Usually no one really cares where something is hosted. Why Germany? Why Argentina? Why India? Why Kenya? Why Denmark? Why Mexico? Peru, France, UK, Morocco.

      The UN doesn't much care for you desire to exclude people providing hosting facilities. The COP meetings have historically been hosted by literally anyone who puts their hands up. This time it's the UAE.

      This isn't the FIFA world cup. They aren't sportwashing.

  • This is why I say for all nations to put a slowly increasing tax rate on their locally consumed goods/service based on where the worst part/service comes from. At this time, skip worrying about levels, other than a floor (at which point no tax applied ) . Instead focus on last 2 years directions of emissions. If 2 years going down, then no tax. IOW, if all parts/sub-service are from nations going down OR below the floor, then no tax. If worst is from a nation with 2 years going up, then 100% of the tax rate
  • You're holding a climate summit in one of the hottest regions of the planet which is also one of the leading exporters of fossil fuel and you are seriously asking if this might be abused to promote fossil fuel?

    Seriously?

  • Notwithstanding all the flailing, absurdist attempts of these Middle Eastern petro-states to diversify their economies, they can't seem to take their minds out of the oil-befouled gutter. And when the demand for oil falls below a critical tipping point, they will simply fall apart into utter chaos. No doubt many of the rulers will flee to Europe with suitcases full of diamonds, but history will catch up with most of them. You don't run despotic/oligarchic filth heaps like those places and not be among th

"It's like deja vu all over again." -- Yogi Berra

Working...