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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Cop28 Draft Agreement Calls for Fossil Fuel Cuts But Avoids 'Phase-Out' (theguardian.com) 73

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
A draft deal to cut global fossil fuel production is "grossly insufficient" and "incoherent" and will not stop the world from avoiding dangerous climate breakdown, according to delegates at the UN's Cop28 summit. From a report: The text put forward by the summit presidency after 10 days of wrangling was received with concern and anger by many climate experts and politicians, though others welcomed elements of the draft including the first mention in a Cop text of reducing fossil fuel production. Some countries are despairing that the text does not require a full phase-out of fossil fuels.

Cedric Schuster of Samoa, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, said: "We will not sign our death certificate. We cannot sign on to text that does not have strong commitments on phasing out fossil fuels." The Cop28 presidency released a draft text in the early evening on Monday, which called for "reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, so as to achieve net zero by, before or around 2050, in keeping with the science."

The text avoids highly contentious calls for a "phase-out" or "phase-down" of fossil fuels, which have been the focus of deep disagreement among the more than 190 countries meeting in Dubai. But instead of requiring fossil fuel producers to cut their output, it frames such reductions as optional, by calling on countries to "take actions that could include" reducing fossil fuels. "That one word 'could' just kills everything," said Eamon Ryan, Ireland's environment minister.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cop28 Draft Agreement Calls for Fossil Fuel Cuts But Avoids 'Phase-Out' More

Cop28 Draft Agreement Calls for Fossil Fuel Cuts But Avoids 'Phase-Out'

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe .. (Score:1, Troll)

    by DarkOx ( 621550 )

    Maybe Cedric should go f*** right off. Just looked up some stats. I don't see Samoa anywhere near the top for EV adoption.

    • Care to provide those stats?

    • The reality of EV. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe Cedric should go f*** right off. Just looked up some stats. I don't see Samoa anywhere near the top for EV adoption.

      Does it really fucking matter what Samoa is saying when we still have people believing that EV adoption will ultimately become some planet-saving factor? You act as if we've got a global nuclear reactor network laying in wait to power all that EV charging infrastructure that hasn't even broken ground yet in order to prove how quickly they burn themselves to the ground. No nuclear? OK. Do the fucking math for once, 'cause the Peloton in the corner ain't gonna cut it. Solar will keep up about as well as

      • Wake up dude.

        Half the people dont care about the green solution, they just love EVs coz they are BETTER than the crap ICE cars.
        Engines/Transmissions/Fuel lines/Injectors/Pumps/Filters.... all that crap needs twice yearly check ups and oil changes etc...
        Dang... even new $200k ferraris still have trans issues and can die easily after 30k miles.

        Reminder, mechanical computers got replaces by digital electric + battery years ago.

        ICE cars suck except super heavy trucks/tankers/industrial Vs

        • Nah, people mostly buy EVs so they can pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for doing something mildly good for the environment. Huge government discounts also have much also to do with their adoption.

          As for EV superiour reliability, stats show otherwise. A recent report states that EV's have almost twice as much problems as gas vehicles even though EVs have less moving parts.
          https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/evs-have-79-more-reliability-problems-than-gas-cars-says-consumer-reports/ [arstechnica.com]

          • Thanks for the pointer to that article... I hadn't read that... I've owned (plenty of) gas cars, one PHEV, and two BEVs... I feel like I have some experience with them...

            The survey they did misses the mark slightly for me:

            including minor stuff like trim rattling

            I guess I'd like to know the weighting of stuff like this... I'm less concerned if trim is rattling, than I am about whether the car is able to transport me to work and back. And some of it is indeed surprising (and makes me wonder about the validity of at least the headline)... For instan

    • Re:Maybe .. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Monday December 11, 2023 @04:26PM (#64074275)

      Maybe Cedric should go f*** right off. Just looked up some stats. I don't see Samoa anywhere near the top for EV adoption.

      In the first place, Samoa has a population under 250,000. To put that in perspective, they're a sovereign state with fewer people than the city of Cincinnati. In the second place, they have a per-capita GDP of of less than $6,000. So no, "EV adoption" ain't gonna be much of a thing in Samoa - not that it matters, with such a tiny population. Thirdly, this is a matter of survival for them. And finally, a very strong case can me made that they are truly insignificant contributors to the global warming that threatens their existence.

      So maybe you should go f*** right off.

      • No. If they are concerned about AGW, and they should be, then They also need to do major cuts. They are not big like China and can run around stealing from other nations.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          No. If they are concerned about AGW, and they should be, then They also need to do major cuts.

          Since they have a GNP of about five thousand dollars per person, I'm not sure how "major" the cuts you're thinking of can be.

          But here's a suggestion for them: they should show how important carbon emissions are by banning all automobile travel for distances farther than 100 miles away, and make people take a train instead. They can then ask other nations to match their sacrifice.

          There aren't any railroads in Samoa, so you'd think this might be a problem, but since you can't drive a hundred miles in Samoa

          • If Americans reduced our per-capita CO2 emissions by 90%, we would still be emitting more per person than Samoa currently does.

            1.3 tons vs 14.4 tons per capital annually.

          • But here's a suggestion for them: they should show how important carbon emissions are by banning all automobile travel for distances farther than 100 miles away, and make people take a train instead.

            I can imagine how that could play out. I'm sure someone can fill in the details but there was a place that banned cars carrying only a single person on some stretch of road to encourage car pooling. What happened was that woman would hire themselves out as passengers so businessmen could take the drive "alone" without getting hassled by any law enforcement for driving without passengers. These women would often have to care for small children and so they'd travel in the car too. Now, the horrific part o

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by XXongo ( 3986865 )

              But here's a suggestion for them: they should show how important carbon emissions are by banning all automobile travel for distances farther than 100 miles away, and make people take a train instead.

              I can imagine how that could play out.

              It would play out trivially. There aren't any destinations 100 miles away you can get to by car in Samoa; the main island is only 40 miles across.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Zurk ( 37028 )

        oh wait...so if we dont pass these cuts they will be underwater and extinct by 2050 and wont complain as much ? sounds like a win-win to me.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        In the first place if the people MOST impacted by potential climate change won't do anything to help the situation other than demand others give up their lifestyles - than its obviously not really important to them.

        As long as they are doing nothing, than our plans to address, adapt, combat climate change etc - should not consider them at all.

    • The largest island in Samoa is less than 40 miles long on its longest axis. What do you think their overall saturation with non-EVs looks like?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      Just looked up some stats. I don't see Samoa anywhere near the top for EV adoption.

      The main island of Samoa is about 40 miles across. I don't think adopting EVs is going to be a big issue one way or another.

    • I think burning coal for power generation and using internal combustion engines fueled by gasoline (petrol) and diesel fuel could be gone by 2040, replaced improved forms of solar power and possibly Generation IV nuclear power and by 400 and 800 volt batteries with advanced battery chemistry that can be charged to full power in under 8 minutes (or even less by 2040) for motor vehicles. Getting rid of the immediate effects of exhaust emissions from coal-fired power plants and exhaust emissions from ICE cars

  • Just make empty promises... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KirbyCombat ( 1142225 ) on Monday December 11, 2023 @03:36PM (#64074135)

    "We commit to zero fossil fuel production by 2060". Bing, there ya go. Job done.

    Just like everything else at COP28.

    • Remember, if they said it with their fingers crossed...

    • If you look at the current text:

      "reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, so as to achieve net zero by, before or around 2050, in keeping with the science."

      that's already totally empty, there's pretty much every single get-out-of-jail-free you can think of in that one sentence.

  • Do as I say, not as I do (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Monday December 11, 2023 @03:38PM (#64074143)

    Iâ(TM)m assuming the quoted individual and everyone attending except for the plebes got to the summit on individual private planes and drove around the city in armored hummers driven by someone that actually pays income taxes.

    John Kerry, the US climate czar is the top individual consumer of oil compared to anyone working in government, emitting 1000x more carbon annually than your average American to fly around talking about climate change.

  • Cutting production is just OPEC B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday December 11, 2023 @03:41PM (#64074159)
    to raise prices. COP 28 is called that because it's the 28th time they've done this. It's a joke and it's been a joke for ages. Your social betters aren't going to fix climate change for you. It doesn't affect them. They're so far above us all on the totem pole. Fixing this means we have to stop turning to the wealthy for leadership. We need to stop turning to "leaders" all together and work together to fix it by putting capable administrators in charge instead of random rich guy born to money # 1001.

  • It's impossible... (Score:3)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Monday December 11, 2023 @03:45PM (#64074171)

    ...to convince a person that a true statement is in fact true if their fame, fortune or social status depends on it being false

  • Holding climate talks in Dubai is laughable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sydin ( 2598829 ) on Monday December 11, 2023 @03:54PM (#64074195)

    It's like holding a mass intervention run by and located in the favorite bar of all the alcoholics, and the bar owner spends the whole session sipping a martini and complaining that it's unfair to attack his sale of alcohol as the source of everybody's alcoholism. Has the bones of a decent sketch comedy bit I guess, but it's nowhere close to a serious attempt at solving a serious problem.

    • Re:Holding climate talks in Dubai is laughable (Score:4, Funny)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday December 11, 2023 @04:10PM (#64074241) Homepage Journal

      It's like holding a mass intervention run by and located in the favorite bar of all the alcoholics, and the bar owner spends the whole session sipping a martini and complaining that it's unfair to attack his sale of alcohol as the source of everybody's alcoholism. Has the bones of a decent sketch comedy bit I guess, but it's nowhere close to a serious attempt at solving a serious problem.

      Eh.....

      Rehab is for quitters.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HBI ( 10338492 )

        There's actually a phenomeon at AA meetings called a 'drunkalogue' where people talk endlessly about how great it was to drink.

        Walk in on that and you wonder why someone isn't cracking open a fifth at that very moment.

        • There's actually a phenomeon at AA meetings called a 'drunkalogue' where people talk endlessly about how great it was to drink.

          Walk in on that and you wonder why someone isn't cracking open a fifth at that very moment.

          JFC - so much for quitting drinking!

          I'd rather keep drinking and enjoy my life than live 10 years more but wishing I was drinking the whole time...

  • Right now, far left continues to kill nuclear plant and replace with a little Wind/PV backed by coal/nat gas. Insanity.

    Instead, build new power plants with dual thermal source inputs. Simply modify the steam generator by adding 2 coils. Start the plant with nat gas, and then add SMR(s) as they become available. With this approach, the plant starts generating electricity before adding nuclear, but is left with nat gas as backup for when reactor(s) is down. In time, replace the nat gas with fusion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That's just building more gas plants. SMRs will never reach economic viability and the plant will run on gas for its entire life.

      I have a better idea. Build some battery storage and wind turbines, and if by some miracle SMRs become available, you can add them later. You could even build the cooling pool and use it as a swimming pool until the reactors are ready.

      • Nuclear is already cheaper than Wind/PV. Why do I say that? Because you never include the FULL COSTS of Wind/PV, storage, and fossil fuel backup.
        WIth what I am pushing, it will enable Nuclear to get started, and then Nat Gas is used as backup UNTIL fusion, like Helion, comes on-line and replaces the nat gas. Then we just allow the fast reactors that burn up the fissionable fuel to finish up and shut them down.

    • This is because the ability to expand wind and solar at speed far exceeds that of nuclear, particularly as we are in a period where both wind and solar are getting cheaper, more capable and more applicable very rapidly.

      The idea that we can "simply" do anything with nuclear is really a non-starter. The cost of the turbines is small compared to the reactors, so you would save little cash with the route you are suggesting, and add a great deal of complexity; this is especially if you are depending on SMRs as t

      • Not even close. Assuming that the far left is blocked for being able to stop nuclear buildouts, by 2035, nuclear will be added at a faster pace than Wind/PV can be. And cheaper.

  • With those two out of the picture, I don't think any addtional cuts will be necessary.

    • You mean replacing Jet-A with sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)? Large ships for transport and for cruise ships are already phasing out the use of bunker fuel in favor of burning compressed natural gas, which is much easier to deal with the exhaust emissions.

  • I dunno... seems more honest than paying lip service to a goal nobody intends to meet.

  • Totally ineffectual gatherings (Score:3)

    by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @05:58AM (#64075593)

    None of these gatherings have accomplished any change in the growth of CO2 emissions. They have been totally ineffectual. From Paris on. Just look up the global total of emissions and plot the COP dates on them. No effects whatever.

    Its time to accept the fact that outside a small circle of the political classes in the English speaking countries, maybe Germany too, no-one believes there is any climate crisis, and no-one has any intention of reducing their emissions. They pay a sort of vague lip service to the idea, but China, India, Indonesia etc have no intention of reducing their emissions.

    There's a reason for this. Suppose we concede there is a climate crisis, and that Net Zero in electricity generation is a reasonable response to it. That's a big concession, considering how little of total emissions are due to electricity generation, but still, concede it and then ask whether its practical.

    The UK is the canary on this. Their plan is to move everyone to heat pumps for heating and to EVs for transport. This will roughly double electricity demand, maybe triple. At the same time they are intending moving all electricity generation to wind and solar. That means, in the winter months, wind. The Royal Society has estimated what this will require by way of storage. It is huge, they proposed excavating 900 caverns, sealing them, and using them to store hydrogen. They have gone back some decades and discovered that the UK (northwest Europe actually) has periodic season long wind droughts. So the amount of storage to deal with intermittency of wind is huge.

    At the same time as they phase out gas in favor of heat pumps they are talking about piloting something else with hydrogen, that is converting the gas grid to hydrogen. There is a proposal at the moment to do pilots on a couple of medium sized cities.

    No-one knows where they are going to get all this hydrogen. The fantasy is that you install enough wind to not only supply normal demand, but also surplus to generate hydrogen to fill all the caverns.

    Then there is the amount of work needed to make the gas grid, and the home pipework, safe to handle the hydrogen. Then there is the fact that you are doing all this work at the same time as you plan on eliminating demand for the gas because of the heat pump program.

    These are not stupid people. The fact that they are only managing to come up with hare-brained proposals containing lots of impossibilities and inconsistencies is very striking. Any observer looking at their floundering around has to conclude that its not going to happen.

    This is not lost on China, India etc. They obviously do not believe there is any climate emergency. But they certainly are watching the UK and other Western countries in what they privately see as idiotic attempts to combat an imaginary problem, and what they see is that it isn't happening. That you just cannot take emissions down with the measures being proposed. That you cannot run countries on electricity from wind and solar. That, as the Royal Society pointed out, you cannot afford or install enough batteries to deal with intermittency.

    They have no intention of even trying. So they come to the conferences, they pay lip service to the idea of a crisis, and then, when it comes to discussing emission reductions, they water down or veto. This has been going on ever since Paris and it shows fair to keep on going on for the indefinite future. Since the non-Western countries are accounting for 75% of emissions and almost all the growth, the conclusion is inescapable.

    Have all the conferences you want. Emissions will not be affected and will continue to rise. Get used to it. And if you think this is going to produce a climate crisis, well, act to protect your people. Because nothing you can do is going to lower emissions. 30+years of trying have failed. Its time to admit it and act accordingly.

    • calm down greta

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Close