COP28 Nations Agree for First Time To Transition Away From Fossil Fuels (wsj.com) 74
More than 190 governments at the United Nations climate conference approved an agreement Wednesday calling for the world to transition away from fossil fuels, an accord that bridged differences between big energy-producing nations and countries that want to completely phase out coal, oil and natural gas. From a report: The deal, the result of all-night talks, calls for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner." It says the shift to clean energy for the global economy should accelerate this decade with the aim of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Scientists say that is crucial to fulfilling the Paris accord, the landmark climate agreement that calls for governments to attempt to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures. The deal marks the first time a U.N. climate agreement has called for governments to cut back on all fossil fuels.
Scientists say that is crucial to fulfilling the Paris accord, the landmark climate agreement that calls for governments to attempt to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures. The deal marks the first time a U.N. climate agreement has called for governments to cut back on all fossil fuels.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
This is huge. Most were lamenting that the COP was hosted by UAE and so many oil-lobbyists, but maybe that was what was needed.
I just hope this "compromise" wasn't just giving all our money to oil nations, and allowing them to continue to dominate us in other ways.
The cynical voices are shouting loudly in my head, but hopefully this will guide decision-makers for the coming times.
Re:Wow (Score:4)
Likewise, I'm very cynical about this too. However, the Paris Accord may set an example here. It wasn't legally binding, but yet many countries (ie. the state itself and the people within it) use it as an aspirational goal, and any deviation from that goal is seen by many inside and out of the detracting country to be a problem.
My point is, right now, any country saying "we're not going to bother with the Paris accord" tends to get short shrift from their own people and other countries. It's been tried by the USA, and it didn't go nearly as well as hoped.
My cynicism on this one specifically is that there was never a way to be carbon neutral by 2050 without doing this. Since many countries were already saying they were heading in that direction, they were going to have to phase out fossil fuels anyway, so all this does is put that intention into writing. However, given the resistance from the oil producing countries to even uttering those words, this feels like it's maybe a small step forward.
The problem now becomes actually living up to these vague promises. Like the Paris accord, it's easier said than done, and some people will feel like they're losing out. Politicians don't like that sort of thing, and so things get watered down and pushed out and whatever else.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
"My point is, right now, any country saying "we're not going to bother with the Paris accord" tends to get short shrift from their own people and other countries. It's been tried by the USA, and it didn't go nearly as well as hoped."
Wrong. Dead wrong.
No-one in China is making any noises about Paris or COP, no-one will, and no other countries are making any reproaching noises at China. China and India and the world outside of the West don't care one way or the other about CO2 emissions. Their people and their political classes do not believe in the climate crisis. They are all going to go on their way.
While making sure that COPs never sign up to any hard reductions or anything binding.
Read the wording of the COP resolution. Its just like all the other meetings, except this one took 100,000 people to all get together and agree nothing of any significance. But they are all looking forward to the next one.
None of these gatherings have had any effect on the trend or amount of global emissions, and none will. Its time to get real about this. If the present trends will produce a crisis, get ready to deal with it, because if they will, its certain to hit.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
I think you are wrong about China.
China's vehicle emissions regulations 6B exceed the EURO 6 European regulations.
China curtailed permits for ICE cars to the extent that if you are buy a car but it might take 2 years to get a permit. You have to wait for an ICE car to be taken off the road.
Chinese built EV car production is ramping up and is likely to dominate the world's auto-manufacturers. Already, over 50% of new cars are BEV.
Solar and wind installations are rapidly increasing in China. Nuclear power stations are also being built.
I agree that China also builds coal fired power stations.
I think China is a leader rather than a laggard.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
China's also been setting efficiency standards for industrial equipment. They started phasing in efficiency standards for electric lift motors and electric motors used in factories around 2014. With vehicles, it's pretty obvious they're way ahead of the rest of the world on electric vehicle adoption, whether that's for climate change or just local air quality concerns. All the major cities are phasing in electric buses, you almost never see a scooter that isn't electric, electric trucks for doing the last mile delivery from warehouses to businesses and from businesses to customers are common, and there are lots of electric cars on the road. Emissions per capita are still way lower than the west.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
I agree that China also builds coal fired power stations.
I think China is a leader rather than a laggard.
They're a leader in pollution, and yes, they are still building coal plants [energyandcleanair.org] at a disturbing rate.
If they want to be leaders in pollution reduction they're going to have to stop being the leaders in increasing pollution.
Re: (Score:1)
You think they couldn't have just not installed any wind or solar and put all that money into coal?
If they want to be leaders in pollution reduction they're going to have to stop being the leaders in increasing pollution.
China installed more wind than the entire rest of the world.
China installed more solar in 1 year than America has, ever.
Why do you think they did this if they aren
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita? Try per country. The climate doesn't give a rebate for more people. China's current rate of CO2 emissions exceeds that of every other country. China overtook the USA in 2006, and the runner up, India, only emitted a fifth compared to each of these two. China emits more than twice now and its emissions are growing faster than any other country's emissions. Even cumulative, China has surpassed every other country but the USA, and will become the number one global CO2 polluter in all of history in
Re: (Score:3)
China's emissions are set to peak in the next couple of years, and then fall. They agreed 2030 at Paris, but are 5 years ahead.
Coal is to help with grid stability while they ramp up storage, and old plants are being closed faster than new ones are being built.
If we all did add much as China, we would be in a much better position.
Re: (Score:3)
World emissions have gone up, not down, since the Paris Accords. Even if every nation met their Paris Accords targets, we'd still hit ~2.5C. With only a handful of minor countries like Bhutan even hitting their targets, we're on track for >3C warming. About a third of the Earth's land area is uninhabitable by humans during pre-industrial times. That will rise to somewhere between three-fifths to two-thirds uninhabitable by 2.5C. The ecarrying capacity of the Earth is dropping at the same time the populat
Re: (Score:2)
My mother was actually working for a large domestic energy company when they were trying to develop the American system of reporting methane emissions. She was literally writing the training program for it. About a year into the project, everyone involved in measuring it all came to three conclusions: 1) so much methane was leaking out of every part of the system, they had no real way of measuring it. 2) There was no real way of measuring how much natural gas was leaking out of the bed itself due to drillin
Is it huge though? (Score:2)
It's only huge if the 190 governments all made the agreement in good faith, with sincere, specific intentions to do the hard lifting necessary.
If the majority of those countries paid lip service to it, it's just another Accord, worth about as much (and perhaps less) than the paper it's printed on.
Re: Wow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's not an ironclad agreement, it means nothing. This means nothing.
Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
If it's not an ironclad agreement, it means nothing. This means nothing.
This.
Guinness would recognize a legitimate world record for the amount of pinky swears and crossed fingers represented in a single room when this claim was collectively "agreed" to.
Re: (Score:2)
Guinness would recognize a legitimate world record for the amount of pinky swears and crossed fingers represented in a single room when this claim was collectively "agreed" to.
Because the 'agreement" dealt only with fossil fuel used for energy, it lets the 70,000+ atttendees of COP28 get back in their private aircraft and fly home, self-righteously secure that they've done all they could to protect the planet from the debbil greenhouse gas CO2...
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrite airlines. The only way to fly and choke out an emission summit.
Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's not an ironclad agreement, it means nothing. This means nothing.
There is no timeline in the "agreement." It's like agreeing to transition away from fossil fuels in the next thousand years, except that the COP28 agreement is less aggressive. The agreement would have been just as effective if it had called for the formation of a committee.
In fact, it's worse than that. The main takeaway is that oil-producing nations can be leaders in managing climate change. That's a PR win for OPEC.
Re: (Score:2)
Which was the point of the whole conference.
Huzzah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's call this a great breakthrough and wrap up the whole shitshow, until next time when we try to continue to reach important breakthrough to bugger all.
Seriously, anyone still thinking that this is more than a thinly disguised reason for politicians to have a vacation on our expense? Nobody ever wondered why those summits are held in really awesome tourist areas instead of Slimeville, the cesspit central of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, a few other places give it a run for its money, but ... yeah, it's still holding up that title pretty well.
This changes nothing (Score:5)
Besides from having 97372 (more or less) persons, including "observers" from the various environmental activism organizations around the world, flying to Dubai, this changes nothing.
If your country wants to "completely phase out coal, oil and natural gas", just do it.
Is there a country out there that does NOT want to move to renewable energy in the long term?
We need cheap, available technology to support this transition, and it better not be based on unobtainium like it appears to be from the agreements.
Even my country, Norway, said "we should do more!". Well, nothing is stopping us from doing more. But I don't exactly see us investing endless amounts of money into technology that can give us income post-oil either.. so where does that leave us?
I also feel people are focusing too much on only fuel. We also use oil for plastic. Why are we still using plastic? Where are the alternatives?
The most exciting thing I have tried myself are Chitin straws, which are must better than these silly paper straws.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
(disclaimer: at home we use glass straws)
Re:This changes nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
>nothing is stopping us from doing more
If it's not a universal effort, whoever does not participate gains a significant energy (and thus economic) advantage and not every country out there would just be happy to not exploit that advantage.
Knowing that, nobody wants to be first to unilaterally weaken their economy. Beyond that, all the powerful people involved are heavily dependent on the existing system, and they're not going to let their governments change the game on them without a fight.
It is incredibly stupid at the species level, but kind of predictable at smaller scales.
Re:This changes nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
We sell oil because someone wants to buy oil, and our future pensions are based on the fact that we have sold (and continue to sell) oil. Without oil and no alternative to oil, we will revert back to a poor country.
Cut the demand for oil and we will sell less oil.
If we sell less, then others will just sell more to fill the gap, as long as there is a need.
And it's not like oil is cheap at close to $100/barrel. OPEC is doing it's best to keep oil prices up. The alternatives should be flourishing.
Perhaps we need to get the price up to $200/barrel to add some incentive. But of course, that will also lead to more expensive flights..
Re: (Score:3)
Without oil and no alternative to oil, we will revert back to a poor country.
Without oil, Norway will revert back to the income level of Sweden and Denmark.
Re: (Score:2)
Without oil and no alternative to oil, we will revert back to a poor country.
Without oil, Norway will revert back to the income level of Sweden and Denmark.
Except without that sovereign wealth fund that is now worth $200K per citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
>there are a number of conflicting factoids that continue to appear in online discussions, i.e. one can read that renewables are the cheapest form of energy; but above, sticking with fossil fuel gives a country a significant advantage if other countries rush to renewables; but also, oil actually isn't cheap.
Because it's (a lot) more complicated than a single number and you're not going to reduce the argument to a handful of sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, here in the southern hemisphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a country out there that does NOT want to move to renewable energy in the long term?
You mean other than the multi-billionaires selling oil to a planet?
Is there a reason you're even asking that question? I mean other than the complete lack of infrastructure to support alternatives, along with the warmongering and bloodshed that will be required to harvest (read steal) the metric fucktons of rare-earth materials required to feed every current solution.
Even my country, Norway, said "we should do more!". Well, nothing is stopping us from doing more. But I don't exactly see us investing endless amounts of money into technology that can give us income post-oil either.. so where does that leave us?
It leaves us in the same place humanity has been for thousands of years; trying to find a cure for the Disease of Greed. Without one, we'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a country out there that does NOT want to move to renewable energy in the long term?
You mean aside of the Middle East?
Let's be honest, nobody would give a flying fuck about the sentiments of their imaginary friend if it wasn't for them holding our economy hostage. You think if North Korean Juche caused as much trouble as their favorite delusion we would not turn it into a glass desert?
Re: (Score:2)
It is also an exporter of electricity, and yes oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway gets about 90% of its electricity from hydro power. In 2022 its production of hydro power was 23.3 MWh per capita, making it the largest hydropower procing country per capita in the world by far. It is also an exporter of electricity, and yes oil.
Yes Norway is extremely gifted in having both vast hydro and oil resources. They are not a model for pretty much anywhere else in the world not possessing such exceptional geological benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. This is about making sure THE OTHER GUY phases out oil and gas.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm going to invest in sweaters and blankets because those commodities are going to be worth a lot more soon!
Buckle up, going to be a "fun" ride! (Score:2)
These agreements, as we've seen for the last 19 years, aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Emissions have nearly doubled since then.
In 1995, we were at around 0.5c, now we're at 1.1c - doubled in 19 years.
At this rate, we're headed for above 2c by 2040.
Must be fun to be a climate sceptic - I really wish I could be - but just the anecdotal evidence is so palpably obvious, the weather, dammit.
"But this is just the natural cycle of things"
"Yes, but over thousands and tens of thousands of years, not 250"
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
Re: (Score:2)
From 1995 to 2015 emissions increased by about 33% (not 100%), but since then have about leveled off
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an... [carbonbrief.org]
Interesting, but the "leveling off" is probably due to the global economic slowdown due to COVID-19 lockdowns not yet completely reversed.
Will be useful to see another year of data to see if the "leveling off" continues.
UN talkers are all talk (Score:2)
The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no way politics is going to solve this. The only hope is that science and technology will find a way to maintain our standard of living that is so ridiculously cheaper and better than fossil fuels that nobody will want to keep using them. No, not nukes. Cheaper and better.
Re: (Score:1)
The only hope is that science and technology will find a way to maintain our standard of living that is so ridiculously cheaper and better than fossil fuels
Science and technology have already done that and aren't the problem. The problems are politics and greed. We already know how to achieve that goal, we simply aren't doing it because the deciders would make less money.
Re: (Score:2)
We already know how to achieve that goal, we simply aren't doing it because the deciders would make less money.
No we don't, not by even the wildest imagination. Firstly, because ecological consequences of deploying enough renewables as they exist today and doing enough Li extraction to make batteries to run it all would worse than climate change, for pretty much everyone except maybe those places that are most immediately threatened.
Secondly it requires a massive amount of capital investment, capital that simply isn't available, not even if the western world decided to commit economic Seppuku to fund projects in se
Re: The only hope (Score:2)
Blah blah blah excuses blah blah blah.
We already know how to reduce our consumption and pollution dramatically. For example, force companies work significant sales to produce maintainable rather than disposable products, spend money on efficiency retrofits instead of expansion, quash return to office mandates, spend money subsidizing efficient mediums of travel like rail instead of automobiles, there are tons of ways in which we are already spending money in negative ways which could be redirected to positi
Re: (Score:2)
You completely missed the point. As long as you have to do something that you don't want to do because it's expensive or annoying, you can do that and reduce your fossil fuel consumption, but then someone else will use what you're not using, because fossil fuels are still the most attractive source of lifestyle improvements. This problem will only be solved if fossil fuels become as naturally unattractive as a floppy disk in a world with flash memory.
Re: The only hope (Score:2)
You don't. You said I missed the point while missing the point. Pay attention.
Re:The only hope (Score:4, Informative)
We already know how to achieve that goal, we simply aren't doing it because the deciders would make less money.
No we don't, not by even the wildest imagination. Firstly, because ecological consequences of deploying enough renewables as they exist today and doing enough Li extraction to make batteries to run it all would worse than climate change,
No. I don't know why people keep saying that. Lithium is not all that rare or hard to refine. (If it were, we would switch to sodium batteries). There is a temporary bottleneck in production because demand ramped up faster than supply, but really lithium's no big deal.
for pretty much everyone except maybe those places that are most immediately threatened. Secondly it requires a massive amount of capital investment, capital that simply isn't available,
The world spends six trillion dollars on energy per year. Yes, capital is available.
not even if the western world decided to commit economic Seppuku to fund projects in second and third world, let alone get themselves fully of oil and gas. Its only politics and greed if greed is defined as - I don't want live my life in a cramped and uncomfortable cold cell, and eat ground bugs for dinner every night.
This "they want us to eat bugs for dinner!" thing seems to be a favorite slashdot meme. It's about as relevant to the real world as "Cowboy Neal will solve our problems", although not as funny.
Fewer people [Re:All this effort...] (Score:4, Interesting)
to doggedly avoid facing the obvious solution. Fewer. Humans. Everything comes down to the sheer volume of excess human biomass.
So, we need to improve access to birth control.
This will imply also working to remove government laws restricting access to birth control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Best way to do that is through providing better education and rights for women, but right-wing parties are adamantly against those happening and they are unfortunately rising in popularity
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Corn, they are going to use corn. GMO will save the world and I'm going to be a F***er.
Re:Plastics? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still waiting to hear what they're going to replace plastics with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't plastics made from fossil fuels.
Sigh. I get annoyed having to keep explaining this over and over. The climate problem comes from burning fossil fuels. Oil used as the raw material to make plastics is not the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. I get annoyed having to keep explaining this over and over. The climate problem comes from burning fossil fuels. Oil used as the raw material to make plastics is not the problem.
Sigh. I get annoyed having to keep explaining this over and over. The part of the oil* that makes the fuels is different from the part of the oil that makes the plastic. In making one, you also make the other.
We have already developed plastics based on plant sources. For instance, algae [sciencedirect.com], which can be grown in polluted water and actually make is cleaner.
You CAN make plastic out of (nearly) every part of the barrel of oil, but it's not efficient so that's not what happens..
* indeed the plastics are in part ma
Let's let them initiate it for us. (Score:2)
Let's let them initiate it for us....no more jet fuel and no more bunker fuel.
Sweden and their 5 percent electrical cars (Score:2)
In Sweden they have 5 percent pure electric cars. And according to some grand EU plan there will be no new Fossil fueled ICE cars legally sold new by 2035, and certain areas in Stockholm has banned those by 2030, yeah... good luck with that.
Don't get me wrong, I drive electrical too, but for entirely different (kinda egostic reasons, I got it cheap because no one wanted it, and my old car sold within half a week), no one wants eletric cars here, in fact it's kind of an "you're an enviromentalist muppet here
Re: Sweden and their 5 percent electrical cars (Score:2)
New BEVs in Sweden 2023 is roughly 125k and 40% of the market. That is 2.5% fleet replacement and this is expected to double by 2027.
However as more buy electric fewer will want to stop at a gas station -> mass dismantling of pumps -> more buying BEVs. So by 2030 we might have a couple of years with 500k new BEVs each year.
Re: (Score:2)
I predict differently.
Charging takes time, even with fast charging this can take from 15 minutes (small batteries) to 45 minutes (large batteries).
This means you'll have to do what Gas stations usually does, build an entire experience around the stations, such as restaurants, shopping malls, stores, entertainment etc, otherwise you won't get people to hang out there for that long + it's a different and better way to increase potential sales and "hub" points where people can stop, socialize and recharge thei
Re: Sweden and their 5 percent electrical cars (Score:2)
Well, in practice this is only relevant if you are on a roadtrip.
Manwhile have fun driving 20 minutes to the pump and then the same back to refill your gas car. ðY(TM)
For those who want to know the real actions (Score:2)
Tell me how you plan to get there. (Score:1)
If someone claims to want to lose weight by the end of the year but can't give at least some plan on how they expect to reach that goal then expect them to fail. Likewise I expect these agreements on being rid of fossil fuels to go nowhere without some plans on how it will be done.
I have a few questions on what they expect to do to free themselves from fossil fuels by 2050. How are your cargo ships going to be powered? Will they run on nuclear power? Or will we see the return of the "windjammer"? ( For
If the three biggest oil producers agreed (Score:2)
Fortunately, renewables are getting cheaper all the time and market forces will ultimately force fossil fuel producers to evolve into petrochemical companies or simply obsolete.