Cop28 Deal Will Fail Unless Rich Countries Quit Fossil Fuels, Says Climate Negotiator 184
The credibility of the Cop28 agreement to "transition away" from fossil fuels rides on the world's biggest historical polluters like the US, UK and Canada rethinking current plans to expand oil and gas production, according to the climate negotiator representing 135 developing countries. The Guardian: In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Pedro Pedroso, the outgoing president of the G77 plus China bloc of developing countries, warned that the landmark deal made at last year's climate talks in Dubai risked failing. "We achieved some important outcomes at Cop28 but the challenge now is how we translate the deal into meaningful action for the people," Pedroso said. "As we speak, unless we lie to ourselves, none of the major developed countries, who are the most important historical emitters, have policies that are moving away from fossil fuels, on the contrary, they are expanding," said Pedroso.
These countries must also deliver adequate finance for poorer nations to transition -and adapt to the climate crisis. In Dubai, Sultan Al Jaber, Cop28 president and chief of the Emirates national oil company, was subject to widespread scrutiny -- understandable given that the UAE is the world's seventh biggest oil producer with the fifth largest gas reserves. Yet the US was by far the biggest oil and gas producer in the world last year -- setting a new record, during a year that was the hottest ever recorded. The US, UK, Canada, Australia and Norway account for 51% of the total planned oil and gas expansion by 2050, according to research by Oil Change International. "It's very easy to label some emerging economies, especially the Gulf states, as climate villains, but this is very unfair by countries with historic responsibilities -- who keep trying to scapegoat and deviate the attention away from themselves. Just look at US fossil fuel plans and the UK's new drilling licenses for the North Sea, and Canada which has never met any of its emission reduction goals, not once," said Pedroso, a Cuban diplomat.
These countries must also deliver adequate finance for poorer nations to transition -and adapt to the climate crisis. In Dubai, Sultan Al Jaber, Cop28 president and chief of the Emirates national oil company, was subject to widespread scrutiny -- understandable given that the UAE is the world's seventh biggest oil producer with the fifth largest gas reserves. Yet the US was by far the biggest oil and gas producer in the world last year -- setting a new record, during a year that was the hottest ever recorded. The US, UK, Canada, Australia and Norway account for 51% of the total planned oil and gas expansion by 2050, according to research by Oil Change International. "It's very easy to label some emerging economies, especially the Gulf states, as climate villains, but this is very unfair by countries with historic responsibilities -- who keep trying to scapegoat and deviate the attention away from themselves. Just look at US fossil fuel plans and the UK's new drilling licenses for the North Sea, and Canada which has never met any of its emission reduction goals, not once," said Pedroso, a Cuban diplomat.
Nobody cares about the COP-out conferences (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nobody cares about the COP-out conferences (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know they are total bullshit anyways, they are just an excuse for governments to do nothing, why bother covering political lip service and hot air?!?
Now, now. It's not an excuse to do nothing. It's an excuse to get together with their peers on the world stage, put on some airs about how much they care about the little people, share some spectacular food, likely some more spectacular entertainment, complain and grumble about the little people fucking up their utopia, then fly home and talk about how much good they're doing for the world.
But it's cool. They'll sell a few more carbon credits to make up for the fact we're still increasing our reliance on fossil fuels. The biosphere really respects our idea of gamifying and monetizing its demise.
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop with the extravagance; you're gonna make me want to attend a Climate Summit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would you suggest instead? World leaders NOT discussing pressing climate issues?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no...BUT, instead of everyone flying to one location, they could all just Skype or Teams the conference.
That way they talk, and keep their carbon footprint small.
The could show they practice what they preach.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Generously assuming this conference required 3000 commercial jet flights (probably way less),
that is 3000 out of 30 million commercial flights per year, or 0.0001 of annual jet flights.
Excellent point. By that logic there's certainly no reason for me to do anything at all in my life to curb carbon emissions, because my contribution is statistically zero when looking at global emissions as a whole.
Anyway, the issue is (also) perception. When you're trying to convince Joe Blow to take the bus instead of drive, and he sees these fat cats in top hats and monocles riding around on private jets smoking cigars and drinking their brandy, it's a hard sell.
Get some perspective. Be numerate.
Never miss the chance to follow up your ar
Re: (Score:2)
So, 30% down, at the cost of 1/5000 % up for the conference emissions.
You starting to see how math works, when sensibly applied to real situations.
People who whine about the emissions of the conference (and thus say such confer
Re: (Score:2)
You starting to see how math works, when sensibly applied to real situations.
You starting to see that belittling people you're having a conversation with is counterproductive?
You didn't just have reveal some fact that nobody had thought of before. We can comprehend that the population of the earth is large, and the number of politicians traveling to Madrid is relatively small.
Such conferences are the only way that global agreements that COULD lead to significant rapid change
Oh yes, the only possible way. Huh. Zoom? It's not as good as in-person, but please, if folks actually wanted to make progress on the issues they could over video conference. The rest of the world did it for 2
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to get another perspective: my natural gas furnace, gas stove, SUV, F-250, boat, snowmobiles, jet-skis, propane BBQ, and sport car will produce less GHG emissions in my lifetime than the emissions from one highfalutin "elite" taking their private jet on one overseas trip. And I'm just a normal guy-those elites have all my toys x 10. Semi-retarded "How dare you" Greta now owns four properties and 8 cars, and is worth $20M just from looking retarded at retarded protests.
No one should cut their emissions
Re: (Score:2)
Semi-retarded "How dare you" Greta now owns four properties and 8 cars, and is worth $20M just from looking retarded at retarded protests.
[Citation Needed]
Re: Nice idea, but irrelevant (Score:2)
Yeah well Canada as a whole is even less than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Any country interested in reducing their CO2 footprint can start tomorrow without anyone else's permission. The problem with these conferences is that they pay lipservice to the idea of non-compliant countries being forced to compromise their own sovereignty to do things that their own people might not be inclined to do.
In the end leaders (well elected ones anyway) do what they must to remain in power, which may mean ignoring agreements reached at these conferences.
Re: (Score:2)
They could, but they aren't. Sometimes it takes discussions like these to set goals to give them the incentives. At least the leaders can point to that when they push legislation locally
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't help that much. We real changes, not just symbolic ones like having a few elites talk over Zoom instead of flying.
Re: Nobody cares about the COP-out conferences (Score:2)
Well, the COP conferences have neither, so fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that most countries pass legislation as a result of the conferences. Sure they don't meet their targets, and the legislative action falls short, but the reality is governments are spending money as a result of discussions in the COP conferences.
Or did you miss the fact that the USA invested $3bn in a climate fund as a direct and immediate response to the previous COP meeting, and let me guess, you never read the Inflation Reduction Act and think any alignment to the
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that most countries pass legislation as a result of the conferences....
Blah, blah, blah, you're literally just repeating the same hot-air and toady-ing the gov't line.
Call me when those things actually accomplish something other than allowing government boot-lickers to say: "look we tried!"
Republicans ...
LOL I'm Canadian, not that it's any of your business, but I usually vote Green, and have never voted Conservative
Swing and a miss their buddy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
J'accuse!
Re: (Score:2)
Except big things have changed as a result. Just because the problem requires eating a whole elephant doesn't mean you complain when you've only eaten the leg.
Tremendous progress has been made. [statista.com] It is a very large problem however.
Alternatives to fossil fuels? (Score:2)
I can only think of one: synthetic hydrocarbons. Too bad the politicians drank the EVida o Muerte! koolaid and we're not any closer now than ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the engineering miracle of atmospheric carbon capture eventually gets solved and the synthesis process can be scaled up, the
Re: (Score:2)
the most optimistic cost estimate I've seen for a synthetic fuel equivalent to gasoline is $2/liter (~$8/ US gallon). That estimate comes from Porsche e-fuel development
I'd be willing to pay effectively double for e-fuel. It is either that or keep burning fossil gasoline because I have zero interest in a BEV.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.caranddriver.com/n... [caranddriver.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The technology to make synthetic fuels works fine. The problem is that they're just not anywhere close to being economically competitive with old fashioned dino juice.
Certainly, some folks complain they can't do their 300 mile daily commute while towing a trailer in an EV, and while that may be a real limitation, it's still an edge case. The vast majority of American motorists have a commute that can be handled just fine by an EV and the edge cases might end up with some first hand experience of exactly h
Re: Alternatives to fossil fuels? (Score:2)
I don't buy a car for average use, I buy it to cover my foreseeable uses, including a couple of 300 mile trips per year in cold weather with a car full of kids and luggage.
A 40% reduction in range cuz it's cold *and* a 3x or more slowdown in charge times isn't an edge case, it's a deal breaker that just plain fails the laugh test.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy a car for average use, I buy it to cover my foreseeable uses, including a couple of 300 mile trips per year in cold weather with a car full of kids and luggage.
A 40% reduction in range cuz it's cold *and* a 3x or more slowdown in charge times isn't an edge case, it's a deal breaker that just plain fails the laugh test.
Precisely.
If people bought cars for their average drive then we would not see BEVs getting high marks for their range on a single charge. Why have a Tesla with a 350+ mile range when the drive to and from work is 60 miles? Maybe there's an unexpected detour because of an accident, or a desire to deviate from the usual path to get some pizza and an bottle of wine, so assume 75 miles is sufficient range. With the GM EV1 getting 75 miles on a single charge on lead-acid batteries 25 years ago you'd think we'
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, I think a greater diversity in fuel choices is great. No single thing is going to replace petroleum, it's going to be a combination and synthetic fuels may be a small part of that equation. The question is: how much are you willing to pay per gallon every day for that ext
While we could be doing more (Score:5, Insightful)
While we could be doing more in the first world generally our global warming contributing emissions have been on the decline. What's frightening is that these reductions are being completely overshadowed by increases in emissions from the third world.
Yes it's not fair that third world countries are being asked to not do what first world countries did to become wealthy but the thing is, global warming doesn't care about fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: "third world" should read "third and second world" in all instances.
Re:While we could be doing more (Score:5, Informative)
Correction: "third world" should read "third and second world" in all instances.
Correction: "Developed nations" and "underdeveloped nations" 1st, 2nd, 3rd are references to political blocks of the Cold War, not economic development status.
Re: (Score:2)
1st, 2nd, 3rd are references to political blocks of the Cold War, not economic development status.
Not true. The terms were updated a couple of decades ago to reflect changes in the world. First and third still mean roughly the same thing but second is now "developing" countries which are countries like Brazil and Turkey. They are basically wealth categories at this point with 1st world being the wealthiest and third being the poorest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, Wikipedia's second world entry doesnt include the terms updated definition. It is however referenced in the first and third world entries.
Re: (Score:2)
1st, 2nd, 3rd are references to political blocks of the Cold War, not economic development status.
Not true. The terms were updated a couple of decades ago to reflect changes in the world.
No the terms were misused. It was a foolish redefinition and as it still maintains a political orientation as your references show. A "capitalist economy" is not required to be a developed nation. The "update" is injecting this false requirement in an attempt to maintain similarity to the original political definition. It fails to characterize with respect to development.
Hence the modern use of "developed", "underdeveloped" and "undeveloped" to purely refer to economic condition. With respect to climate
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the modern use of "developed", "underdeveloped" and "undeveloped" to purely refer to economic condition.
For most people that is first, second, and third world respectively, anyone elses definition notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the modern use of "developed", "underdeveloped" and "undeveloped" to purely refer to economic condition.
For most people that is first, second, and third world respectively, anyone elses definition notwithstanding.
Your citations say otherwise. They admit there is confusion over the modern redefinition of 1st, 2nd and 3rd world. Of the various definitions mentioned, the one you picked, changed the meaning of referring to "developed", etc. Your chosen definition added the erroneous political requirement of "democratic". That requirement is there only to make the new categorization of nations more similar to the old Cold War era categorization.
As for "most" people, no, "1st", etc has been frowned on in academia and g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's not fair that third world countries are being asked to not do what first world countries did to become wealthy...
Hold on. There aren't any countries left that the third world can loot, exploit and steal from...
They gonna invade Alpha Centauri?
Re:While we could be doing more (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes it's not fair that third world countries are being asked to not do what first world countries did to become wealthy but the thing is, global warming doesn't care about fair.
This is indeed the crux of the matter. How do we solve the problem without telling the third world "well, we got rich by burning fossil fuels (and we're still burning billions of tons of fossil fuels), but you can't do the same because it will kill the climate."?
What's your solution?
MY solution would be to develop and deploy low-emission technologies here, so we can tell them "that was then, but here is better tech that we are using now."
Re: (Score:2)
MY solution would be to develop and deploy low-emission technologies here, so we can tell them "that was then, but here is better tech that we are using now."
Isn't your solution what we're already doing?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't your solution what we're already doing?
Not really.
We basically had a low-emission technology 50 years ago (nuclear), but we told third world countries "nah, it's not good enough for you". And now we are trying to sell them solar/wind, even though we can't even make a single countr-wide electricity grid decarbonized with it.
Leading by example is hard, and we are failing at it. I am not talking about emissions reduction, but about actual emissions per capita. Yes, global warming doesn't care about per capita, but in the same way, it also doesn't c
Re: (Score:2)
Telling developing nations that the only option is incredibly expensive and dangerous nuclear power will only lead to more coal.
It's got to be renewables, they are the only thing cheaper than coal. Yeah, if you include external costs of coal... But nobody does.
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't leading when we are emitting 10 times (or more) per capita than the typical underdeveloped country.
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita is attempting to excuse bad behavior with overpopulation. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Re: (Score:2)
This is indeed the crux of the matter. How do we solve the problem without telling the third world "well, we got rich by burning fossil fuels (and we're still burning billions of tons of fossil fuels), but you can't do the same because it will kill the climate."?
Simple, climate change is universal, it respects no borders not economic development status. However those with lower economic development will suffer more since they have fewer resources to respond with.
In short, if you do nothing you will feel far greater pain than the developed nations. If you cooperate you will feel less pain.
What's your solution?
MY solution would be to develop and deploy low-emission technologies here, so we can tell them "that was then, but here is better tech that we are using now."
Stop using coal, use natural gas would be a match. As would use solar and other renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Natgas is almost as bad as coal if you take into account the collateral CO2 emissions (leaks during extractions, leaks during transport, energy used to liquefy it for transportation...).
There are only two proven ways to make a decarbonized electricity grid:
- 100% hydropower: but you have to live in a country with the right geological features, and low population count
- a mix of nuclear/hydro/solar/wind/storage
Re: (Score:2)
Natgas is almost as bad as coal if you take into account the collateral CO2 emissions (leaks during extractions, leaks during transport, energy used to liquefy it for transportation...).
No, nat gas is far better than coal. It is a far better choice to backup or fill gaps.
There are only two proven ways to make a decarbonized electricity grid
That is the long term goal. The medium goal is to reduce emissions. Displacing coal with nat gas reduces emissions, Keep in mind China is building new coal plants, they should be nat gas.
a mix of nuclear/hydro/solar/wind/storage
Again, that's the ultimate goal but we also need a bridge until the preceding can handle it all. And that bridge until then is nat gas.
Re: (Score:2)
what you're claiming about natural gas isn't even close to true
Coal to nat gas results in over 40% less CO2.
"Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fossil fuel Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distill
Re: (Score:2)
THEIR solution is no not give a shit what you think and do it anyway. The decision for many is quite literally life or death.
If you don't want them to do it, you will have to pay them not to do it. The financial incentive will come eventually; the smart move is to find it early.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bullshit rationalized stance in the first place.
There are a host of things we "grow out of" societally that nobody considers offering a grandfather rule.
At the end of the civil war, did we say "previous southern economies flourished because of slavery, so we have to let slavery continue for a while"?
Generations of men beat their wives, we disallowed that but we should let some people keep doing it?
No, the very idea is a stupid flaring of patronizing white guilt because deep down we (rightly) recogniz
Re: (Score:2)
Contraception in the drinking water in the third world. Problem solved.
Not necessary. Demographics has shown that it's sufficient to give people access to birth control. Availability is enough. You don't need to force it on unwilling (and even unknowing) people.
US/EU greenwashing their stats using China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For starters China isnt at all the entirety of the second and third world almost all of which is seeing rising emissions.
After that, even if we massively narrow the conversation to just China the outflow of manufacturing to China from first world countries is more or less over, there's still plenty of it but it's not significantly increasing anymore. Chinese emissions on the other hand keep going up so your point doesnt really explain away their current emission increases nor recent first world decreases.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters China isnt at all the entirety of the second and third world almost all of which is seeing rising emissions.
Irrelevant, it is the major polluter and its is doing so in a large part to manufacture for the US/EU.
After that, even if we massively narrow the conversation to just China the outflow of manufacturing to China from first world countries is more or less over ...
It's irrelevant when it happened. This simple truth of now is that it has been done and we are falsely attributing pollution to China which is created due to demand by the US and EU. We have moved the pollution externalities to foreign shores and are playing games with the statistics to greenwash ourselves., China's pollution would still be problematic, but far less, if it were not serving this demand for t
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you but with >1.4 billion people in china with a modern lifestyle, the vast majority of their production is for internal use.
Straw man. That does not prevent them from displacing coaling with anything cleaner, including nat gas.
Its also irrelevant, it does not change the fact that the US and EU are "offshoring" the pollution to falsely greenwash US and EU stats.
You need to include China on your "to blame" list when you call out countries. They don't get a get-out-jail-free pass any longer.
You spout nonense. How does accusing the US and EU of greenwashing their stats through the "offshoring" of pollution blame China? It seems the US and EU are far greater targets for criticism there. Though China does absolutely deserve blame for being the #1 polluter, in
Re: (Score:2)
While we could be doing more in the first world generally our global warming contributing emissions have been on the decline. What's frightening is that these reductions are being completely overshadowed by increases in emissions from the third world.
Except it's not. First world emissions aren't falling nearly remotely as much as they need to, and as much shit as you heap on the third world their emissions per capita are still, despite their increase, and despite the first world decrease, a fraction of that of many first world countries.
The climate doesn't care where emissions come from, but everyone can recognise a self important arsehole who got his and thinks the solution is to prevent others from having a better life.
Re: (Score:2)
While we could be doing more in the first world generally our global warming contributing emissions have been on the decline. What's frightening is that these reductions are being completely overshadowed by increases in emissions from the third world.
Yes it's not fair that third world countries are being asked to not do what first world countries did to become wealthy but the thing is, global warming doesn't care about fair.
I do agree that global warming doesn't care about fairness. However, let me present a thought experiment here.
While the superrich could be doing more regarding emissions from private jets, generally, our global warming-contributing emissions have been on the decline (private jets are a lot more efficient today). What's frightening is that these reductions are being completely overshadowed by increases in emissions from normal people taking flights (in 1950, for instance, it was quite common for normal peopl
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes it's not fair that third world countries are being asked to not do what first world countries did to become wealthy but the thing is, global warming doesn't care about fair.
It's the third world countries that don't care about being asked to do things the hard and expensive way, so they're not going to. Never mind that they couldn't in the first place. The factor of climate falls out of the equation as irrelevant. I contend that no human being is realistically making personal decisions based on the
Tesla and the Dinosaurs Fault (Score:5, Funny)
If Tesla had never invented electricity and the dinosaurs had never died to create oil, we wouldn't be at this crossroads.
--
"Merciless is the law of nature, and rapidly and irresistibly we are drawn to our doom." - Nikola Tesla
How? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely correct. Hobbling energy use to switch to alternatives only works in a hegemonic world, which is not the one we have, or one we are likely to get going along that path.
It's the same thing with 'international law'. It only exists as long as someone is strong enough to be the policeman.
I'd like some of what you are smoking (Score:2)
The country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is so weak it's not a threat to anyone?
Stopped reading after that.
Re: (Score:2)
While it isn't worth a practical test to confirm, it seems pretty likely most of Russia's nuclear arsenal is useless. It's too expensive to properly maintain with their economy, and given how unlikely it is to be used, a really tempting target for redirecting funds if you happen to be in the right place with the right authority.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a thin reed to depend on. Some will work. Enough will get through that the failure rate is meaningless.
Some Russians have said the same thing about the US arsenal re: recent Minuteman III problems. They are real, but do you really believe you'd stake your country's existence on purported problems with an opposing nuclear arsenal?
Tell it to Ukrainians, Moldovans, Georgians... (Score:2)
Russia is a threat to almost everyone around...
Unless we all help Ukraine win - Moldovans, Georgians are in danger.
Then you have huge Russian minorities in Central Asia or Baltics...
Re: (Score:2)
Cop28 deal will fail (Score:3, Insightful)
Rich countries ... (Score:3)
These countries must also deliver adequate finance for poorer nations to transition
Re:Rich countries ... (Score:5, Insightful)
[Rich countries] ... are free market economies
No. There aren't any rich countries that are pure free-market economies, although some of the very poor ones, like Somalia, come close. (There aren't any countries that are pure socialist economies either).
All of the rich countries have hybrid economies.
Re: (Score:2)
Generaly agreed.
But if you take into account money supply manipulation. aka FIAT money "printing".
None of the economies are free markets.
In a free market, you wouldnt have price manipulation from increase in money supply and thus reduction in purchasing power.
Re: (Score:2)
No form of government is "pure". Although it is interesting to note that people living under the most tribal or totalitarian states naturally migrate toward free markets. Even if they are black markets. I suppose that's an argument for keeping governments small and ineffectual. All the better to keep them out of the market manipulation business as a matter of policy than to introduce friction into the natural economic system that society will have to fight against.
Money Grab (Score:2)
How is the UK And Canada 2 of the 3 biggest historical polluters?. I smell some per capita BS going on.
"These countries must also deliver adequate finance for poorer nations to transition". Here we go.
Population increase should be taken into account.. (Score:2)
Rich countries should not pay for the population increase of poor thanks to improvements delivered by rich countries...
per capita - OK - but we should pick 1750 as base year...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Money Grab (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems people think of simplistic responses to real world problems and think that they are viable without even fully understanding the problems.
This, as others have pointed out, this is a global issue, we all have to do our part. That means whilst my country is a big part of the issue, we have to focus on what we can do, rather than point at others, and if we did that, then maybe those others would do their part too? But the USA is only in charge of the USA, so pointing at others is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
My resentment of the money grab in the past has mellowed. Using inefficient alternative energy as opposed to the fossilized stuff has a cost associated with it; if we expect them to do so they need to be paid.
Unfortunately, this equation makes no sense in the modern environment where the West is in retreat. We don't have the capability to finance the rest of the world's energy use.
It's not "rich countries"... (Score:2)
...it's poor people
Someone with little money, who lives far from work because housing is cheaper, needs gas to get to work
High gas prices can be a life threatening problem
To them, talk of reducing gas production is terrifying and they will vote for anybody who promises to lower gas prices
Rich people can afford alternatives, like EVs
Re: (Score:2)
The underlying assumptions are always the same (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Rich should limit, Poor should control births... (Score:2)
I am for global CO2/person quota...
However number of persons assigned to country should be by preindustrial levels...
Poor countries benefitted from industrial revolution by vastly increased populations...
Rich by increase in population and increase in consumption...
Rich should limit consumption, Poor should limit fertility...
He's such a lying weasel (Score:2, Interesting)
Emissions in the US are down and in China are way up and he knows it. He also knows any "deal" China agrees to is worthless.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023... [foreignpolicy.com]
"In April 2021, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to “strictly control coal-fired power generation projects” in China. Since then, government permits for new coal power plants have soared. According to analysis of Global Energy Monitor data, in the two years before Xi’s pledge, the government approved 127 plants, collectively capab
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
China is 5 years ahead of its agreed climate goal, and in the first 3 quarters of last year they installed more solar than the US has in its entire history.
If China can do it, so can we.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The agreement was EU peak in 2030. They are due to peak in 2025, maybe even this year. Peak means that they will be falling after that. Probably a lot faster than any other major economy.
COP28 was about reducing oil use?! (Score:2)
Just sayin, (Score:2)
I don't think the world economic equivalent of a Mario Kart blue shell is gonna work. It doesn't help the stragglers; it just hurts the leaders; there is no alignment.
Well (Score:2)
New on CBS... (Score:2)
HIstorical Polluters. (Score:2)
Assuming this means CO2 emmissions...
Percentage of all co2 emissions worldwide:
China 29.18% ...
United States 14.02%
Canada 1.89%
I suppose you can call us one of the biggest historical polluters, but you have to go to the mostly invalid metric of "per capita" to get there. And the world's climate does not give a rats ass how many people you counted in accumulating your country's co2 total.
But China IS a developed country....! (Score:2)
UK is pushing return to office (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, consider China developed and accountable (Score:2)
But nobody is talking about China.
Not even remotely true. Every single time fossil fuel emissions goals are brought up, somebody here on /. jumps in to shout "we don't gotta do nuttin; blame it on China"!
"Not even remotely true" well describes your post as well.
References to China are overwhelmingly really saying we aren't going to reach goals while we maintain this fiction that China is not part of the developed world and therefore should be immune from various emissions goals. In short, the US and EU export industrial pollution to China to greenwash our national stats for public consumption.
Until China is held to high standards for emissions reduction, like the US and EU, an agreement or accord is j
Re: (Score:2)
while we maintain this fiction that China is not part of the developed world and therefore should be immune from various emissions goals.
They have emission goals, and actual plans to reach them. Just read their pluriannual plan. The good news is that they tend to actually meet their goals (a side-effect of being a slight dictatorship/planned economy), and that those goals mean they will peak below the US emissions.
They are also doing more to reduce their emissions than other countries:
- basically fueling the renewables transition (most solar panels are manufactured there, and most wind turbines parts too)
- deploying more renewables than the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
while we maintain this fiction that China is not part of the developed world and therefore should be immune from various emissions goals.
They have emission goals, and actual plans to reach them.
Irrelevant, if we are going to have international accords they need to be accountable like the rest of the developed nations.
and that those goals mean they will peak below the US emissions.
The constructions of new coal plants suggests reality is otherwise.
You might ask "but why are they also building new coal plants then"? Because they replace old ones (the new ones being more efficient)
Nat Gas would be even less polluting. They are continuing to use coal because they have a lot of it and are not held accountable. Not being treated as a developing nation gives them political cover for this.
and most importantly because they don't want to sacrifice their quality of life improvements, especially when they see that Western countries, which themselves benefit from a much better quality of life, don't want either (hello Germany, how is that coal/lignite burning going?).
Being held accountable as the rest of the developed world would not impact quality of life, as it does not really do so in the developed world. The exemption they unfairly receive does nothing more than keep exports to the US and EU cheap. Again, there is more greenwashing going on than real environmentalism.
Re: No, consider China developed and accountable (Score:2)
Beyond the blame game that always come up when talking about China (and probably soon to be India) related to global warming, per capita versus absolute emissions, etc., recognize that lack of action in underdeveloped nations is just a natural way to greenwash the emissions of developed nations. The tighter standards get in the US and Europe the bigger the financial incentive to do that same work in Asia, especially as cost relates to the price of energy.
The way to solve that is a carbon tarrif at the borde
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is almost 100% hydro. They don't need nuclear, they just need to stop selling oil to everyone else.