Cop Summits 'No Longer Fit For Purpose', Say Leading Climate Policy Experts 37
An anonymous reader shares a report: Future UN climate summits should be held only in countries that can show clear support for climate action and have stricter rules on fossil fuel lobbying, according to a group of influential climate policy experts. The group includes former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, the former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, the former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and the prominent climate scientist Johan Rockstrom.
They have written to the UN demanding the current complex process of annual "conferences of the parties" under the UN framework convention on climate change -- the Paris agreement's parent treaty -- be streamlined, and meetings held more frequently, with more of a voice given to developing countries. "It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation," they wrote.
They have written to the UN demanding the current complex process of annual "conferences of the parties" under the UN framework convention on climate change -- the Paris agreement's parent treaty -- be streamlined, and meetings held more frequently, with more of a voice given to developing countries. "It is now clear that the Cop is no longer fit for purpose. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation," they wrote.
Never was "fit" for purpose (Score:1, Insightful)
It's purely a political junket. Cruise ships throw out less garbage than these people
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We need a shift from negotiation to implementation
Yeah, I'm hearing "We are done negotiating with you pleebs. Time for some force." Trouble is, you cannot just stomp poor folks with fuel taxes without getting your throat cut at the polls or hung from a lamppost. How about some better ideas and better technology instead of better coercion and trash talking?
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's always the same rub. "We got rich by polluting a lot and doing it the cheap way. But uh, we don't want pollution now that you're rich, so you poor people can't do the same thing we did because pollution bad."
It's like anything else, hollywood, you name. "I did X to get what I wanted, but uh, now that I'm rich, having to do X is bad and needs to be stopped and I'm a victim" but the same people, just like these same countries, if they had to go back to where they were, they would pollute or do X aga
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's always the same rub. "We got rich by polluting a lot and doing it the cheap way. But uh, we don't want pollution now that you're rich, so you poor people can't do the same thing we did because pollution bad."
It's even worse than that. What we're saying is "We emit 13 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person annually, but the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is too much, so you can't do the same thing."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes exactly this!
Re: (Score:1)
They can still do it, their ability to trade will just become worse as time goes on.
Just like Europeans and their colonies perfected slavery and mostly ended it, so must happen for pollution. It's not fair, but it's better than the alternative.
Re:Never was "fit" for purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
Womp womp. Africa's slave trade was created by Africa by Africans who enslaved other Africans, the original slaves were Europeans or slavics, ergo, slaves. They sold Africans to other people in the world. That ol big ol slave trade everyone knows about. Pretty bold to try and say Europeans perfected it, history would disagree with you.
Slavery still goes on in Africa today. That hissing sound is the sound of your deflating moral highground.
You're kind of leaving something out (Score:1)
While the rest of the world was coming to terms with how horrible the institution of slavery was United States was full steam ahead.
And it is extremely likely we are going to become a slave state again. We are not going to deport those illegal immigrants. The ruling class wants that cheap labor and if you think they're going to let it go you're just being silly.
On the other hand th
Re: (Score:1)
The Constitution of the United States has an explicit exemption for using prisoners as slaves.
I hope you weren't thinking of this!
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Slavery 2.0, babe
Re: (Score:2)
You're leaving out the Saharan trade. What made the Saharan slave trade so horrific and cruel was:
-- its length of time - about 1500 years
-- its scale - twenty or so million people
-- the death rate across the Sahara, huge
-- the practice of genital mutilation of slaves on the way
You've also left out the North African states that ran slave raids on Cornwall and on merchant ships as late as the early 1800s, until the British and US sent in gunboats.
The people who abolished both the trans-Atlantic slave trade
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more like lamenting Douglas Adams point when he said:
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
When I was a teenager, some friends and I worked out a way, involving salt water and a super-soaker, to get free sodas out of vending machines. We never got caught, crushed, or electrocuted and got a lot of free sodas. But even if it were possible with today's vending machines, I wo
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really comparable since we're talking about people living in poverty, and extreme riches.
If you were poor right now, and your super soaker and alt water trick, as dangerous as it was would make you rich and raise you out of poverty, a lot of people would still take the chance.
It's just much more common when you're successful and it won't impact you that the moral compass suddenly comes out, and something isn't right. In the case of people, they will absolutely say they regret it, it shouldn't of ha
Re: (Score:2)
There is better technology. The entrenched interests are very keen you don't get it.
Re: (Score:1)
If they were serious, COP summits would be military centric, planning on invading and conquering countries that emit too much CO2.
There is no way that they'll achieve their goals without military force.
Re: (Score:2)
They SHOULD sink the top 16 mega cargo ships which emit as much as ALL cars on earth. Better yet, have nuclear powered replacements that the rich nations run... or rent.
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest you read this:
https://www.oldsaltblog.com/20... [oldsaltblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you read this: https://www.oldsaltblog.com/20... [oldsaltblog.com]
+1 Informative ... if I had Mod points
Re: Never was "fit" for purpose (Score:2)
During the Covid-19 pandemics there was a marked improvement in global climate-harming emissions.
hint, hint /s
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, if they want to shut down the economy like that again, they're going to have to use way more force than they did before.
Re: Never was "fit" for purpose (Score:2)
And there's no way to power a military force on unicorn farts and pixie dust. So we're right back to the square one, just like with the "land acknowledgements" that still seem to be a thing: give it back or shut the fuck up.
I was with them from the start, but (Score:2)
If the CoP summits are no longer fit for the purpose, why would we want them to be more frequent?
Re: (Score:2)
I was with them starting with the headline "Cop Summits 'No Longer Fit For Purpose'... but they lost me when I got to the last paragraph, with demanding that "meetings more frequently."
If the CoP summits are no longer fit for the purpose, why would we want them to be more frequent?
All the attendees have to get together more frequently to discuss how they will cutback or cut out these meetings.
It was dumb to start with (Score:3, Informative)
You don't go to a mobster's table to discuss how best to eliminate corruption just because the mobster has expertise on the subject.
Discussion of climate issues hosted by someone fundamentally opposed to fixing anything is beyond stupid.
It's about 100 years past the best time to have achieved broad recognition of the issue. We're a century further invested in the source of the problem now, and well, well past the point where we should waste time on people fighting for the status quo.
Translation (Score:1)
Let's translate what's really being said in the summary:
If you're trying to make money, you can't be at a UN climate summit.
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly you can try to help, or you can try to make money. But if you're trying to make money by helping then you're not really helping.
Soulless minions of mediocrity! (Score:2)
In addition ... (Score:2)
Or, you know ... they could just Zoom from home.
Azerbaijan! Wow. (Score:1)
The gift from God + Echo chamber (Score:2)
They asked a country to host the event. The host said that fossil fuels are a gift from God and that they can't be blamed for simply bringing oil to the market. So now the Cop management wants to only allow countries "supporting the cause" to host in the future. That's selective and discriminative. If you don't want to hear contrary or unpopular opinions, why bother asking for input in the first place? Go back to your echo chamber. Just don't be surprised when others don't follow your lead.