UN Passes Climate Change Motion After Marshall Islands Drops Fossil Fuels Focus (reuters.com) 13
The U.N. Human Rights Council passed a motion on climate change and human rights by consensus Tuesday after the Marshall Islands withdrew a divisive amendment calling for states to recommit to a fossil fuel phase-out. The motion calls on countries "to contribute to the global efforts" against climate change and follows the council's 2021 recognition of access to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right.
Oil-producing countries including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had voiced opposition to the original fossil fuel phrasing during negotiations. Instead, the final motion referenced "the imperative of defossilizing our economies" in a footnote, allowing passage without a vote where the outcome had been uncertain.
Oil-producing countries including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had voiced opposition to the original fossil fuel phrasing during negotiations. Instead, the final motion referenced "the imperative of defossilizing our economies" in a footnote, allowing passage without a vote where the outcome had been uncertain.
Marshall Islands (Score:4, Informative)
I think they are one of the first countries expected to disappear with rising ocean levels.
Re: (Score:2)
And this action proves that they don't want to revert to the 17th century, trading only via sailing ships.
Maybe the Marshal Islands should go nuclear (Score:1)
instead.
What? Too soon? [wikipedia.org]
Re: Maybe the Marshal Islands should go nuclear (Score:1)
No shit. That's also why it's called an MRI scanner and not an NMRI scanner. Because the "N" is bad and scary.
Re: (Score:2)
This great conflation of fission power generation with nuclear weapons is the reason the only realistic solution to climate change is sitting on a dusty shelf.
Historically, any given nation's level of interest in the former has been strongly correlated with their desire to develop the latter. It's been means to an end.
the fossil-fuel giants are running the world (Score:2)
But we already knew that.
Re: (Score:1)
Basically, showing that the fossil-fuel giants are running the show.
But we already knew that.
As I recall from modern history classes at university, and some reading on my own time, there was Thatcher in UK and Reagan in the USA trying to reduce the influence of the "fossil fuel giants" by increasing the use of nuclear power as an alternative. They had very limited success in that, mostly they just kept the nuclear power industry from going backwards.
As this was not only a time of fossil fuel interests having increasing influence on American and British economies but also the Cold War there was a c
No construction [Re:the fossil-fuel giants are...] (Score:2)
As I recall from modern history classes at university, and some reading on my own time, there was Thatcher in UK and Reagan in the USA trying to reduce the influence of the "fossil fuel giants" by increasing the use of nuclear power as an alternative.
Not sure where you get your information, but no, Reagan did absolutely nothing to increase the use of nuclear power. The opposite, in fact. No new construction permits for nuclear power plants were approved in the twelve years of the Reagan and Bush administrations.
He may have talked positive about nuclear power, but what he actually did was: nothing.
Had to be watered down first (Score:2)
The UN was willing to commit to the motion, so long as the members didn't have to commit to actually doing anything.
Re: (Score:1)
The United Nations is a largely worthless organization. They do some good things like setting standards for telephones, mail, passports, and so on but that's pretty basic stuff that's difficult to screw up. When it comes to anything with the slightest of controversy things can go off the rails quickly because tiny little dictatorships have an equal vote among nations that have some semblance of freedoms and economic influence.
The UN should perhaps have a bicameral system like the US Congress, one house ha