‘We will not sign our own death certificate’: COP28 talks on the cusp of failure
smh.com.au
Climate-vulnerable nations’ hopes that the world was on the cusp of an agreement to rapidly phase out the use of fossil fuels at the COP28 climate summit were shattered when a new draft text emerged from negotiations drastically watering down such language.
Australian Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, speaking on behalf of the Umbrella Group of nations, which includes the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and Canada, told the COP that the group could not sign the agreement as it stood.
Maybe not such a great idea to have a literal oil sultan host the event. Bad optics and so on.
Maybe next time don't host it in an oil country.
Oops, next time it's already planned to be hosted in an oil country?
WHAT? Where is the next one planned to take place?
Azerbaijan because Russia vetoed anything else just because they can
I thought Russia vetoed that too?
The game was rigged from the start.
Bunch of BS theater. Look at em acting like theyre doing anything. No country needs the rest of the world to give them permission to address the climate crisis themselves. Get to building renewable energy and taking down fossil fuel companies.
The reason we don't use renewables is that fossil fuels are much cheaper.
If one country goes alone in developing them, they and their citizens pay more for a very marginal benefit.
This is a collective action problem, individual countries acting by themselves aren't going to solve it.
Not processing our waste water through water treatment plants is also cheaper. Our bodies dont care that the toxic water saved us some money, and earth's climate doesnt care about our economy either.
Not processing our waste water leads to very local consequences, which is we process it. Adding to climate change is a global problem, any one country's actions have relatively modest effects. So we don't invest to stop it.
I'm not saying it's a good thing. But it is a serious thing so we should be clear on the causes etc.
They are not cheaper.
I suspect no significant change will occur until wealthy people from wealthy countries are forced to abandon homes in coastal areas, or some similar worldwide phenomenon occurs.
It all comes down to food. Once we have a collapse of global food supply there will be revolts.
It'll be far too late to save global society by then.
If it gets to that point... do we really deserve to be saved?
The wealthy will get government bailouts that they'll use to displace people in some place that's currently safe and rich in resources.
like Florida?
Yes, very much so. And essentially the whole of the US eastern seaboard and a lot of the western seaboard (where it's beach and not cliffs). However, many are second and third homes that people can afford to lose, so I don't know if sea rise provides the proper amount of impetus for change. But I do know some people who have or who are planning to sell waterfront properties in anticipation of possibly being stuck with worthless or non-existent property, so maybe. But they are mostly people for whom the loss while not poverty-inducing, would be a major financial hit.
wealthy cities can build seacoast walls, assuming they're even needed.
Oil-rich Gulf faces prospect of unlivable heat as planet warms
they have indoor ice skating rinks. pretty sure they'll be fine.
Most countries have indoor ice skating rinks. They have a big indoor ski resort.
image
A disease doesn't know or care that it's a disease. If the host is being harmed it's going to naturally fight back. Sorry, E. Coli, you're just not welcome whether or not you've grown accustomed to the host.
The short-term impacts of fugitive methane from oil and gas extraction are horrendous and can outweigh the long-term benefits compared to coal. If we can't even reach an agreement on acknowledging methane as an underreported problem that makes natural gas much worse than it's claimed to be, how can we expect to make any progress towards a resolution phasing out the use of fossil fuels?
American energy production from fossil fuels has risen 40% over the past two decades with the rise of natural gas and it's showing no signs of stopping. China, despite owning the majority of the renewables market, has only managed to build up enough renewables manufacturing capacity to outpace energy demand growth this year. India is still stuck with coal for lack of better options. The EU is literally subsidizing tens of cents per kWh to prop up their economy with coal after the loss of cheap Russian gas. The big players are asleep at the wheel.
Am I reading this right? The two biggest polluters (US & China) came into this with an agreement to a certain approach, yet the final was watered down to nothing?
Then be left behind while the rest move on to save our species. May history remember the oil barons as nearly the worst members of our species to ever consume oxygen
I think you misunderstood the title. Australia will not sign the death certificate of small islands like Samoa. They will suffer heavily if we don't stop with fossil fuels.
If anyone thinks any sort of climate talks involving reduction In oil output anywhere would be successful, I've got bad news for you. I've resigned to the idea that the human species will go back to a medieval type society if not extinct.