Every year we are treated to weeks or months of increasingly shrill reports in the mainstream media about the climate crisis, climate chaos (and latterly in the Guardian, even climate carnage) in the run-up to the annual jamboree known as the Conference of the Parties (COP). While COPs are ongoing, the propaganda is relentless. One of the main themes, of course, is that time is running out to “save the planet” (and with it ourselves, and life on earth generally). As Jit pointed out in The Highway to Climate Hell the General Secretary of the United Nations, António Guterres kicked proceedings off this year by telling us that the world is on the road to climate hell:

The clock is ticking,” he tells the audience. “We are in the fight of our lives and we are losing. Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing, global temperatures keep rising, and our planet is fast approaching the tipping point that will make climate chaos irreversible. We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.

Now, assuming that he’s right (an heroic assumption) surely all of the climate-concerned attending, or commenting on, COP27 will speak with one voice. All will be absolutely committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, come what may, no ifs, no buts. Yeah, right.

First up, we find the BBC reporting on apologists for developing countries with their ever-increasing emissions. It begins in apocalyptic mode:

Emissions of CO2 are rising so quickly there is now a 50% chance the world will cross a crucial climate change threshold soon, a new report suggests.

And it contains a dig at developed European countries:

And European countries are also turning to dirtier fossil fuels to cope with energy shortages driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Germany is burning more coal this year than last, and the UK has asked energy firms to delay the closure of end-of-life coal plants.

China doesn’t get a mention, which is perhaps strange, given that it is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases by a country mile, is the second-largest cumulative emitter (behind the USA), is growing its emissions, continues to open new coal-fired power stations, and has emissions on a per capita basis that are now 50% higher than those in the UK. However, let’s leave that to one side. India is in the BBC’s sights instead:

India is expected to be the largest contributor to the growth in emissions in 2022 as it continues to increase its use of coal – the most polluting of fossil fuels.

So, naughty India. Or so one might think. However, it has its apologists:

But Dr Kamya Choudhary, India policy fellow at London School of Economics, thinks this is a short-term measure to cope with the ongoing energy crisis.

One of the report’s authors, Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at CICERO, pointed out that even though developing countries like India are increasing their emissions quickly, they are still significantly lower per person than in Europe.

The second statement is no doubt true. The first is an expression of opinion which may well turn out to be wishful thinking. As a UN report established just last year:

As part of the Paris Agreement, India pledged a 33%–35% reduction in the “emissions intensity” of its economy by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.

However, as part of the Atmanirbhar Bharat campaign, the government pledged to become a self-reliant producer of coal and made a plan to invest Rs 500 billion worth of infrastructure for coal extraction.

The plan outlines measures to expand coal production by nearly 60% from 2019 to 2024 (from 730 to 1,149 tonnes), including through the removal of barriers to land acquisition and building capacity for exploration,” says the report, which adds, “India also aims to increase total oil and gas production by over 40% in the same period through measures such as accelerate [sic] exploration licensing, faster monetization of discoveries, and gas marketing reforms.”

Some other measures India has taken to expand production is [sic] to make expenditures and provide tax breaks worth Rs 11.8 billion for the production of fossil fuels. It also estimates that in 2020, India’s “subsidies for coal production totalled INR 17.5 billion (USD 249 million) and those for oil and gas production totalled INR 29.3 billion (USD 417 million).”

The report further notes that India doesn’t have a federal level policy on scaling down production of fossil fuels, or ensuring a just transition into renewable energy.

So, do Indian politicians think that India is at risk from a climate crisis, or don’t they? It’s difficult, reading the above, to conclude that they do. And, going back to the BBC report, it might be unfair to read the comment by Robbie Andrews without knowing the full context in which he made his comment, but it’s difficult to understand why the per capita level of emissions should be relevant if the aim is to reduce emissions to avert a climate crisis. There does seem to be an attempt to blame developed countries while excusing developing ones.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable – one might go so far as to say that it’s their duty – for the leaders of developing countries to demand development rights. Where people are immiserated by poverty, and where development of their fossil fuel wealth might offer a route to a better life, I for one would not seek to stop them. As Idy Niang, head of climate change programme, Department of the Environment, Senegal told the BBC at COP27:

“We just discovered gas and petroleum, and we start exporting it, so we cannot abandon it as we are LDC [Least Developed Country] and need to enforce our economy for development.”

Quite. Yet why should developed countries be asked to pay compensation, for unproven climate damage allegedly caused by greenhouse gas emissions, to countries which are intent on developing their own fossil fuel resources and contributing their own greenhouse gas emissions to the mix?

Allison Pearson, writing in the Telegraph, is rather more forthright than I might be, but it’s still a rollicking good read. Her piece is behind a paywall, but it can be found at Paul Homewood’s website. Her put-down of demands for climate reparations, in the form of an imagined letter to be sent from the UK to Pakistan, is well worth reading. I can’t resist setting out a lengthy extract here:

Apparently, you (and Ed Miliband) think that the terrible floods Pakistan suffered recently are entirely the fault of industrialised Western countries like our own because of historic carbon emissions.

While there may be some truth in that, other experts have suggested that the reason Pakistan experiences such terrible flooding is because you have cut down all your trees. Pakistan has the highest rate of deforestation in the world. When your nation was created in 1947, 33% of the total land mass was covered by forests; now that area is only 5%. Because of the lack of trees, the rain runs straight off the mountains into the silted up reservoirs which then overflow.

In addition, we would like to point out that Pakistan has always had major floods, many just as catastrophic as the recent one. The 1950 flood, for example, killed twice as many people as the 2022 flood within a much lower population. Not every natural disaster can be blamed on the United Kingdom, gratifying and lucrative though that accusation may be.

Pakistan is already one of the UK’s biggest recipients of aid. In 2019/20, you received around £302 million from our heavily indebted country, spanning areas including human development, climate and the environment. Most British people would consider that quite a generous gift to a nation which has its own nuclear weapons and a space programme. Pakistan also has more than a thousand coal mines. We do wonder whether you have any concerns about their impact or was it just British coal mines which caused a problem?

Plus, the present population of Pakistan is 225 million (up from 65 million in 1970) which will inevitably add to pressure on the environment. Sorry, there’s not a whole lot we can do about that.

Meanwhile, President Museveni of Uganda has written an impassioned piece, which appears on the Newsweek website. He makes some very fair points:

Europeans switch their coal-fired plants back on while still demanding fossil-fuel generation remains beyond the pale for Africans…

…We see hundreds of millions of our own citizens without access to electricity. We see climate-compulsive Western investment in African energy funneled into wind and solar that creates intermittent electricity and not the consistent baseload generation required to power factories or produce employment. We see Europeans with jobs made possible by diverse means of electricity production, and Africans with neither…

Now with Europe reinvesting in its own fossil fuel power industry to bring mothballed power plants back online, in a truly perverse twist we are told new Western investment in African fossil fuels is possible—but only for oil and gas resources that will be piped and shipped to Europe. This is the purest hypocrisy.

We will not accept one rule for them and another rule for us. We will not allow African progress to be the victim of Europe’s failure to meet its own climate goals. It is morally bankrupt for Europeans to expect to take Africa’s fossil fuels for their own energy production but refuse to countenance African use of those same fuels for theirs…

…Europe’s failure to meet its climate goals should not be Africa’s problem. But that continent’s determination to write one set of rules for Europeans and a different set for Africans makes it so. It means Europe is complicit in forcing poverty on Africa, and that is not acceptable and will not stand.

Who could disagree with that? Not me. However, I struggle with his demands for “climate compensation” while demanding the right to develop his country’s fossil fuel resources with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions.

Whether it’s the leaders of India or China, or of Senegal and Uganda, one cannot help feeling that the great climate change scare is a means by which they hope to extract finance from the developed world without actually believing in the supposed existential threat. If the threat is existential, nobody should be seeking to develop fossil fuel resources, yet pretty much every country in the world with such resources seeks to find reasons why they should be allowed to do so. Similarly, academics and journalists, writers of reports and campaigners, seek to find reasons why developing countries should be allowed to develop such resources free from blame, while the developed world must both cease using such resources and pay “compensation” for their use to date to those countries who should apparently be free to emit away to their heart’s content.

It doesn’t add up. And it certainly doesn’t sound as though very many of these people really and truly believe in a climate crisis.

19 Comments

  1. “China doesn’t get a mention ….”

    Perhaps because its original INDC was publicly lauded by all Parties at the Paris COP, and its updated INDC reinforced its intention to give itself permission to increase emissions every year to 2030.

    “(II) China’s New Goals for NDCs

    In June 2015, the Chinese government submitted the Enhanced Actions on Climate Change: China’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. China determined its actions to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early; to lower CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level; to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20%; to increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters on the 2005 level; and to take adaptation actions to enhance mechanisms and capacities for effectively defending against climate change risks. Moreover, China proposed 15 categories of policies and measures for enhanced actions on climate change. Since then, China has made significant progress in fulfilling its commitments in an active and pragmatic manner.

    China’s updated NDC goals are as follows: aims to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060; to lower CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by over 65% from the 2005 level, to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 25%, to increase the forest stock volume by 6 billion cubic meters from the 2005 level, and to bring its total installed capacity of wind and solar power to over 1.2 billion kilowatts by 2030.”

    Click to access China’s%20Achievements%2C%20New%20Goals%20and%20New%20Measures%20for%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contributions.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A serf review of global warming, er climate change …climate wierding in 5 fits.

    Fit 1: It’s political. Richard Lindzen illustrates, Christine Figueres states,”Ït was never
    about the Climate.”‘ Those Armageddon predictions have not eventuated and where
    is the Missing Hot Spot?

    Fit 2: The models have failed to match observations, not even close.

    Fit 3: CET long term data demonstrates that the present is not unprecedented.

    Fit 4: Nature can’t be contradictory. It’s been warm, even warmer, before.

    Fit %. Theories other than CO, such as sun and ocean interactions, explaining
    warming exist but are not on the IPCC politicised agenda.

    Two plus two does not equal five.

    Like

  3. The entire global enterprise doesn’t add up. We have entire communities living below a breadline and/or subjected to devastating disasters well above their means of recovering from. Currently many of these disasters are being attributed to climate change in many of its guises. Many are not so related yet commonly are straight-jackedly placed there. Instead of blaming weather, it’s climate that gets the blame.
    What the UN could have done was to set up an agency that catered for all types of disaster and paid from all types of countries – rich and poor. If we had done this the UN would now be a highly respected organisation and not one irretrievably linked with dodgy science.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Alan,

    I am in principle a supporter of the concept of an organisation such as the United Nations. However, it does seem to me that such is the extent to which it has lost the lot (given its monomania regarding climate change) that much good that it might do is simply not happening. Its structure also leaves a lot to be desired, with permanent members of the security council able to wield a veto regarding any resolution they dislike. As the COPs demonstrate, it’s simply an expensive, but impotent, talking shop.

    Like

  5. And speaking of UN failures:

    “Russian oligarchs and companies under sanctions are among lobbyists at Cop27
    The heavy presence of lobbyists from Moscow suggests Russia is using the climate talks to drum up business”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/12/russian-oligarchs-and-companies-under-sanctions-are-among-lobbyists-at-cop27

    Russian oligarchs and executives from multiple companies under international sanctions are among the lobbyists currently attending Cop27 in Sharm el-Sheikh.

    Among those at the pivotal climate talks are the billionaire and former aluminium magnate Oleg Deripaska, who is under UK sanctions, and the billionaire Andrey Melnichenko, the former head of the Russian fertiliser company the EuroChem group, who has been targeted with individual sanctions by the European Union which he disputed, calling them “absurd and nonsensical”.

    The Gas giant Gazprom has sent six delegates to the talks, alongside the managing director of Sberbank. Both are under US and EU sanctions. Representatives from the oil company Lukoil, the mining company Severstal, and Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works are also in attendance, all of which are under US sanctions.

    The Oil and gas company Tatneft, currently sanctioned by the EU, sent three lobbyists to the climate talks, according to data compiled by the organisations Corporate Accountability, Global Witness and Corporate Europe Observatory. The Russian delegation includes the metallurgical companies Severstal and NLMK Group, part of an industry that has faced sanctions by the EU.

    Like

  6. Mark. I also in principle am a supporter, but presumably it was politically doomed from the outset. I was talking about a theoretical UN, one born without all the hanging baggage that bedraggles it today. Born with such aspirations, in so many respects such a failure but not in my view regarding climate. It is not unreasonable to conclude that increased atmospheric CO2 could well cause changes to climates in which case the UN is the ONLY organisation that should be investigating the topic and it’s implications. IM

    Like

  7. Oh Mark. Again I agree the UN is almost purposefully designed to be exploited by the rich and powerful for their own ends. Somehow it still inspires and attracts the worthy. I recon it must be soul destroying to work for,

    Like

  8. I was a science sceptic before 97 before I lived in West Africa
    but then you see the White UN Toyota Land Cruisers poncing about, eating at the best places, living it up whilst hardly doing anything for the countries
    So that made me a UN skeptic
    I’d already seen NGO crap in southern Africa in 92/93

    All that paved the way to moving from Green true believer
    .. to GW skeptic

    Liked by 3 people

  9. “A just transition depends on energy systems that work for everyone”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/12/cop27-dash-for-gas-africa-energy-colonialism

    The west’s dash for African gas has become a rallying point at Cop27, with climate justice activists calling out the hypocrisy of rich polluting nations who are scrambling to keep energy prices down by pushing for more fossil fuel projects in Africa.

    This short-term fix to the energy price crisis created by Russia’s war on Ukraine will lock some of the poorest, most climate-affected countries in the world in polluting fossil fuel projects with few economic or energy benefits for the communities whose land, water and heritage will be sacrificed.

    It has been called out as “energy colonialism” – a political-corporate alliance on display at Cop27. There, more than 630 industry lobbyists are scattered around the conference centre in Sharm el-Sheikh as deals on climate finance, forests and food systems are being made….

    …Across Africa, an estimated 600 million people still lack access to electricity – in large part because most fossil fuel investment is directed toward infrastructure for export rather than downstream power delivery to Africans. But there’s no guarantee that the transition to solar, wind, hydro and geothermal will be just, warns the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, which tracks abuses and conflicts linked to the green energy sector.

    The Lake Turkana windfarm in northern Kenya is built on indigenous territory after 40,000 acres were handed over to a consortium of investors without consulting the Indigenous pastoral communities who have lived and farmed sustainably on the land for hundreds – if not thousands – of years. The wind project, the biggest in Africa, has caused forced migration, conflicts, gender-based violence, water and food insecurity as well as the disruption of cultural and language traditions due to the influx of construction workers.

    Farmers have been forced to move further and further away with their goats, cows and camels in search of grazing lands and water, as the region faces the worst drought in decades.

    “This is not just transition, this is land grabbing,” said John Tingoi, 47, from the Indigenous Movement for Peace Advancement and Conflict Transformation (Impact) in northern Kenya. “If you violate people’s basic rights and the communities have no benefits, it can never be just.”

    Between 2015 and 2021, the Resource Centre recorded 369 attacks linked to renewable energy, including the murder of 98 land and environmental defenders. Most were related to dams, but violence and criminal persecution of activists linked to wind, solar and geothermal projects is rising rapidly.

    None of the world’s 15 largest renewable energy companies have policies on respecting land rights despite wind and solar requiring substantial amounts of land; only a quarter have policies recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples.

    “The renewable energy sector is at risk of replicating the abuses of the profit driven extractive model. If we’re talking about climate but not talking about inequality and human rights, then we’re not talking about a just and sustainable energy transition,” said Jessie Cato, natural resources programme manager at the Resource Centre….

    Is anyone surprised? The idea that Big Green is any less rapacious than Big Oil is a fantasy. It isn’t just Africa that they’re colonising, riding roughshod over the wishes of local inhabitants. Try living in Scotland.

    Like

  10. It would appear that India’s PM Modi definitely doesn’t think there’s a climate crisis:

    “India won’t be transitioning from coal in foreseeable future”

    https://www.livemint.com/industry/energy/no-transition-from-coal-in-foreseeable-future-in-india-pralhad-joshi-11667993667702.html

    India will not be moving away from coal in the foreseeable future as coal demand in the country is yet to peak and it will continue to play an important role in the energy mix , said Union coal minister Pralhad Joshi said at a parliamentary consultative committee meeting.

    “Coal demand in the country is yet to peak and will continue to play an important role in the energy mix till 2040 and beyond. Thus, no transition away from coal is happening in foreseeable future in India,” the minister said.

    Joshi informed the committee members that there is a global thrust on energy transition away from coal. However, for India, coal being an affordable source of energy, holds prime importance for meeting its energy needs being fuelled by rising economy.

    “Coal accounts for more than 51% of country’s primary energy requirement and around 73% of power generation. Also, coal is one of the important ingredients in production of steel, sponge iron, aluminium, cement, paper, bricks etc,” Joshi said.

    Like

  11. The BBC has finally caught up with the Ugandan President’s views:

    “Uganda’s leader condemns West over climate change”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment

    at 14.03 today:

    Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni has accused Western countries of reprehensible double standards when it comes to commitments to stop climate change.

    In a post on social media, Mr Museveni highlighted the partial dismantling of a wind farm in Germany to make way for the expansion of a coal mine.

    He said the move made a mockery of Western commitments towards climate targets.

    The Ugandan leader also said European countries were happy to take Africa’s resources for their own energy needs but were against the development of fossil fuel projects which were for the benefit of Africans.

    Uganda is due to start exporting oil within three years.

    Due to the global energy crisis some European countries have recently decided to increase coal production – a move heavily criticised by climate change activists.

    COP27 doesn’t seem to be going terribly well (mind you, given that greenhouse gas emissions have increased after the previous 26, that’s par for the course).

    Like

  12. “Mozambique ships gas to Europe for first time”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt/natural-gas

    at 11.30 on 13th November:

    Mozambique has started exporting liquefied natural gas for the first time, in a move the country’s President Filipe Nyusi has described as historic…

    …Mozambique hopes to become one of the world’s biggest exporters of natural gas, following its discovery in the northern Cabo Delgado province in 2010….

    …The government believes the discovery of gas will boost the economy…

    And is presumably not at all worried about the impact on “the climate crisis”.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Here’s another country where there is no climate crisis:

    “Who will pay for Indonesia’s clean energy bill?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63619533

    …Projects that have already been approved can go ahead. Facilities which will power essential industries, like the giant mines in eastern Indonesia that supply much of the nickel needed to make batteries for electric cars, can still be constructed.

    And Indonesia will actually produce more coal-fired electricity for several years, before it starts to cut production at the end of the decade. Even then, there is talk of continuing to use coal in other ways, like gasification – converting it to dimethyl ether (DME), a substitute for liquified petroleum gas (LPG).

    This is not yet the great leap forward to Indonesia’s target of net zero emissions by 2060. But they are going as fast as they can, says Luhut Binsar Panjaitan, the co-ordinating minister for maritime affairs and investment, and the country’s lead negotiator on energy transition.

    “We are not going to make any policy that jeopardises the next generation,” he adds. “I have given my negotiating team very clear parameters – anything we do, don’t disturb our economic growth. We have to have affordable clean technology. And we need the right timeline for our economy.”

    Mr Luhut makes the point that Indonesia’s per capita carbon emissions are well below those of the United States, and still below the global average…

    …There are other problems holding Indonesia back.

    It is one of the world’s biggest coal producers, and environmentalists worry that the many vested business interests are limiting the government’s ambitions for a clean energy transition.

    Then there is resistance from the state-owned electricity monopoly PLN. It is in financial difficulties, partly because it’s generating more electricity than is needed after demand fell during the pandemic, and partly because it must sell power to consumers at low prices even as fossil fuel prices soar.

    PLN also has long-term contracts with private contractors to get the new power plants built. Tellingly, it bars businesses and individuals on Bali from sourcing more than 15% of their electricity from solar panels, making that renewable source economically infeasible.

    But perhaps the greatest challenge is that Indonesia’s power stations are so new, unlike those in South Africa, the first country to start negotiating a coal-reduction deal under the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). It brings together richer countries and international financial agencies so they can pay for weaning developing nations away from coal-fuelled power.

    In South Africa, most of the plants listed for decommissioning were near the end of their working lives. But here, because the power stations are new and have been built with borrowed money, decommissioning them will be expensive…

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Mark – read Rahul Raina rant, and wonder, where do they find these people?

    towards the end he says –
    “Meanwhile northern Europe, at least at first, will have its warmest autumns on record. Several thousand fewer people will die from the cold, tourism will boom, and there will be increased potential for crops that were previously considered unsuitable for Britain’s climate.”

    bananas

    Like

  15. “India’s energy conundrum: committed to renewables but still expanding coal”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/15/india-committed-to-clean-energy-but-continues-to-boost-coal-production

    Critics says India’s plans to increase coal production to 1bn tonnes a year are environmentally devastating and unnecessary

    Three days before India’s environment minister boarded a flight to Egypt for this year’s UN climate summit, Cop27, the country’s finance minister was busy with a new announcement.

    “India needs greater investment in coal production,” said Nirmala Sitharaman at the Delhi launch of India’s biggest ever coalmine auction, where 141 new sites for coalmines will be sold off to the highest bidder.

    At a time when the world’s future hinges on a dramatic global reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and global leaders are gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh to try to limit the impact of the climate crisis – with decarbonisation on the agenda – the Indian government is continuing on its biggest ever push for domestic coal production, even toying with the idea of producing so much it could become a future coal exporter.

    This was the sixth, and largest, such auction the Indian government has held since 2020, when it privatised the coal industry. Two-thirds of the 968 sites that are allocated for mines, known as coal blocks, are on untouched land and many sit under India’s most ecologically rich and fragile forests, and rural areas populated by tribal communities that will be destroyed if the new projects go ahead.

    “The worst part is that in order to open up more coal, the government is allowing mining in dense forested areas. Forests are sinks of carbon dioxide so if you are getting new coal to burn by chopping down forests, it’s a double whammy of environmental disaster,” said Sudiep Shrivastava, a lawyer who has fought back against new coal blocks…

    …On the global stage, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, has presented himself as a staunch environmentalist, and speaking at the G20 meeting on Tuesday, Modi said: “India is committed to clean energy and environment.” Yet India has also made no secret of the fact that it will need coal for decades to come, even as it increases its reliance on renewables and moves towards net zero in 2070.

    It was one of the most dramatic moments at the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow last year when India, backed by China, made a last-minute intervention to water down the language of the final agreement, changing the commitment to “phase down” rather than “phase out” coal power. Coal currently accounts for 70% of electricity generation in India, while renewables count for only about 12%.

    At Cop27 this year, the Indian position has been to try to counter the pressure to reduce its continued reliance on coal by pushing for an agreement to phase down all fossil fuels, including gas, which Europe and the US are still heavily dependent on. India’s argument is that it is unfair to single out coal – which is primarily used by developing countries – while other fossil fuels widely used in western countries remain unsanctioned….

    Like

  16. “COP27: Africa’s dash for gas sparks debate at climate summit in Egypt”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-63637686

    Africa’s natural resources are at the heart of a heated debate about how to balance economic growth and tackle global warming.

    At the current COP27 negotiations in Egypt, dubbed by some as the “African COP”, the continent’s leaders are trying to get support and funding to tap into Africa’s vast gas reserves, arguing that gas is less polluting than alternative fossil fuels such as coal and oil. This argument has already been endorsed by the European Union.

    African leaders argue that their countries need to exploit their reserves to help generate electricity and make it available to millions of their people who lack access to the grid. They also want to increase exports to Europe, where many countries are looking for an alternative to Russian gas.

    They argue that Western countries benefitted from dirtier fossil fuels so Africa should not be prevented from exploiting its cleaner natural gas in order to raise living standards on the continent…

    …African officials insist that they have the right to exploit their resources and say their COP27 negotiators have been given the authority to reject any deal that forces them to decarbonise if it jeopardised the continent’s future development.

    Any deal at COP27 should reflect the right of African countries to use their natural gas reserves, Reuters has quoted the president of the African Development Bank, Akinwumi Adesina, as saying…

    It doesn’t sound as though climate change is anywhere near the top of their list of priorities. Which is fair enough. But that being the case, why should it be at the top of ours?

    Like

  17. “‘It was a set-up, we were fooled’: the coal mine that ate an Indian village
    In a pristine forest in central India, the multibillion-dollar mining giant Adani has razed trees – and homes – to dig more coal. How does this kind of destruction get the go-ahead?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/20/india-adani-coal-mine-kete-hasdeo-arand-forest-displaced-villages

    India is the world’s second-largest producer and consumer of coal (after China), and Kete’s story is just like others playing out all across the country. In 1998 it was calculated that more than 2.5 million Indians had been displaced by mining projects since 1950; many, many more will have been displaced in the years since. The coal sector generates about 70% of the country’s annual electricity and employs at least 2.9 million people. While India has pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, it has no plans to phase out coal.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.