My thanks to Robin Guenier for drawing my attention to the prescient words of Bjorn Lomborg written just five days ago, and predicting with uncanny accuracy the outcome of the latest COP farce:

The spectacle of another annual climate conference is ongoing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) until Dec. 12. Like Kabuki theater, performative set pieces lead from one to the other: politicians and celebrities arrive by private jets; speakers predict imminent doom; hectoring nongovernmental organizations cast blame; political negotiations become fraught and inevitably go overtime; and finally: the signing of a new agreement that participants hope and pretend will make a difference.

The article from which that quotation has been lifted is well worth a read. Inter alia, it contains three killer paragraphs that go to the heart of the issue, but which are missing from most discussions in the mainstream media of climate change and policies associated with it:

What won’t be acknowledged in the UAE—because it has never been acknowledged at a global climate summit—is the awkward reality that while climate change has real costs, climate policy does, too.

In most public conversations, climate change costs are vastly exaggerated. Just consider how every heat wave is depicted as an end-of-the-world, cataclysmic killer, while the far greater reductions in deaths from warmer winters pass without being remarked on. Yet the costs of climate policy are bizarrely ignored.

Analyzing the balance between climate and policy costs has been at the heart of the study of climate change economics for more than three decades. Renowned economist William Nordhaus is the only climate change economist recognized with a Nobel prize. His research shows that we should absolutely do something about climate change: Early cuts in fossil fuel emissions are cheap and will reduce the most dangerous temperature rises. But his work also shows that highly ambitious carbon reductions will be a bad deal, with phenomenally high costs and low additional benefits.

That clear-sighted understanding, lacking from the vast majority of policy-makers (and tens of thousands of pointless hangers-on) attending the latest jamboree, sets out very clearly what is wrong with the whole COP process – it is predicated on misguided assumptions, and it fails in its own terms to achieve anything useful. So much for the background and the predictions. How did it actually measure up in practice?

Bang on cue, I would say. The agreement that was finally signed off (at least, this is the latest iteration available) can be found here. It is the usual mish-mash that we have learned to expect – a mixture of background information (known in the trade as “recitals”) and back-slapping mutual self-congratulation; followed by non-binding aspirations. Because they are non-binding, everyone can happily sign up to them, safe in the knowledge that no enforcement procedure exists to punish them when they fail to take it seriously and don’t act on its exhortations. I suppose it’s impossible to persuade almost 200 nation states to agree on anything meaningful, so to that extent it’s difficult to complain about the inevitable fudge. However, this has happened on 27 previous occasions, so one might have thought that an understanding of Realpolitik might have dawned by now. Perhaps it has, but they can’t admit that the whole process is flawed and pointless, so on and on it goes.

It runs to 21 pages and 196 paragraphs and achieves nothing. It “recalls” on 27 occasions what has been agreed to in the past. It “underlines” the critical role of multilateralism and also “the urgent need to address, in a comprehensive and synergetic manner, the interlinked global crises of climate change and biodiversity loss in the broader context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the vital importance of protecting, conserving, restoring and sustainably using nature and ecosystems for effective and sustainable climate action”. This is stated in a non-ironic way, with no apparent understanding of the often conflicting nature of these goals. It does however realise (another underlining) that the “Parties are not yet collectively on track towards achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals”. Another three “underlines” are thrown in for good measure.

There are nine acknowledgments of various kinds, including “that climate change is a common concern of humankind and that Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the right to health, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity”. I hope that satisfies the 90,000 hangers-on, though I very much doubt if it satisfies the people whose lives have already been blighted by renewable energy developments and associated activities.

47 paragraphs are devoted to “recognizing” various issues, while five are devoted to “noting” others. A further 19 are “welcomed”, while a further nine are “affirmed” or “re-affirmed”. Four more are “underscored” (I’m not sure how that differs from underlining), and “concern”, “serious concern” or even “alarm and serious concern” are expressed on eleven occasions.

A bit of self-congratulation follows, with 19 things being welcomed. Then there follow a couple of “commitments”. This is more like it. I assumed that we were getting to the meat of some real firm and binding clauses, since that’s what committing to something usually means. Silly me. The reality is that the agreement is committing to fudge the issues.

Paragraph 6 “Commits to accelerate action in this critical decade on the basis of the best available science, reflecting equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the light of different national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty”. It sounds great, but it doesn’t impose an obligation on anyone to do anything. On the contrary, it’s a re-statement of the cop-out clause for the so-called “developing” countries, a definition that has long since ceased to serve a useful purpose, since it includes countries like China and South Korea. I suspect that they are both very happy to see this being included.

Paragraph 153 “Reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism, especially in the light of the progress made under the Paris Agreement and resolves to remain united in the pursuit of efforts to achieve the purpose and long-term goals of the Agreement”. Well, that’s nice, but again, nobody actually has to do anything as a consequence of this “commitment”. The reference to progress made under the Paris Agreement also sits uneasily alongside paragraph 24 (“Notes with significant concern that, despite progress, global greenhouse gas emissions trajectories are not yet in line with the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, and that there is a rapidly narrowing window for raising ambition and implementing existing commitments in order to achieve it”) and paragraph 25 (“Expresses concern that the carbon budget consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal is now small and being rapidly depleted and acknowledges that historical cumulative net carbon dioxide emissions already account for about four fifths of the total carbon budget for a 50 per cent probability of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C”). Still, who cares? After all, this waffle is all about throwing a bone to everyone with a bee in his/her bonnet, rather than with achieving anything.

So, why have some people being getting mildly excited? Because of paragraph 28, I suspect:

Further recognizes the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions in line with 1.5 °C pathways and calls on Parties to contribute to the following
global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement
and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches:
(a) Tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average
annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030;
(b) Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power;
(c) Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems,
utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century;
(d) Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and
equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050
in keeping with the science;
(e) Accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia,
renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and
utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen
production;
(f) Accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions
globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030;
(g) Accelerating the reduction of emissions from road transport on a range of
pathways, including through development of infrastructure and rapid deployment of zeroand low-emission vehicles;
(h) Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty
or just transitions, as soon as possible

OK, so it talks about “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, but it doesn’t oblige anyone to do so. On the contrary, it does nothing more than call on “Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches”. This is so weak as to be meaningless. Calling on someone to do something doesn’t mean that they have to do it. Taking into account their different national circumstances is a green light for “developing countries” (as rather generously defined) to ignore it, and even for other countries to seek to argue that their current national circumstances from time to time are so special, problematic, or whatever that they can and should ignore it too. Then there’s paragraph 29:

Recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition
while ensuring energy security

Any energy minister worth his or her salt can use that to claim to be complying with paragraph 28 while doing no more than paying lip service to it. Having said that, they don’t even need paragraph 29 to come to their aid, unless they want the benefit of a diplomatic fig leaf, since paragraph 28 contains no binding commitments and no sanctions for non-compliance.

The agreement even contains 14 “invitations” to various people to do various things. In a document such as this, such language is risible. It’s tantamount to saying they might like to think about it, but they really mustn’t worry if they don’t want to. The same can be said of the 31 references to “encouraging” people to take action – it’s not much stronger than inviting them to do so, and it certainly contains no element of obligation.

There isn’t even any hint of criticism for parties who have failed to comply with things they have previously been asked to do. Rather there is an expression of sincere understanding of the difficulties of doing so. Take paragraph 41:

Notes the capacity challenges of the least developed countries and small island developing States related to preparing and communicating nationally determined contributions.

Given that these are the countries that by and large make the most noise in terms of demanding financial contributions and “carbon” cuts from developed countries, is it really to much too ask that they might make a bit of an effort themselves?

Section C deals with finance, and is interesting, since it recognises the enormous scale of what is being demanded (or should I say urged, encouraged, invited…?). For instance, paragraph 67:

Highlights the growing gap between the needs of developing country Parties, in particular those due to the increasing impacts of climate change compounded by difficult macroeconomic circumstances, and the support provided and mobilized for their efforts to implement their nationally determined contributions, highlighting that such needs are currently estimated at USD 5.8–5.9 trillion for the pre-2030 period.

Paragraph 68 “Also highlights that the adaptation finance needs of developing countries are estimated at USD 215–387 billion annually up until 2030, and that about USD 4.3 trillion per year needs to be invested in clean energy up until 2030, increasing thereafter to USD 5 trillion per year up until 2050, to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050”.

Given the monumental nature of those numbers, I find it strange that paragraph 78 “Welcomes the pledges made by 31 contributors during the second replenishment of the Green Climate Fund, resulting in a nominal pledge of USD 12.833 billion to date, and encourages further pledges and contributions towards the second replenishment of the Fund, welcoming the progression over the previous replenishment”, since in the scheme of things, that is chickenfeed.

Paragraph 158 “Acknowledges the important role and active engagement of non-Party stakeholders, particularly civil society, business, financial institutions, cities and subnational authorities, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, youth and research institutions, in supporting Parties and contributing to the significant collective progress towards the Paris Agreement temperature goal and in addressing and responding to climate change and enhancing ambition, including progress through other relevant intergovernmental processes”. Is that by way of saying thank you to the 90,000 hangers-on for showing up? Or to encourage them to turn up again next year? If so, I suspect the organisers will be in for a disappointment – despite the fact that no doubt the “climate crisis” will be even more incredibly urgent next year, I have a feeling that Azerbaijan as a venue might just attract fewer people than Dubai.

I would have ended by saying “see you all again next year” but, funnily enough, I suspect we won’t.

27 Comments

  1. I’m not sure that Matt McGrath has read it line by line, or if he has, whether he really understands it:

    “Examining COP28’s potential impact on climate change”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67701544

    …Another important factor is the requirement for countries to submit stronger carbon cutting plans by 2025.

    If China and India put a rapid transition to green energy at the heart of these new commitments, that could make a massive difference to the global effort….

    No, Matt, that isn’t true. There is no “requirement” for anyone to do anything. They are asked to do things, invited, encouraged, even urged, but not required. Read the words. Once you have done so, you will realise that China and India almost certainly won’t make a massive difference to the (almost non-existent) “global effort”.

    Like

  2. Apart from the unjustified headline (“landmark”!), I give the Guardian some marks for noting the limited nature of the agreement and the flaws in it (assuming one is a believer in the climate crisis):

    “Cop28 landmark deal agreed to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels
    Summit president hails ‘historic package to accelerate climate action’ but critics decry ‘litany of loopholes’ in final text”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/13/cop28-landmark-deal-agreed-to-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels

    Like

  4. Most commentators seem to believe that paragraph 28 demonstrates a real, if possibly inadequate, step forward. But does it? Let’s have a look:

    It states that ‘The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris
    Agreement … calls on     Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement [my emphasis] and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches.’

    It then lists various worthy sounding actions. But that reference to the Paris Agreement is critically important. Here’s why – scroll down to paragraph 38. It says that The Conference:

    ‘‘Recalls Article 4, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement, which provides that developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets, and that developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.’

    Get that? Paragraph 28 says that parties must take account of the Paris Agreement and the Paris Agreement – as specifically stated here in paragraph 38 – states that developing countries are merely ‘encouraged’ to move to emission cuts ‘over time’. And, so there’s no misunderstanding, paragraph 39 ‘Reaffirms Article 4.4′ i.e. developing countries are under no obligation to cut their emissions. Yet developing countries are the source of about 60% of global emissions.

    This ‘agreement’ is a farce.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Robin,

    Many thanks for that vitally important comment. The latest agreement has to be read in conjunction with others, and references back such as the one you highlight do a lot to water down its effect still further. It’s the sort of detail that will escape most commentators (sadly, including me, until now!).

    If the COP jamboree people truly believe in a climate crisis and the urgent need to do something about it, then continuing to give special treatment to those countries responsible for the vast amount of ongoing emissions makes absolutely no sense at all. That is why I am starting to think that the whole process has nothing to do with climate change (which is merely a convenient hook to frame the narrative) and that the real narrative is about beating up the west and forcing it to transfer large amounts of money to the developing world (as rather strangely defined).

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Yesterday COP28 articles flooded the top of the BBC’s main news page on its website. This morning – nothing. There really is nothing to see here, and they have indeed all moved on already.

    Like

  7. Even the BBC’s risibly-named Science & Environment page (which has been awash with COP28 propaganda for weeks now) has not a single mention today.

    Like

  8. Matt Ridley in the Daily Mail today:

    …In the year 2000, according to the Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy, 84 per cent of the world’s primary energy came from fossil fuels. Last year, after 23 years of transitioning away from fossil fuels — and 27 interminable Cop conferences since 1995 — that number was… 82 per cent. At this rate it will take us till the year 3909AD to give up fossil fuels. No wonder a large chunk of the population thinks these talks are futile nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. “COP28 Gets Coal In Its Stocking
    Two weeks before Christmas, the Dubai climate confab ends with a thud as global coal demand continues to increase”

    https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/cop28-gets-coal-in-its-stocking

    …In July, the International Energy Agency predicted global coal use will set another new record of about 8.4 billion tons this year. The agency also predicted coal consumption will remain at or above that level in 2024. “China will continue to account for more than half of the world’s coal use, with the power sector alone consuming one-third,” said the IEA. “If we add India, the global share rises to about 70%, meaning that China and India together consume double the amount of coal as the rest of the world combined.”

    On November 27, three days before the opening of the meeting in Dubai, Global Energy Monitor released a report showing that some 204,000 megawatts of new coal-fired capacity is now under construction around the world. Of that 204,000 MW, about 67% is in China. To put that massive amount of new capacity in perspective, the U.S. currently operates about 205,000 MW of coal-fired power plants. (The generating capacity of the entire U.S. grid is about 1.3 terawatts, or 1.3 million MW.) In addition to the huge amount now being built, another 353,000 MW of coal-fired capacity has been announced, pre-permitted, or permitted. Of that 353,000 MW in the queue, about 72% is in China.

    While Kerry and others like to deride coal, the alt-energy technologies being heavily subsidized by Western countries are helping fuel the growth of Asia’s coal-fired capacity. From Indonesian nickel needed to build electric vehicles to Chinese solar panels, the “energy transition” is stoking demand for industrial electricity in Asia. And the overwhelming majority of that new demand is being met by coal-fired power plants….

    Like

  10. “Failure of Cop28 on fossil fuel phase-out is ‘devastating’, say scientists
    Climate experts say lack of unambiguous statement is ‘tragedy for the planet and our future’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/14/failure-cop28-fossil-fuel-phase-out-devastating-say-scientists

    The failure of Cop28 to call for a phase-out of fossil fuels is “devastating” and “dangerous” given the urgent need for action to tackle the climate crisis, scientists have said.

    One called it a “tragedy for the planet and our future” while another said it was the “dream outcome” for the fossil fuel industry.

    The UN climate summit ended on Wednesday with a compromise deal that called for a “transition away” from fossil fuels. The stronger term “phase-out” had been backed by 130 of the 198 countries negotiating in Dubai but was blocked by petrostates including Saudi Arabia.

    The deal was hailed as historic as it was the first citing of fossil fuels, the root cause of the climate crisis, in 30 years of climate negotiations. But scientists said the agreement contained many loopholes and did not match the severity of the climate emergency.

    “The lack of an agreement to phase out fossil fuels was devastating,” said Prof Michael Mann, a climatologist and geophysicist at the University of Pennsylvania in the US. “To ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ was weak tea at best. It’s like promising your doctor that you will ‘transition away from doughnuts’ after being diagnosed with diabetes.”

    Dr Magdalena Skipper, the editor in chief of the science journal Nature, said: “The science is clear – fossil fuels must go. World leaders will fail their people and the planet unless they accept this reality.”

    An editorial in Nature said the failure over the phase-out was “more than a missed opportunity”, it was “dangerous” and ran “counter to the core goals laid down in the 2015 Paris climate agreement” of limiting global heating to 1.5C (2.7F) above preindustrial levels.

    “The climate doesn’t care who emits greenhouse gases,” the editorial continued. “There is only one viable path forward, and that is for everybody to phase out almost all fossil fuels as quickly as possible.”

    Sir David King, the chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group and a former UK chief scientific adviser, said: “The wording of the deal is feeble. Ensuring 1.5C remains viable will require total commitment to a range of far-reaching measures, including full fossil fuel phase-out.”…

    Like

  11. It’s the same every year, isn’t it? First they hype and the tsunami of propaganda? Then the hope. Then the nerves as the talks go over time. Then the relief when something is announced, and the attempt to spin it as meaningful. Then reality dawns, the grim realisation that it’s just been yet another talking shop with no meaningful or binding commitments. Then they set off and do it all again next year.

    “Indigenous people and climate justice groups say Cop28 was ‘business as usual’
    Developing countries call agreement to transition away from fossil fuels ‘unfair’ and ‘inequitable’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/13/indigenous-people-and-climate-justice-groups-say-cop28-was-business-as-usual

    Like

  12. “Cop28 president says his firm will keep investing in oil
    Exclusive: Sultan Al Jaber says Adnoc has to meet demand for fossil fuels, and hails ‘unprecedented’ Cop deal”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/15/cop28-president-sultan-al-jaber-says-his-firm-will-keep-investing-in-oil

    The president of the Cop28 climate summit will continue with his oil company’s record investment in oil and gas production, despite coordinating a global deal to “transition away” from fossil fuels.

    Sultan Al Jaber, who is also the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ national oil and gas company, Adnoc, told the Guardian the company had to satisfy demand for fossil fuels.

    “My approach is very simple: it is that we will continue to act as a responsible, reliable supplier of low-carbon energy, and the world will need the lowest-carbon barrels at the lowest cost,” he said, arguing that Adnoc’s hydrocarbons are lower carbon because they are extracted efficiently and with less leakage than other sources.

    “At the end of the day, remember, it is the demand that will decide and dictate what sort of energy source will help meet the growing global energy requirements,” he added….

    Like

  14. Letter in the Guardian today:

    If Michael Jacobs really thinks that the Cop28 agreement won’t mean what the petrostates and their enablers want it to mean (Letters, 19 December), then he is letting hope triumph over experience. “Transition away” is classic weasel wordage, and the loophole allowing it to be taken as referring only to fossil fuels for energy and heating will be as ruthlessly exploited as Rupert Read (Letters, 15 December) expects it to be. It will also be gleefully seized on by all those like Rishi Sunak (and Keir Starmer?) who will be looking for wriggle room when push comes to shove.

    And if that sounds just too jadedly pessimistic at the pragmatic level, there remains the key conceptual point. Jacobs rightly highlights a battle over interpretation. But Cops are only worth the effort to the extent that their upshots channel genuine constraint on human activity by upcoming planetary limits, and an agreement subject to contested interpretation over so fundamental a point can channel nothing worth calling “constraint” at all. It is well past time to find radical alternatives to this failed process.
    John Foster
    Author, Realism and the Climate Crisis

    I suspect that Mr Foster and I probably disagree about quite a lot, but on the pointlessness and failure (in their own terms) of COPs, we are pretty much in total agreement.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. The view from India is markedly different from that of the western establishment!

    “China and India got their way in COP28 agreement in Dubai”

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-and-India-got-their-way-in-COP28-agreement-in-Dubai

    The agreement reached last week at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Dubai represents a major victory for developing Asia, especially economic giants China and India.

    The influential pair are heavily reliant on coal, oil and natural gas and have strenuously advocated a balanced transition from fossil fuels that keeps energy affordability and accessibility firmly in sight.

    Contention around fossil fuels — in particular, thorny debates around their phase-out or “phase-down” to accelerate the move toward net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 — was the biggest challenge standing in the way of agreement among the nearly 200 nations attending the Dubai summit. Achieving resolution took negotiators an extra night and day beyond the planned 13-day run of the conference.

    The forum, officially the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, finally eschewed radical approaches to reach consensus around a pragmatic call for a “transition away” from fossil fuels.

    Critically for China and India, the participants agreed that the transition in global energy systems should happen in a “just, orderly and equitable manner.”…

    …delegates finally agreed merely to “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power” after India appeared to successfully push back on language calling for a rapid phase-down.

    Coal accounts for around three-quarters of India’s power generation and around 61% of China’s. Though both have been among the most active in the world in installing renewable capacity, they are not yet in position to rapidly reduce their reliance on coal, given the fuel’s abundance and low cost.

    China has said that it will gradually reduce its coal consumption after 2025 but has yet to announce a more specific target…

    …Beyond their efforts to look out for their specific national interests, China and India marked a milestone at COP28 as they started to assume leadership in steering critical global policies.

    The duo’s biggest achievement — a major source of relief for many of the smaller emerging Asian economies at the COP28 table — was ensuring a pragmatic, balanced and fair approach in the conference’s final agreement regarding the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

    The battle may have been won, but the war is not over. Vociferous campaigns to rid the world of fossil fuels, without regard for the availability of commercially viable, scalable and affordable alternatives, may even gain greater momentum now.

    The only way to keep such demands at bay is to demonstrate that a cautious and balanced approach delivers better results for energy security as well as the environment than radical shifts that would not only be impractical but could trigger energy crises.

    China and India need to continue working on refining the concept of a more sustainable transition as well as improving their messaging….

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Another conclusion that flies in the face of the evidence:

    “Climate scientists hail 2023 as ‘beginning of the end’ for fossil fuel era
    Cautious optimism among experts that emissions from energy use may have peaked as net zero mission intensifies”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/30/climate-scientists-hail-2023-as-beginning-of-the-end-for-fossil-fuel-era

    Global efforts to slow a runaway climate catastrophe may have reached a critical milestone in the last year with the peak of global carbon emissions from energy use, according to experts.

    A growing number of climate analysts believe that 2023 may be recorded as the year in which annual emissions reached a pinnacle before the global fossil fuel economy begins a terminal decline.

    The milestone is considered a crucial tipping point in the race to drive emissions to net zero. But for many climate experts it’s an inflexion point that was due years ago and which, although encouraging, falls far short of the rapid reduction the world needs….

    Perhaps the insertion of the words “from energy use” make the claim correct, but I very much doubt even that. And I have little doubt that fossil fuel use will continue to grow until at least the end of this decade, and probably beyond. That’s why the claims of UK politicians that our “net zero” example is “leading the world” are both futile and hollow.

    Like

  18. “Climate change: Former oil executive Mukhtar Babayev to lead COP29 talks in Azerbaijan”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67895068

    For the second year in a row, a minister with vast experience of the oil industry will be in charge of global climate negotiations.

    Azerbaijan’s Mukhtar Babayev has been named as the president-designate of the COP29 talks in Baku next November.

    Mr Babayev spent decades working at the national oil company before becoming environment minister in 2018.

    He takes over from Sultan al-Jaber who presided over COP28 in Dubai last year.

    Little is known about Mr Babayev, who is currently serving as minister for ecology and natural resources in the Azerbaijan government.

    He spent spent 26 years at Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas company Socar, in a variety of roles….

    At this rate, it will soon be time for a COP29 thread!

    Like

  19. Oh dear. First the oil, now this:

    “Azerbaijan appoints no women to 28-member Cop29 climate committee
    Campaigners condemn decision as regressive, saying ‘climate change affects whole world, not half of it’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/15/cop29-climate-summit-committee-appointed-with-28-men-and-no-women-azerbaijan

    The organising committee for the Cop29 global climate change summit in Azerbaijan in December comprises 28 men and no women, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, has announced.

    The decision was called “regressive” by the She Changes Climate campaign group, which said “climate change affects the whole world, not half of it”. In contrast, 63% of the members of the organising committee for the Cop28 climate summit, held in the United Arab Emirates last month, were women.

    Almost all members of the Cop29 committee are government ministers or officials, including the head of the state security service. The head of Azerbaijan’s state gas distribution network is also on the committee.

    In a statement, She Changes Climate said: “This [committee] is a regressive step in the journey towards gender parity in climate; but there is still time for change. We ask for equal representation in the governance of this year’s climate talks, because climate change affects the whole world, not half of it.”

    For the second year in a row, the UN’s most important climate talks will be hosted by a petro-state heavily reliant on fossil fuel production. The Cop29 president-designate, who will be responsible for bringing together countries to drive climate action, is Mukhtar Babayev, the minister of ecology and natural resources.

    Babayev previously spent 26 years working for the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (Socar). Azerbaijan plans to increase its fossil fuel production by a third over the next decade, the Guardian revealed last week….

    The whole process seems to be a farce. The UN appears to be going out of its way to ensure that it’s nothing more than a pointless talking shop that is bound to be subject to massive criticism. If they’re serious about climate change (and the assumption that humankind can do something about it by behaviour change), why?

    Like

  20. “The decision was called “regressive” by the She Changes Climate campaign group, which said “climate change affects the whole world, not half of it”

    No, no, no! 80% of people displaced by climate change are women.

    https://www.unicef.org/rosa/blog/climate-changes-greatest-victims-are-women-and-girls

    Women and girls are FOURTEEN times more likely to die from climate-related disasters than men. This is settled science, not hearsay.

    https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2930

    Mary Robinson, at the SHE Changes Climate conference at COP 28 pointed this out to climate denier Sultan Al Jaber, when he scandalously suggested that there was ‘no science’ behind the 1.5C target. So SHE changes climate stating that climate change basically affects men and women equally is NOT correct. Climate change is NOT gender neutral and I’m pretty sure that it affects LGBTQ+ even MORE disproportionately!

    Liked by 2 people

  23. This is a relief. I expect COP 29 to be a great success now:

    “Women added to Cop29 climate summit committee after backlash
    Panel was originally composed of 28 men, a move condemned as ‘regressive’ and ‘shocking’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/19/women-cop29-climate-summit-committee-backlash

    The president of Azerbaijan has added 12 women to the previously all-male organising committee for the Cop29 global climate summit, which the country will host in December.

    The move follows a backlash after the Guardian reported the initial 28-man composition of the committee, which was called “regressive” by the She Changes Climate campaign group. “Climate change affects the whole world, not half of it,” the group said.

    Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief when the historic Paris agreement was delivered in 2015, had called the all-male panel “shocking and unacceptable”.

    President Ilham Aliyev also added a further man to the committee, which now comprises 29 men and 12 women. Among the women added are Umayra Taghiyeva, the deputy minister of ecology and natural resources, the human rights commissioner, Sabina Aliyeva, and Bahar Muradova, the chair of the state committee on family, women and children’s problems.

    “This is positive progress but we are still far from a 50:50 gender balance,” said Elise Buckle, co-founder of She Changes Climate. “This is a quick fix but not enough.”

    Almost all members of the Cop29 committee are government ministers or officials, including the head of the state security service. The head of Azerbaijan’s state gas distribution network is also on the committee….

    Like

  26. “Growth in CO2 emissions leaves China likely to miss climate targets
    Carbon intensity of the country’s economy remains high, despite rapid improvements in clean energy output”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/22/growth-in-co2-emissions-leaves-china-likely-to-miss-climate-targets

    China is off track on all of its core 2025 climate targets, despite the fact that clean energy is now the biggest driver of the country’s economic growth, analysis has found.

    After years of extraordinarily rapid growth, China is now grappling with a slowdown that is causing ripples internally and internationally. The government has supercharged the growth of the renewable energy industry but it has simultaneously poured stimulus funds into construction and manufacturing, and continues to approve coal power.

    China’s total energy consumption increased by 5.7% in 2023, in the first moment since 2005 that demand for energy grew faster than its GDP. China’s economy grew by 5.2% last year, a rate that would be rapid for most countries but is slow in comparison with previous rates of growth.

    But carbon dioxide emissions have continued to grow, even as economic growth has slowed due to the fact that China’s economic growth during and after the Covid-19 pandemic has been highly energy intensive. Between 2021 and 2023, CO2 emissions grew at an average of 3.8% a year, up from 0.9% a year between 2016 and 2020. GDP growth slowed slightly over the same period….

    …Under the Paris agreement, China’s climate pledges require a number of targets to be met by 2025; these include increasing the share of non-fossil energy sources to 20% and reducing the carbon intensity of the economy by 18%. Carbon intensity refers to how many grams of CO2 are released to produce a kilowatt hour of electricity.

    However, Myllyvirta’s analysis found that China was “way off track” on many of these targets, primarily because of the carbon intensity of recent economic growth. CO2 emissions will have to fall by between 4% and 6% to meet the government’s 2025 target, Myllyvirta predicts…

    …a separate report published on Thursday by CREA found that China approved 114 gigawatts (GW) of coal power in 2023, up from 104 GW in 2022. China’s share of global coal emissions surpassed 64% in 2023….

    …Myllyvirta said: “The major acceleration in coal consumption growth and in approvals of new coal power plants that has taken place since President Xi made these pledges in 2021 contradicts the commitments – and China needs to take determined action in 2024-25 to avoid failing to respect them.”

    Like

Leave a comment

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