My legal background, the reason for my interest in international law and the interpretation of treaties etc., is directly related to my interest in climate issues. Although I didn’t practice law, that interest has persisted: as well as studying climate issues going back to the 1950s, I’ve followed UN climate negotiations in detail since 2007. My conclusion is simple: if global greenhouse gas emissions are to be cut substantially – as we are told is necessary if humanity is to avoid potential catastrophe – the overriding issue, far more important than any domestic concern, is whether or not the governments of major non-Western economies are willing to act accordingly. Yet they’ve shown scant in interest in so doing.

I set out the evidence and reasons for this in an essay published in 2020. Nothing that’s happened since 2020 changes my conclusion. The ‘Dubai Stocktake’ agreed at COP28 last year for example if anything reinforced it. Look at the opening paragraph of item 28 stating that Parties’ ‘global efforts’ should take ‘into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances’. Then note the specific word-for-word incorporation of the Paris Agreement’s Article 4.4 in item 38, unambiguously confirming developing countries’ exemption from any emission reduction obligation. That’s a perfect example of what always happens at these conferences: words are inserted in the concluding communiques or agreements letting developing countries off the hook.

So what’s going to happen at COP29?

Well, there’ll certainly be lot of argument about how ‘rich countries’ must pay developing countries for ‘loss and damage’. But of course that’s not what matters: from the outset the whole point of these COP conferences is supposed to be the realisation of global agreement to reduce emissions. But such reduction would require major non-Western countries to completely reverse their energy policies. And after 30 years of refusal to do so, they’re obviously not going to do that now – not at COP29 nor I believe at further such conferences. It really is about time Western governments got used to it.

Robin Guenier – June 2024

221 Comments

  1. A LOT of individuals with their snouts firmly in the trough will travel by hundreds of private jets and enjoy an all expenses paid holiday in an expensive resort.

    After several days carousing, the only thing that will be decided is where to hold the party next year.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. catweazle, they’ve already decided that COP30 should be a jolly in Brazil. Maybe they’ll be discussing where to fly to for COP31 instead….

    Like

  3. I want to be on the working group to identify the next location. It’s a tough job, but somebody has to do it!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Robin, for me your final sentence, “It really is about time Western governments got used to it”, is crying out to be completed with, “And therefore acted, at last, to protect their citizens and their economies by dismantling Net Zero and similar luxury beliefs.” Regards, John C.

    Like

  5. CW – ‘A lot’ is subjective, and should really have context. 😀

    Perhaps CliScep should open a ‘book’ on whether the number of attendees to COP29 is closest to or exceeds the number attending the Cancun COP16 GabFest (11,848), the Paris COP21 GabFest (30,372), or the most recent United Arab Emirates COP28 (97,372)?

    Click to access inf01p01.pdf

    https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/inf03p01.pdf (see also Name & Shaming lists Pt2 for attendees from Latvia – Zimbabwe, and, Pt3 for freeloading NGOs)

    Click to access COP28.PLOP__0.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This ClimateHome report on last week’s pre-COP 29 meeting in Bonn is a perfect illustration of my point that non-Western countries don’t regard emission reduction as a priority:

    Fossil fuels – who?
    https://mailchi.mp/climatehome/bonn-fossil-fuels-who?e=1b3637ad37.

    Two extracts:

    It’s been less than six months since countries struck a historic deal to “transition away from fossil fuels” after bitter fights and sleepless nights at COP28. But, in Bonn right now, discussions on what to do next about the biggest culprit of climate change seem to have largely disappeared from the agenda. “It’s really jarring to see how quiet the conversation on fossil fuels has gone,” said Tom Evans, a senior policy advisor at E3G, adding that the trouble is this issue “doesn’t have a clear home at the UNFCCC right now”.

    An EU negotiator told Climate Home attempts to start a conversation on the way forward continue to be blocked by the LMDCs, with China and Saudi Arabia “the most vocal” among them. “The reason is that they fear this would put pressure on them to keep moving away from fossil fuels,” they added.

    Note the use of ‘they’ in the last sentence presumably intended to avoid any pronoun misunderstanding – and thereby confusing the EU negotiator with the LMDCs (the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries).

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “Speaking on behalf of the group at a session hosted by the COP29 Presidency, the Bolivian negotiator said developed countries should be required to get to net zero by 2030. “The Annex 1 countries’ pathway to achieve net zero by 2050 does not contribute to solving the climate crisis, it is leading the world to a catastrophe,” he added.”

    I wonder what Bolivia’s plans are?

    Like

  8. I suppose Bolivia’s plan is to destroy the West. Although the West is doing a pretty good fist of doing so itself – except of course for more sensible developed countries such as Russia, Japan and Turkey.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Oh dear the Bonn pre-COP29 meeting is over and things are not looking so good:

    Apart from smiles and flowers in an emotional farewell for a longtime UNFCCC staffer, the mood at the closing session of the Bonn climate talks on Thursday night was sombre.

    Frustration and finger-pointing dominated interventions by delegates representing both developed and developing nations, as they lamented the collapse of key talks on the Mitigation Work Programme – the main channel for curbing planet-heating emissions.

    “We have failed to show the world that we are responding with the purpose and urgency required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees,” said Samoan negotiator Anne Rasmussen, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

    https://mailchi.mp/climatehome/bonn-blame-game?e=1b3637ad37

    All of that left UN climate chief Simon Stiell with little option but to give countries a stiff talking-to as he beseeched them not to “leave the hardest work to the eleventh hour” before COP29.  

    But they will – they always do. And that won’t get anywhere – it never does.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Yet more confirmation of how (from an activist perspective) bad things look pre-COP29:

    UN climate chief warns of “steep mountain to climb” for COP29 after Bonn blame-game
    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/06/14/un-climate-chief-warns-of-steep-mountain-to-climb-for-cop29-after-bonn-blame-game/

    An extract:

    Despite the clear need to act fast, a deep sense of mistrust seeped into talks on the MWP in Bonn, with negotiators disagreeing fundamentally over its direction, according to sources in the room.

    Developed countries and some developing ones said that the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries (LMDCs), led primarily by Saudi Arabia and China, as well as some members of the African Group, had refused to engage constructively in the discussions.

    “The reason is that they fear this would put pressure on them to keep moving away from fossil fuels,” an EU delegate told Climate Home.

    And yet we keep being assured by activists that China, because of its investment in lots of renewables, is really the good guy who is setting an example to the world. But never mind, Miliband and his mates can expect to have fun in Baku.

    PS: ‘MWP’ stands (heaven help us) for the ‘Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme’.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. “Trump haunts stalled global climate talks 

    A UN climate conference in Bonn ground to an irritated halt as everyone waits on the US election.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-global-climate-talks-white-house-us-election-cop29-climate-finance/

    The mere idea of Donald Trump returning to the White House is already upending global climate talks. 

    The specter of his return hung over two weeks of diplomatic negotiations in Bonn, where nearly 200 countries met for talks but got little accomplished. A key reason? Trump, according to numerous negotiators. 

    Whether or not he storms back to the White House will be pivotal to the result of this year’s annual climate conference, COP29, which will be held just six days after the United States election.

    That’s created a major quandary for diplomats preparing for the event, especially since their main task right now is to hash out a landmark deal to fund climate action — a concept Trump disdains. 

    “We have to factor in a possible change in the U.S. president and what that would mean in terms of climate finance,” said one senior negotiator from a European country, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about closed-door discussions. 

    Fellow developed countries, like those in the European Union, worry about agreeing on a financial target that Washington might not contribute to, leaving them to foot the bill. But a wait-and-see approach until November risks leaving world leaders unprepared to make decisions at COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan…

    …The lack of progress unnerved negotiators. Asked to describe the state of the talks, most people in Bonn opted for various synonyms of “slow.” As Mohamed Adow, director of energy think tank Power Shift Africa, put it: “It’s unfair to the snail to say that talks are going at snail’s pace.”…

    …“There’s a high likelihood we’ll soon be in a world where the U.S. submits its second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,” said Michai Robertson, a negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, referring to Trump’s 2017 decision to leave the global climate pact. 

    “That’s one reason the European Union and others haven’t put forward a number,” he added. “People are preparing for that possibility.” 

    The Azerbaijani COP29 presidency is preparing for election complications. In addition to the U.S., the EU just swung right in its election and France may do the same in an upcoming parliamentary vote.…

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Mark: I think that Politico report is simply an attempt to blame Trump for the uncomfortable reality that ‘Saudi Arabia and China, as well as some members of the African Group, had refused to engage constructively in the discussions‘. Was that because of Trump? I don’t think so.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Agreed, Robin , but if Trump is elected in November it will deal a body blow to a process that is already floundering.

    Like

  14. “Climate activists bemoan scant progress on finance as Cop29 looms

    UN says finding funds to tackle climate crisis is ‘a steep mountain to climb’, as talks end with little agreement”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/21/climate-activists-bemoan-scant-progress-on-finance-as-cop29-looms

    …With less than five months to go before the Cop29 UN climate summit in Azerbaijan in November, there is still no agreement on how to bridge the near-trillion dollar gap between what developing countries say is needed and the roughly $100bn a year of climate finance that flows today from public sources in the rich world to stricken developing nations.

    Rich countries have so far given little indication that they are rising to the challenge. The G7 summit of heads of state of the world’s richest countries, in Italy last weekend, skirted the topic of climate finance with warm words on the “importance of fiscal space and mobilising resources from all sources for increased climate and development action, particularly for low-income and vulnerable countries”….

    Liked by 1 person

  15. In the 2020 article, Robin correctly states two-track emissions reduction approaches between developed and developing countries. This was repeated in the Paris Agreement Article 4.1.

    In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2,
    Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as
    possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties,
    and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available
    science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources
    and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the
    basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to
    eradicate poverty.

    The article talks about global peaking emissions as soon as possible, with developing countries taking longer. This gives some empirical constraints on the impact of policy, especially as the “developing” countries have in excess of two-thirds of global emissions. Yet, following the IPCC SR1.5 of 2018, the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018 Executive Summary point 2 stated

    Global greenhouse gas emissions show no signs of peaking. Global CO2 emissions from energy and industry increased in 2017, following a three-year period of stabilization. Total annual greenhouse gases emissions, including from land-use change, reached a record high of 53.5 GtCO2e in 2017, an increase of 0.7 GtCO2e compared with 2016. In contrast, global GHG emissions in 2030 need to be approximately 25 percent and 55 percent lower than in 2017 to put the world on a least-cost pathway to limiting global warming to 2oC and 1.5oC respectively.

    How can a 55% reduction be achieved in a decade when countries accounting for >66% are collectively increasing their emissions? It defies logic, but the COP process continues oblivious to the uselessness of the harmful policies it is pushing.

    Rather than achieve any reduction in global emissions this decade, it is likely an increase upon the 53.5 GtCOe of 2017. In 2022 GHG emissions were 57.6 GtCO2e.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. MBC, you are of course absolutely correct: global emissions, notwithstanding successive COPs, are very likely to increase this decade.

    Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement is typical of such documents in that it may seem positive at first sight but in reality says nothing of significance. First, overriding everything is that fact that Parties ‘aim …’ – but an aim is an aspiration not a commitment. Then note: (1) ‘peaking … as soon as possible’ – leaving plenty of room for subjective national judgement; (2) ‘peaking will take longer for developing country Parties‘ – great, they (especially China, India, Indonesia, Iran etc.) can relax; (3) ‘best available science’ – who decides?; (4) ‘on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty’ – letting developing countries completely off the hook, insofar as there is a hook.

    But then all you have to do is scroll down to Article 4.4 and you’ll find that, because they are merely ‘encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances’, developing countries are indeed specifically exempted from any obligation to reduce their emissions.

    Assuming they are intended to confirm global agreement to reduce emissions, these COPs have been a complete waste of time, money and effort. There’s no reason to believe COP29 will be any different.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Further to my comment above, I think we may be looking at COPs from a western perspective. Looking at them from a non-western perspective and the objective is reversed to ensuring they’re either are not obliged to reduce their emissions or it doesn’t matter if they do. And, unlike the west, they’ve so far been 100% successful in achieving this.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Three FT headlines this morning:

    Big Oil under pressure to recalibrate green transition goals
    Some producers have started to row back on low-carbon strategies amid high fossil fuel demand and investor concerns

    Energy poverty and funding hurdles hold back Africa’s green transition
    Proponents of continued fossil fuel use say it is the only way for the continent to industrialise

    Coal push damps hopes of China’s climate ambition
    Momentum behind net zero pledges could be fading as Beijing prioritises economic growth and energy security

    Liked by 1 person

  19. “Journalists refused entry to Azerbaijan energy conference ahead of Cop29

    Incident reignites concerns over crackdown on media before crucial UN climate talks in Baku later this year”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/28/journalists-refused-entry-to-azerbaijan-energy-conference-ahead-of-cop29

    Well, this is a good start:

    Western journalists were refused entry to an energy industry conference in Azerbaijan earlier this month, reigniting concerns over the state’s crackdown on the media ahead of crucial UN climate talks in Baku later this year.

    At least three journalists from the UK and France have told the Guardian that they felt “unsafe” after they were denied entry to the Baku Energy Week forum, despite registering with the event organisers weeks in advance.

    The journalists said they were not given a valid reason why they had been turned away, but they chose to leave the venue after “frightening” and “intimidating” encounters with the organisers.

    The conference was held shortly before research by Human Rights Watch revealed at least 25 instances of the arrest or sentencing of journalists and activists in Azerbaijan over the past year, almost all of whom remain in custody.

    Campaigners and civil society groups have raised concerns that climate advocacy is being stifled ahead of the UN Cop29 climate talks that will take place in Baku later this year….

    Liked by 1 person

  20. “Ed Miliband to lead UK negotiations at Cop29 climate summit

    Senior climate figures welcome move after Conservative government largely left the role to junior ministers”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/15/ed-miliband-lead-uk-negotiations-cop29-climate-summit

    Ed Miliband is to take personal control of the UK’s negotiations at vital international climate talks, in stark contrast to his Tory predecessors.

    The energy security and net zero secretary will attend Cop29, this year’s UN climate summit, in Azerbaijan this November to head the UK’s delegation and meet political leaders from around the world.

    Senior figures in climate diplomacy welcomed the move and said UK leadership would be vital to what is expected to be a tricky and fraught UN climate summit this year.…

    Good. He might learn what happens when hubristic rhetoric meets reality.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. But surely Mark what will happen is that the leaders of China, India, Russia etc. will take note of what Miliband says and realise that it’s time to follow the UK’s excellent lead?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Robin, I appreciate that your comment is made firmly tongue in cheek, but it’s interesting to wonder what Miliband really thinks. If he truly believes his leadership will make a difference, then he’s profoundly deluded, and he will discover that in November. What will happen when he finds this out? Will he realise that he is crippling the UK for nothing? Or will he shrug his shoulders and plough on, even while it becomes obvious that the much-vaunted UK leadership isn’t resulting in the rest of the world following us over the cliff?

    Like

  23. I fear he’ll conclude that the UK hasn’t gone far enough (the Tories fault) and that he’s got to try harder by getting more done here at home.

    Like

  24. I think it more likely that COP29 will be overshadowed by the outcome of the upcoming US Presidential election which is 6 days before the COP starts. Milliband’s contribution will be lost entirely in the noise.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. “Cop29 host Azerbaijan seeks $1bn from fossil fuel producers for climate fund

    Countries and companies involved in oil and gas extraction to be asked to join scheme aimed at tackling global heating”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/20/cop29-host-azerbaijan-seeks-1bn-from-fossil-fuel-producers-for-climate-fund

    …But contributions to the fund will be voluntary and no mechanism is proposed to force the countries and companies most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions to pay into it….

    Liked by 1 person

  26. “Fossil fuel extraction compatible with climate action, says COP29 host Azerbaijan

    The Azerbaijani presidency made that claim while presenting a flurry of initiatives for the Baku summit.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/fossil-fuel-extraction-cop29-azerbaijan-climate-action-oil/

    Azerbaijan, the host of this year’s global climate talks, has suggested that continued fossil fuel extraction is compatible with the Paris Agreement.

    With four months to go until COP29 kicks off in Baku, the Azerbaijani presidency on Friday announced a flurry of “initiatives” — a set of 14 non-binding pledges and partnerships that countries are encouraged to sign up to at the summit.

    At the same press conference, the summit’s chief executive Elnur Soltanov suggested that the Paris climate accord — under which countries agreed to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius and ideally to 1.5C — does not necessarily mean reducing fossil fuel production.

    Like

  27. It seems money really does grow on trees:

    “Ed Miliband says Labour will honour pledge of £11.6bn in overseas climate aid

    Energy secretary seeks to reestablish UK as a global leader on the climate crisis with meeting of Cop presidents”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/26/ed-miliband-labour-honour-pledge-11bn-overseas-climate-aid

    Labour will honour a pledge of £11.6bn in overseas aid for the climate crisis, the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, told an unusual meeting of Cop presidents past and present on Friday, as he sought to re-establish the UK at the heart of international climate discussions.

    As the Labour government prepares for this year’s climate-emergency summit in November, Miliband hosted Mukhtar Babayev, the Azerbaijan government minister who will lead Cop29, and Ana Toni, the top official on the climate for Brazil, which will host Cop30 in the Amazonian city of Belem in 2025 in a meeting to discuss what steps are needed to make a success of the next two UN climate Cops, as the “conferences of the parties” under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are known.

    Unusually, Alok Sharma, the former Tory cabinet minister who presided over the widely praised Cop26 summit held in 2021 in Glasgow, was also present.

    Miliband committed to honouring the overseas aid pledge, although there are concerns that it will be “challenging”…..

    Like

  28. Popcorn time, though I think we all know how it will end:

    “EU prepares for COP29 showdown with China over climate aid

    The EU’s draft position for the summit shows the bloc arguing that wealthy emerging economies must pay into a climate action fund.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-call-on-countries-china-fund-climate-action-cop29-united-nations-climate-conference/

    …The statement does not mention a specific country, but European diplomats and officials have sought to push Beijing in particular to contribute funding, given China has not only become the world’s second-largest economy but also the top emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gasses….

    ...The bloc “stresses the importance” of setting up a new funding target “while taking into account the needs and priorities of the most vulnerable countries,” such as island nations and members of a group known as the Least Developed Countries. The document shows that an earlier draft referred more broadly to “the needs and priorities of developing countries.”

    The fight reflects a dispute last year over whether China would donate to a fund to support damaged communities. China stared down the demands from the U.S., EU and their allies, despite the UAE breaking ranks and becoming the first country from outside the traditional donor group to give climate finance through an official U.N. fund….

    Liked by 1 person

  29. “‘Massive disinformation campaign’ is slowing global transition to green energy

    UN says a global ‘backlash’ against climate action is being stoked by fossil fuel companies”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/08/fossil-fuel-industry-using-disinformation-campaign-to-slow-green-transition-says-un

    There are so many articles under which I could have posted this, given this:

    Fossil fuel companies are running “a massive mis- and disinformation campaign” so that countries will slow down the adoption of renewable energy and the speed with which they “transition away” from a carbon-intensive economy, the UN has said.

    Selwin Hart, the assistant secretary general of the UN, said that talk of a global “backlash” against climate action was being stoked by the fossil fuel industry, in an effort to persuade world leaders to delay emissions-cutting policies. The perception among many political observers of a rejection of climate policies was a result of this campaign, rather than reflecting the reality of what people think, he added….

    …Green parties and plans may have suffered reverses in some parts of the world, he said, but in others they have gained seats, and seen policies that would once have been considered radical enter the mainstream.

    Governments must take note, said Hart, who acts as special adviser on climate to the UN secretary general, António Guterres. “This should alert political leaders – those that are ambitious are not only on the right side of history, they’re on the side of their people as well.

    “Climate appears to be dropping down the list of priorities of leaders,” he said. “But we really need leaders now to deliver maximum ambition. And we need maximum cooperation. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that at the moment.”...

    A global backlash against climate action no less!

    I post it here, however, because of this:

    …Governments should also take care to ensure that their climate policies did not place unfair burdens on those on low incomes, as poorly designed measures could hurt the poor, according to Hart. “Each country will really need to ensure its transition is well planned to minimise the impact on people and vulnerable populations, because a lot of the so-called pushback comes when there’s a perception that the costs on poor and vulnerable persons are being disproportionately felt,” he said.

    For that reason, the UN is calling for new national plans on the emissions reductions required under the 2015 Paris agreement, in which governments must set out clearly not just their targets but how they will be achieved through policy, and what the probable impacts are.

    The new national plans, called nationally determined contributions (NDCs), should be “as consultative as possible so that whole segments of society – young people, women, children, workers – will be able to provide their perspective on how the transition should be planned and well-managed, and how it will be financed”, he said.

    “Despite everything we see [in the form of extreme weather], we’re still not seeing the level of ambition or action that the world desperately needs.”

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Thanks for drawing attention to this Guardian article Mark. It’s interesting – even amusing – to note that its apparent link to the Paris Agreement is not a link to the Agreement itself but to a hopelessly misleading interpretation of it. This sort of thing often happens and is I’m sure a reason for the disappointment expressed for example by the UN spokesperson. The reality of course is that nothing of substance was agreed in Paris in 2015.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. A few days ago the ECIU (Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit) published this report :

    COP29 – what to expect…The next UN climate summit takes place in November, in Azerbaijan. As it draws closer, we take a look at what is on the agenda, and what could influence progress.

    It’s replete with misleading nonsense. For example:

    ‘Back in 2009, wealthy nations pledged they would deliver $100bn a year in climate finance, from 2020, to support poorer, developing nations to cut emissions and adapt to climate change.’

    Untrue: there was no such pledge.

    ‘… the pledge was locked into the Paris Agreement in 2015, which also built in a ratchet process.’

    No it wasn’t: the Paris Agreement says nothing about ratcheting a finance pledge.

    ‘COP28 included a historic commitment to transition away from fossil fuels.’

    Not so: there was no such commitment.

    ‘Ed Miliband, has said the new government intends to lead again on the world stage.’

    Groan. Otherwise no comment.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. “It’s August 2024 – and our world is at a turning point. Here’s what we should do now

    I see looming political and environmental threats – and too few willing to address them. Where is the urgency?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/24/august-2024-world-turning-point-political-environmental-threats-urgent

    …Nor, even up against the existential problem of climate change (the planet is on course for a temperature increase of 2.7C above pre-industrial levels), can many hold out hopes that Cop29 in Azerbaijan will be equal to the challenge….

    So writes Gordon Brown. Maybe he’s learned from the lessons handed out at the Copenhagen COP all those years ago.

    Liked by 3 people

  33. Interesting Mark – thanks for the link. Yes, he does seem to have learned something from the outcome of COP15. Here’s what he said then (15 years ago):

    ‘If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late.’

    He was wrong then. Now, judging by his article, he’s become an ultra-pessimist (about far more than climate change) – might he be wrong now?

    Liked by 1 person

  34. COP29 is getting closer. Here’s proof:
    Surging seas are coming for us all, warns UN chief

    Some extracts:

    The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has said that big polluters have a clear responsibility to cut emissions – or risk a worldwide catastrophe.

    The World Meteorological Organization’s State of the Climate in the South West Pacific, external report says this region faces a triple whammy of an accelerating rise in the sea level, a warming of the ocean and acidification – a rise in the sea’s acidity because it’s absorbing more and more carbon dioxide.

    “The reason is clear: greenhouse gases – overwhelmingly generated by burning fossil fuels – are cooking our planet,” Mr Guterres said in a speech at the forum.

    “The sea is taking the heat – literally.”

    “Only by limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius do we have a fighting chance of preventing the irreversible collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets – and the catastrophes that accompany them,” Mr Guterres said.

    “That means cutting global emissions 43% compared to 2019 levels by 2030, and 60% by 2035.”

    It’s not gonna happen: we’re doomed.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. “UK may unveil tougher emissions targets at Cop29 climate summit

    Campaigners hail Labour’s ‘proactive approach’ after series of policy U-turns under Conservatives”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/29/uk-emissions-targets-cop29-climate-summit-labour

    The UK government is considering making further commitments on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, likely to be announced at the UN climate summit this year.

    It is hoped the plan will help kickstart global ambitions on cutting emissions and encourage other countries to follow suit….

    …Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy security and net zero, hopes to announce a new target months early, and has the support of Keir Starmer, the prime minister, in trying to propel the UK into a leadership position on the international stage at climate negotiations.

    Starmer attended the previous summit, Cop28, when he was leader of the opposition and has been invited to Cop29, which will take place in Azerbaijan in November.

    Activists representing developing countries told the Guardian the global south would welcome UK plans for the early publication of its emissions-cutting plan, known as a nationally determined contribution (NDC)….

    ...A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: “The energy secretary will be front and centre of climate negotiations and will personally be leading Cop29 negotiations for the UK. In line with the Paris agreement, we have started planning for our next NDC, which will be submitted at least nine to 12 months ahead of Cop30. No decision on exact timing has yet been made.”

    Like

  36. Negotiations? Who needs negotiations? Just surrender up the UK. It’s what the “campaigners” want.

    Like

  37. Miliband and Starmer truly are pathetic: do they really believe that the likes of the Chinese Politburo and the Kremlin will have the slightest interest in following a UK lead? It’s embarrassing.

    Liked by 3 people

  38. Robin – missed your comment with quotes from United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.

    ““The reason is clear: greenhouse gases – overwhelmingly generated by burning fossil fuels – are cooking our planet,” Mr Guterres said in a speech at the forum.”

    Wonder if he speaks of the cuff, or has this scripted for him.

    He seems to have love his food Analogies “boiling” & “cooking”, next must be “burning fossil fuels – are air frying our planet,”

    Liked by 1 person

  39. dfhunter, Jo Nova has an amusing piece on the Guterres comments.

    Some extracts:

    This week UN was scaring the kiddies again in order to increase the river of funds that it feeds from.

    Only a poorly educated high schooler, or a UN Secretary-General, might be silly enough to think that the oceans had stayed the same for a million years and just jumped up 20 centimeters…

    UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned Tuesday that rising sea levels will “soon swell to an almost unimaginable scale with no lifeboat to take us back to safety,” highlighting the dire threat the crisis poses to Pacific Island nations.

    According to 1000 tide gauges,spread all over the globe, sea levels are rising slowly at around 1mm a year. The rise started long before human CO2 output increased, and there is no sign of acceleration with rapidly increasing human emissions of CO2.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Jit, interesting. In contrast it seems to me be just same old / same old. As for many years now emissions just keep going up – i.e. non-Western governments don’t really care. And that’s precisely the message of my header article and is very relevant to what’s going to happen at COP29, i.e. not much.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Robin, I think the summary is interesting, as is the fact that the UK’s share of global emissions is now said to be just over 0.7% while China’s is back over 30%. And the developing world’s share of rising emissions continues to grow.

    Like

  44. Mark – significant perhaps but really they’re tiny changes. And the developing world’s share of emissions has been growing for many many years.

    Like

  45. Met Office in alarming new weather warning – turn off electricity supply and don’t go in the attic (msn.com)

    Sh*t, never thought about that, thanks for the heads up Met –

    “To help residents prepare for potential flooding, the Met Office has provided the following advice: “It’s never too late to take action and prepare for flooding. Follow these 6 simple steps to protect your home or business: Check the flood advice in your area to know when and where flooding will happen. Charge mobile phone devices.”

    “Park your car outside the flood zone. Prepare a flood kit to help you cope in the event of flooding to your home and business. Store valuables up high, including electrical devices, important documents and furniture. Turn off gas water and electricity supplies. If you are trapped in a building by floodwater, go to the highest level in the building you are in. Do not go into attic spaces to avoid being trapped by rising water.”

    But what about granny in the basement flat?

    Like

  46. COP29 is getting close. Here’s proof.

    1. From the FT:

    World to set heat record for 2024 after warmest northern summer
    Temperatures in June to August period remained 1.5C above pre-industrial levels

    1. From Reuters:

    Summer of 2024 was world’s hottest on record, EU climate change monitor says

    An extract:

    “During the past three months of 2024, the globe has experienced the hottest June and August, the hottest day on record, and the hottest boreal summer on record,” said C3S deputy director Samantha Burgess.

    Unless countries urgently reduce their planet-heating emissions, extreme weather “will only become more intense“, she said. Greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are the main cause of climate change.

    This is what they said last year. Yet humanity’s emissions keep on rising.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. This Climate Depot headline underlines how things look on the brink of COP29:

    Epic Fail: ‘There is NO progress on climate’ – U.S. still consumes 82% of our energy from fossil fuels in 2023 – despite hundreds of billions spent by Biden-Harris – In 2023 world burned more fossil fuels than at any other time in history’

    Is there any realistic prospect of Western ‘leaders’ (and the UN) waking up to this reality? (Don’t bother to answer that.)

    Liked by 2 people

  48. Published at the right time:

    An interesting article in the Guardian this morning:

    Consumerism and the climate crisis threaten equitable future for humanity, report says

    An extract:

    Growing environmental degradation and climate instability have pushed the Earth beyond a series of safe planetary boundaries, say the authors from the Earth Commission, but it still remains possible to carve out a “safe and just space” that would enable everyone to thrive.

    That utopian outcome would depend on a radical transformation of global politics, economics and society to ensure a fairer distribution of resources, a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels and the widespread adoption of low-carbon, sustainable technologies and lifestyles, it said.

    No doubt the Chinese politburo will be anxious to endorse this – so long as it doesn’t apply to China.

    Liked by 2 people

  49. Robin – thanks for the link – like the end quotes –

    “The paper stresses the best chance for change in the near term is at city and business level, which tend to be more nimble than national governments and less beholden to vested corporate interests. But in the longer term, they mention the UN secretary general’s calls for a global solidarity pact and reform of the UN into a more effective Earth governance regulatory body that would quantify the minimum rights of access to resources and develop safe and just guidelines.

    The authors said the current global situation of worsening inequality and rising nationalist politics may not seem conducive to achieving the just and safe plan laid out, but governments can change and so can public opinion – particularly at a time of intensifying climate stress.

    “That is why this science is important to remind everyone that you should take justice seriously, because otherwise it will hit back in terms of social instability, migration and conflict. If you are a patriot who wants to reduce migration flows, then you had better take global justice seriously,” Rockström said. “Justice is an integral part of safety – and safety is an integral part of justice.”

    Makes perfect sense for this to appear in The Lancet Planetary Health Commission website.

    Like

  50. Oh dear … from today’s Guardian:

    David Lammy to appoint UK’s first special envoy for nature
    Exclusive: Labour will also boost environmental efforts by reestablishing climate role cut by Rishi Sunak

    This piece, by Fiona Harvey, is replete with embarrassing nonsense. An example:

    Lammy, who met Sir David Attenborough this month to talk about the global response to the climate and nature crises, will make a major intervention on the topic early this week.

    He will say: “The threat of climate change may not feel as urgent as a terrorist or an autocrat. But it is more fundamental. It is systemic, pervasive and accelerating towards us.”

    And then there’s this:

    Ed Miliband, the energy security and net zero secretary, has already begun an international charm offensive on the climate, inviting the president of the next UN climate summit, Mukhtar Babayev of Azerbaijan, to the UK over the summer. Last month he visited Brazil, which is chairing the G20 group of developed and developing nations this year, and will host the Cop30 UN climate summit next year.

    The UK also hopes to unveil strengthened commitments on cutting greenhouse gas emissions at this year’s Cop29 UN climate summit in Azerbaijan in November.

    And this:

    Chris Venables, the director of politics at the Green Alliance thinktank, said: “This sends a strong signal on the international stage that Labour are serious about the environmental agenda, after a lacklustre performance by the last government.”

    And this:

    Two previous climate envoys – Nick Bridge, who was ousted by Rishi Sunak despite helping to oversee a successful Cop26 in 2021; and John Ashton, who held the role from 2006 to 2012 – had also held civil service roles.

    Whatever makes Fiona think COP26 was successful?

    Like

  51. “Azerbaijan accused of hypocrisy after calling for Cop29 global truce

    Climate summit host positioning itself as peacemaker but is accused of ethnic cleansing and imprisoning opponents”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/17/azerbaijan-accused-of-hypocrisy-after-calling-for-cop29-global-truce

    The conflicts involving Ukraine and Russia, and Israel and Gaza – both in regions neighbouring Azerbaijan – will cast a shadow over the conference. Russia is a leading producer of fossil fuels and emitter of greenhouse gases, while Azerbaijan is helping to supply gas to Europe in place of Russia’s gas. Forging diplomatic agreement on the climate is expected to be even more fraught than usual, when geopolitical tensions are already running high.

    A leaked draft of the truce appeal, seen by the Guardian, shows Azerbaijan is positioning itself as a peacemaker. “[Cop29] is a unique chance to bridge divides and find paths towards lasting peace. Conflicts increase greenhouse gas emissions and ravage the environment, polluting soil, water and air. The devastation of ecosystems and pollution caused by conflicts worsen climate change and undermine our efforts to safeguard the planet,” reads the draft resolution, a short text of 180 words.

    But activists have pointed to Azerbaijan’s record on human rights and its recently concluded war with Armenia. More than 100,000 people were displaced in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region after Azerbaijan launched an offensive last September.

    A peace agreement was reached in late December but human rights campaigners say Azerbaijan still holds hundreds of political prisoners….

    I agree that the choice of host for COP 29 seems bizarre, to say the least – but then, that’s how unhinged the whole COP process has begun. As for the attempts to “bridge divides and find paths towards lasting peace” what do the critics want or expect? Attempts to create division and sow mistrust and friction? The wretched conference is going to be in Azerbaijan, like it or not, so it might as well try to achieve something positive.

    Like

  52. Robin, on another thread:

    Thanks for the Darwall link Jit – he’s always worth reading and this is no exception. Well worth a read.

    His closing paragraph makes the point well:

    The current architecture of the UN climate process was designed around China’s demands. Its veto of a climate treaty with a legally binding emissions target at the Copenhagen climate conference led the Obama administration to enshrine the Sinatra doctrine of climate action in the 2015 Paris climate agreement: the signatories would do it their way. China’s nationally determined commitment under the agreement has the goal of achieving “carbon neutrality” before 2060. The evidence to date shows that China does whatever advances China’s economic and ultimately its geopolitical interests. That is a lesson for America’s political leaders: if the United States wants to prevail in the geopolitical contest with China, it, too, needs to drop the Biden-Harris goal of net zero and embrace energy realism.

    This confirms my long-held view that Copenhagen 2009 (COP15) was the key step in the UN climate process. Here’s how Darwall described its outcome:

    ‘There was a clear victor. Equally clearly, there was a side that lost more comprehensively than at any international conference in modern history where the outcome had not been decided beforehand by force of arms.’

    Few people in the West understand – not least Miliband with his absurd global ‘leadership’ pretentious – that since COP15, fifteen years ago, China has been in charge of international climate negotiations.

    The Darwall article can be found HERE .

    Liked by 1 person

  53. The UN’s ‘Summit of the Future’ (‘a high-level event, bringing world leaders together to forge a new international consensus on how we deliver a better present and safeguard the future’) opens tomorrow. It has a substantial agenda, but the critically important item is for participants to sign a ‘Pact for the Future‘. Here’s a paragraph from the initial draft that I thought interesting:

    We recognize 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 global effort including through accelerating the transition 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.

      My first thought was don’t these people ever learn? There’s no possibility of countries such as China, India and Russia (assuming they attend) agreeing to this except in a significantly watered-down form. And sure enough that’s what’s happened. Here’s how the text has developed in subsequent negotiations: scroll down to Action 9 – and what do you find? All the usual weasel words that let the big developing emitters of the hook. A few examples:

      ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’

      ‘taking into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances‘

      ‘accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power’

      ‘transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition, while ensuring energy security’

      ‘Reaffirm the nationally determined nature of nationally determined contributions and article 4, paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement’ (It’s especially remarkable that this provision should be emphasised – just as it was at COP28.)

      In other words, nothing whatever has changed – nor is likely to change at COP29. Another hopeless UN failure.

      Liked by 3 people

    1. This Daily Sceptic article refers to a letter assorted luvvies have signed for submission to the UN Summit for the Future to which I refer above:

      Emma Thompson and Gary Lineker Front Eco-Campaign Despite Hypocritical Jet-Set Lifestyles

      I don’t suppose this will cause the negotiators to change their minds.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. And how about this: ‘accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power‘? In other words. burning coal – yes, the evil coal! – is OK if it’s ‘abated’ i.e. if something is done to diminish its effect. And even if it isn’t ‘abated’, it’s really OK so long as you make ‘efforts’ towards its ‘phase-down’.

      What this confirms of course is that, even if CO2 emissions are a problem, Miliband’s disastrous actions are a total waste of time and money. But of course we knew that already.

      Liked by 2 people

    4. In my comment above about the ‘Pact for the Future‘ I noted that I was particularly struck by the reference to Article 4.4 of the Paris Agreement. Here’s what it says:

      Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. 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.

      As you see, it exonerates developing countries from any obligation to cut their emissions. At the time some commentators noted that this provision couldn’t last and would have to be amended in due course. But it wasn’t. Moreover, in the communiqué issued at the end of COP28 lat year, it was repeated word for word. And here it is again. It’s a perfect illustration of a point I made a couple of days ago when commenting on an interesting Darwall article when I noted that ‘since COP15, fifteen years ago, China [supported by other major developing countries] has been in charge of international climate negotiations’. Yet even the UN seems not to have noticed.

      And Miliband plans to be a ‘climate leader’. Pathetic.

      Liked by 2 people

    6. The luvvies seem very concerned to hand over a ‘habitable climate’ to their children:

      Parent Letter to World Leaders – Press release

      Don Cheadle, Dame Emma Thompson, Julianne Moore, Khaled Hosseini, Robert Redford and Sir Mo Farah among more than 150 notable parents urging an end to fossil fuels ahead of UN Summit of the Future 

      Signatories to an open letter to world leaders, spearheaded by Our Kids’ Climate, as part of a movement to mobilize parents around the world to take climate action and help protect what we love, include:

      Mayor of London and C40 Cities Co-Chair, Sadiq Khan, and Mayor of Freetown and C40 Cities Co-Chair, Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr.

      Actors Cobie Smulders, David Morrissey, Dia Mirza, Djimon Hounsou, Emmy Rossum, Halle Bailey, Hend Sabry, Isabelle Carré, Julie Walters, Kevin Bacon, Matthew Rhys, Ray Winstone, Rosario Dawson, Simon Pegg and Steve Buscemi; and film director Fernando Meirelles.

      Musicians Angelique Kidjo and Annie Lennox.

      Author Ian McEwan, and children’s writers and illustrators Axel Scheffler, LeUyen Pham and Malorie Blackman.

      Prominent activists Bill McKibben, Princess Esmeralda of Belgium, Kumi Naidoo, Naomi Klein, Nnimmo Bassey and Tasneem Essop.

      Former UN Climate Chief and architect of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres.

      Hypocrites one and all. From frequent flyers to London mayors who have presided over the slaughter of kids daily on the human excrement soiled streets of London. Where is the letter signed by luvvies calling for the protection of kids from real threats such as knife crime, paedophilia, sex trafficking, mass rape, hypersexualisation and the trans agenda?

      Like

    7. In his speech today at the Labour conference Foreign Secretary Lammy said ‘the most fundamental threat our world faces is the “climate emergency”‘. He pledged to ‘restore Britain’s climate leadership‘. Labour he said will lead a ‘new global clean power alliance because climate matters‘.

      Wow – that’s going to make the Chinese politburo sit up.

      Liked by 1 person

    8. Robin, I despaired before, but now I think things are really grim. Naively, I used to think that Starmer had some common sense, that the likes of Miliband and Lammy were in the (shadow) cabinet as a matter of political expediency, but that he would control them. Now it’s becoming clear that they are there because he agrees with them and thinks they are up to the job. We’re going to hell in a handcart in short order.

      Liked by 3 people

    9. I see that some people are ramping it up ahead of COP29:

      “Rich countries could raise $5tn of climate finance a year, study says

      Simple measures could raise five times more money than poorer countries are asking for, research claims”

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/sep/24/rich-countries-could-raise-5tn-of-climate-finance-a-year-study-says

      Rich countries could raise five times the money that poor countries are demanding in climate finance, through windfall taxes on fossil fuels, ending harmful subsidies and a wealth tax on billionaires, research has shown.

      Developing nations are asking for at least $1tn (£750bn) a year of public funds to help them cut greenhouse gases and cope with the impacts of extreme weather.

      Rich countries are mooting potential sums much lower than this, in conventional climate finance such as low-interest loans from the World Bank and similar institutions. But they are also discussing potential new forms of finance, such as a levy on shipping and on frequent flyers. Brazil, which currently has the presidency of the G20, is pushing for a wealth tax of about 2% on billionaires.

      Research by the pressure group Oil Change International, published on Tuesday, shows that rich countries could generate $5tn a year from a combination of wealth and corporate taxes, and a crackdown on fossil fuels....

      ...Finance will be the key issue under discussion at the next UN climate summit, Cop29 in Azerbaijan in November, where a “new collective quantified goal” is expected to be set, under the terms of the Paris agreement….

      Like

    11. Never mind COP29. What about COP31?

      “Australia’s ‘immoral’ coalmine decision akin to drowning Pacific neighbours, Tuvalu climate minister declares

      Labor government has undermined case to co-host 2026 UN climate summit with island nations, Dr Maina Talia declares”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/01/australia-coalmine-decision-akin-to-drowning-its-pacific-neighbours-tuvalu-climate-minister-says

      Tuvalu’s climate minister says Australia’s decision to approve three coalmine expansions calls into question the country’s claim to be a “member of the Pacific family” and undermines the Australian case to co-host the 2026 UN climate summit with island nations.

      Dr Maina Talia said last week’s mine approvals, which analysts say could generate more than 1.3bn tonnes of carbon dioxide across their lifetime once the coal is shipped and burned overseas, was “a direct threat to our collective future”….

      Like

    12. “World fails first review of COP renewable energy goal

      A dramatic spending surge is needed to course correct, the International Renewable Energy Agency warned.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/dramatic-spending-surge-needed-to-hit-clean-energy-goals-world-renewables-agency-warns/

      Reaching the landmark renewable energy targets agreed at last year’s global climate summit will remain a distant dream unless the world invests more than $30 trillion over the next six years. 

      That’s the stark warning the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) delivered Friday at the final ministerial meeting ahead of next month’s United Nations climate summit in Azerbaijan, known as COP29, where financing for climate action will take center stage. 

      At last year’s COP28 conference in Dubai, countries pledged to collectively triple the world’s renewable energy capacity and double energy-saving efforts by 2030. The commitments were hailed as key to limiting global warming in line with the Paris Agreement.  

      IRENA’s first progress assessment, published Friday, gives the world a failing grade across the board. For the tripling target, the agency found that countries are on track for only half the renewable power growth required to meet the goal. 

      Stronger policies, easier permitting and modernizing power grids are crucial to making up for the shortfall — as is a dramatic surge in investment, according to IRENA. 

      Investment in renewables reached a record high of $570 billion last year, but what’s needed is $1.5 trillion a year, IRENA says. And spending on energy-saving measures must increase seven-fold to reach the doubling target, from $323 million last year to $2.2 trillion annually. 

      In total, reaching the twin COP28 targets requires a cumulative global investment of $31.5 trillion in renewables, grids, energy efficiency and related measures by 2030, according to IRENA. 

      The findings are likely to bolster developing countries’ push for a massive increase in financial support….

      Like

    13. “‘Real risk’ that climate aid talks will fail, key COP29 negotiator warns

      Ireland’s Eamon Ryan says it’s ‘not certain’ there will be an agreement in Baku.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/real-risk-climate-aid-talks-fail-cop29-negotiator-eamon-ryan-ireland-azerbaijan-baku-eu/

      Global talks on how to fund climate action are so tricky that countries may not reach a deal at next month’s United Nations summit, a key negotiator said on Monday.

      Irish Environment Minister Eamon Ryan, who last week was appointed to co-lead part of the negotiations at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, warned that there’s a “real risk” of failure. 

      “It’s not certain we will get agreement in Baku,” said Ryan, arriving at an EU meeting in Luxembourg where ministers will discuss the bloc’s COP29 position. “It’s not an easy issue when you come down to discussing the financial future and … multilateral cooperation is not exactly the flavor of the month at the moment. So there’s a real risk we might not get agreement.”...

      Like

    14. “Back off, Azerbaijan tells human rights critics ahead of COP29

      Baku has come under fire for a crackdown on dissidents ahead of hosting the prestigious climate change talks.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/azerbaijan-human-rights-critics-cop29-baku-hikmet-hajiyev/

      Don’t bring your human rights concerns to Azerbaijan for COP29, one of the country’s top officials declared as criticism mounts of his government’s domestic record ahead of the annual climate summit.

      Speaking to POLITICO, Azerbaijani foreign policy chief Hikmet Hajiyev blasted condemnation of the host country’s domestic record as a “coordinated smear campaign and dirty propaganda.”

      “It is really disgusting — we perceive it as hostile acts against Azerbaijan,” said Hajiyev, a top adviser to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. “Overburdening the COP agenda with issues not having direct and immediate linkage to climate change is not helpful but detrimental.”

      He added: “Climate change is based on science. There is no place for any ideology here.”…..

      Like

    15. This burgeoning talk of climate finance is remarkable. The original point of these COP meetings was to get agreement to cut global GHG emissions, not to get the West to pay money to developing countries. If payment was contingent on binding promises to cut emissions it might I suppose make sense. But it’s not.

      Liked by 1 person

    16. Whether or not you approve of Azerbaijan’s human rights record, its foreign policy ‘chief’ is surely right. Human rights should not be relevant to COP meetings. Otherwise we wouldn’t be allowing China (and arguably half the world’s other nations) to take part.

      Like

    17. Hmm – if THIS is correct it seems that Starmer plans to speak at Baku, but not Modi, Macron, Xi or Biden.

      Like

    19. From that Guardian article:

      Azerbaijan, the host of the Cop29 global climate summit, will see a large expansion of fossil gas production in the next decade, a new report has revealed. The authors said that the crucial negotiations should not be overseen by “those with a vested interest in keeping the world hooked on fossil fuels”.

      Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas company, Socar, and its partners are set to raise the country’s annual gas production from 37bn cubic metres (bcm) today to 49bcm by 2033. Socar also recently agreed to increase gas exports to the European Union by 17% by 2026.

      If COPs shouldn’t be held in countries with a vested interest in “keeping the world hooked on fossil fuels” should they be held in countries that are increasing or not reducing their use of fossil fuels? If not, the list of potential host countries is going to be very small indeed and will exclude most of the developing world.

      Liked by 3 people

    20. Oxfam’s output is usually front and centre at the BBC and the Guardian. Why not this?

      “Climate Finance Unchecked
      How much does the World Bank know about the climate actions it claims?”

      https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621658/bp-climate-finance-unchecked-241017-en.pdf

      ...Oxfam has reported on the progress of the US$100 billion commitment every two years since 2016. Our most recent analysis found that “developed” countries’ claim to have mobilized US$116 billion in 2022 likely overstates the true value of their climate finance by up to US$88 billion. The true value
      of this finance is likely between US$28 billion and US$35 billion, when one takes into account the difference between loans at market rate and those at preferential terms, while also considering the overly generous claims about the climate-related significance of the funds provided. These generous accounting practices by different countries and providers, combined with the lack of transparency and consistency in how climate finance is defined, calculated, and reported, is at the root of the crisis of
      trust in climate finance. As stated in a recent report by ONE, “[High]-income countries make it incredibly difficult to accurately track how much money they’re actually contributing and where it’s being spent. That’s because reporting has been confusing, slow, and imprecise. As a result, no one
      knows with certainty how much actual climate finance has been committed, much less delivered.”…

      Conclusions:

      In our 2022 report Unaccountable Accounting, Oxfam could not verify about 40%, or US$7 billion, of what the Bank claimed as climate finance in FY 2021 through its ex ante approach. The analysis demonstrated that the Bank provides little to no documentation to support its climate finance claims and uses high levels of discretion in assessing the relevance of climate finance for each project’s components at the approval stage.

      This new report finds that over the course of implementing a project, many things can change, and the difference between budgeted and actual expenditures on Bank projects is on average 26% to 43% above or below claimed climate finance. Across the entire portfolio, between 2017 and 2023, this rate of deviation translates into between US$24.28 billion and US$41.32 billion in climate finance about which we have no information in terms of support for new climate actions and cuts to planned actions.

      When a project is modified during implementation in a way that increases or decreases project components and the total project cost, these changes are likely to change the climate co-benefits that had been claimed at approval. For example, some of the project’s climate finance activities could be removed or revised. Yet given the Bank’s practice of reporting only ex ante climate finance, the project would still claim the same percentage of climate finance out of the total project cost as when the project was approved.

      The magnitude of this undocumented spending is, by itself, of great concern. Furthermore, in light of our two reports’ findings, it is clear that no one – including the Bank – has any real idea of how many billions of dollars are going to which climate actions….

      Like

    21. They’re obviously going to throw the kitchen sink at COP29 again:

      “Miscarriages due to climate crisis a ‘blind spot’ in action plans – report

      The harm to babies and mothers is one of the warnings being sent to Cop29 decision-makers by leading scientists”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/28/miscarriages-due-to-climate-crisis-a-blind-spot-in-action-plans-report

      Miscarriages, premature babies and harm to mothers caused by the climate crisis are a “blind spot” in action plans, according to a report aimed at the decision-makers who will attend the Cop29 summit in November.

      Potential collapse of the Amazon rainforest, vital Atlantic Ocean currents and essential infrastructure in cities are also among the dangers cited by an international group of 80 leading scientists from 45 countries. The report collects the latest insights from physical and social science to inform the negotiations at the UN climate summit in Azerbaijan….

      ...Increasing climate extremes are causing more lost babies, premature births and cognitive damage to newborns, the report said. For example, a study in India found a doubled risk of miscarriage in pregnant women suffering heat stress, while another in California found a significant association between long-term heat exposure and stillbirth and premature birth.

      Flooding is responsible for more than 100,000 lost pregnancies a year in 33 countries in South and Central America, Asia, and Africa, according to another study, with the danger highest for women with lower income and education levels. Rising heat also increases the intimate partner violence suffered by women, a south Asian analysis found.

      However, only 27 out of 119 national climate plans submitted to the UN include action related to mothers and newborns, making this a major “blind spot”, the report said....

      Like

    23. ‘Oxfam has reported on the progress of the US$100 billion commitment every two years since 2016...’

      There was no such commitment. The claim refers to a promise of a per annum payment allegedly made by developed countries in the Copenhagen Accord at COP15 in 2009. The problem is that it was agreed by only five countries (the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa) of which only the US is a developed country and in any case the Accord was not part of the main conference and was not legally binding as delegates at the conference itself only ‘took note’ of it. Nonetheless this mythical ‘commitment’ lives on.

      Liked by 3 people

    24. The topic of “climate reparations” is bound to come up again. An article by David Turver includes this factoid: “The UK’s cumulative emissions since 1750 amount to only 4.4% of the global total.”

      So our contribution to the current levels of CO2 is pretty minor. However that’s without taking account of “embedded carbon”. For much of the period above we were the workshop of the world, exporting all manner of manufactured goods, textiles, etc to the rest of the world. So I wonder how much of that 4.4% applies to our own, domestic consumption and how much should be attributed to the nations taking our exports? A 20 – 80 split wouldn’t surprise me, taking our cumulative emissions down to around 1%.

      Like

    25. FT headline this morning:

      World still on track to exceed warming of 1.5C this year, EU agency says
      The data comes as experts fear Donald Trump will deliver on his promise to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement

      According to the 2018 IPCC Special Report it’s been on track to exceed 1.5ºC since the Paris Agreement was enacted. Whether or not Trump pulls out will make no difference.

      Liked by 1 person

    27. “Von der Leyen’s Cop29 absence sends ‘fatal signal’, say watchers

      MEPs express concern for EU climate leadership as commission head confirms she will miss Baku summit”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/06/von-der-leyens-cop29-absence-sends-fatal-signal-say-watchers

      Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to miss the Cop29 climate summit is “a fatal signal” and raises questions about Europe’s commitment to the climate crisis, observers have said.

      The European Commission confirmed on Tuesday that its president would not attend the UN climate talks in Baku, which start on Monday. “The commission is in a transition phase and the president will therefore focus on her institutional duties,” a spokesperson said.

      Also skipping the “world leaders’ climate action summit” on Tuesday and Wednesday are France’s Emmanuel Macron and the outgoing US president, Joe Biden. The Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, cancelled his participation due to a head injury, Reuters reported. The leaders of China, South Africa, Japan and Australia are expected to miss the talks as well….

      Never mind. I’m sure the UK government will send lots of people to demonstrate our determination to lead the way.

      Liked by 2 people

    28. It seems that the Great European Dunkelflaute has even reached as far as Baku, Azerbaijan, and is about to cast an eerie stillness over proceedings there. The calm before the storm. I suspect though it will not be the storm of frenetic international climate action so ardently desired by the climate cultists. It will be a real storm, not a politically and ideologically contrived one, a force of human nature rather than a storm in an alarmists’ teacup.

      Liked by 2 people

    30. Also from the BBC, a gotcha that turned out to be not a gotcha after all:

      “COP29 chief exec caught promoting fossil fuel deals”

      I read in vain to try to find out what exactly he had done wrong. Apparently wanting to develop new gas fields is treasonous? What about the activist organisation lying their way to try and entrap Soltanov into saying the wrong thing?

      BBC link.

      Liked by 1 person

    31. Jit, you beat me to posting it, but that BBC headline really is a non-story. The BBC is incapable of offering any reasonable narrative on this subject, where it is completely and utterly biased. What’s so dreadful about these details from the report?

      ...During the meeting, Soltanov told the potential sponsor that the aim of the conference was “solving the climate crisis” and “transitioning away from hydrocarbons in a just, orderly and equitable manner”.

      Anyone, he said, including oil and gas companies, “could come with solutions” because Azerbaijan’s “doors are open”….

      ...Soltanov then described natural gas as a “transitional fuel”, adding: “We will have a certain amount of oil and natural gas being produced, perhaps forever.”

      The UN climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, acknowledges there will be a role for some oil and gas up to 2050 and beyond….

      Also, as the BBC says:

      …Oil and gas accounts for about half of Azerbaijan’s total economy and more than 90% of its exports, according to US figures….

      So, what does the BBC want? For Azerbaijan to destroy its economy overnight? Perhaps the real question mark should be regarding allowing a ptero-state to hold the COP in the first place.

      Liked by 1 person

    32. Hysteria levels do seem to rise annually just ahead of each and every COP:

      “‘Essential to act now’ to prevent chaotic climate breakdown, warns UN chief

      On the eve of Cop29 in Baku, António Guterres says dangers are underestimated as irreversible tipping points near”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/08/antonio-guterres-cop29-climate-breakdown-tipping-points-fossil-fuels-finance-aoe

      As usual, the COP won’t produce a binding outcome that involves acting now, yet they will never declare the war to be lost. Next year at this time it will once more be essential to act now. It’s always last chance time, and always will be. The gravy train is just too profitable.

      Liked by 2 people

    33. Speaking of money, it really is all about money:

      “What would a good outcome at Cop29 look like?

      Focus will be on climate finance and improving on current goal of providing $100bn a year to poor countries”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/08/cop29-climate-talks-what-would-a-good-outcome-look-like

      This year’s UN climate summit, being held in Azerbaijan, is focused on finance, and specifically the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) for climate finance, required under the 2015 Paris agreement. Rich countries are bound under the agreement to provide climate finance to help developing nations cut their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of the climate crisis. The current finance goal, of providing $100bn a year to poor countries, is widely acknowledged to be inadequate, and most rich countries agree the figure needs to be several times higher.…

      Liked by 1 person

    34. And money once again:

      “Odour of oil and return of Trump hang heavy over Cop29 in Baku

      Prospects of strong outcome appear dim but there is hope the talks will address pressing issue of climate finance”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/08/cop29-baku-climate-talks-odour-of-oil-return-of-trump-finance

      ...Trump will not be at Cop29, a fortnight-long meeting that is the latest in a near annual series stretching back to 1992 when the UN framework convention on climate change – the parent treaty to the 2015 Paris climate agreement – was signed.

      Those talks may appear to have achieved little, as greenhouse gas emissions are still rising….

      Well, yes indeed. They don’t appear to have achieved little, they have achieved nothing of any significance, unless you consider photo-ops for politicians and celebrities to be an achievement.

      Liked by 2 people

    35. An article in the Telegraph this evening:

      Trump’s return is a disaster for Ed Miliband – his Net Zero dreams may soon lie in tatters
      The President-Elect has made no secret of his disdain for this “radical Left” agenda

      Some extracts:

      The weather in Azerbaijan is set fair for next week as Ed Miliband jets in to talk climate change. On day one of COP29, intermittent sunshine is expected, with only an 8 per cent chance of rain. Nonetheless, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary will need to pack his jumper, for there are chill winds blowing his way.

      Indeed, following Donald Trump’s sensational election victory, the whole ten day shindig is likely to be enveloped in gloom. In a shattering blow to Net Zero crusaders, the most powerful man on the planet now appears to think climate change is a hoax.

      Make no mistake – the looming return of Trump to the White House has just planted a bomb under Labour’s Net Zero obsession. It is now far more politically perilous. For just as Miliband and his carbon emission-fixated ministerial colleagues ratchet up their campaign to achieve “clean power” by 2030, a Trump-led America will be pulling in the opposite direction.

      “These people have got a lot of problems,” the President-Elect has said.

      Well yes they do – few more so than Miliband and Starmer, if Trump’s message begins to reverberate here. For while Miliband destroys British steel and cancels North Sea oil and gas projects, costing tens of thousands of jobs, the world’s two biggest carbon emitters – America and China – will be ramping up production.

      As the headlong rush to reach Net Zero makes everyday life in the UK ever more costly and complicated, the argument that this is the wrong response to undeniable changes in weather patterns will truly begin to resonate.

      Worth reading in full.

      Like

    36. “Climate talks to open in shadow of Trump victory”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0zd2z53xo

      ...Presidents and prime ministers normally attend these conferences at the start to provide impetus. But this year the leaders of some of the biggest economies and biggest carbon emitters are notably absent. US President Joe Biden, China’s leader Xi Jinping and France’s President Emmanuel Macron will be absent, as will European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Germany’s Olaf Schulz and India’s Narendra Modi.

      They are staying away for a range of reasons, but it won’t help the conference get off to a strong start. Leaders who do attend will also have lots of other issues on their minds, including two expensive and difficult wars in the Middle East and in Ukraine, and global financial problems.

      “No world leader is arriving with climate change at the number one spot in their inbox,” Prof Thomas Hale at Oxford university explains.

      There’s also an underlying feeling that Azerbaijan doesn’t have the diplomatic or financial clout to secure a significant agreement in Baku.

      Many leaders are taking the view that progress is more likely at next year’s COP30 in Brazil….

      Isn’t it time this pointless charade was ditched?

      Liked by 1 person

    37. ‘Isn’t it time this pointless charade was ditched?‘

      It should have been ditched years ago. But it wasn’t. Nor will it be this time.

      Liked by 1 person

    38. Ben Pile has another good piece in the Daily Sceptic this morning: Will President Trump Kill Net Zero?

      I especially liked this bit:

      U.K. climate policy has thus been based on the belief that British green virtue-signalling will be a proof of concept for the rest of the world to follow. British ‘leadership’, the argument runs, will force other countries to align with the green agenda, because Ed Miliband is such an impressive global figure. Consequently, the U.K. has spent many billions of pounds on climate diplomacy, often under its ‘development’ budget.

      But it’s not just Trump that the mighty Ed Miliband’s indubitable brilliance is now up against. The world is a very different place now, compared with both the era of Trump’s first term and Miliband’s time in office in the late 2000s. Geopolitics is repolarised, with BRICS and emerging economies now far wealthier and far less willing to share in the preoccupations of the Western liberal order that dominated international relations until (at the latest) the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine. More than a billion people in India and in China are unlikely to accept the lower living standards that a global climate policy would require of them, and are far less awestruck by the likes of Ed Miliband and Caroline Lucas than climate warriors believe.

      He goes on to make this perceptive comment:

      And that is why, in some senses it is false to say that it is Trump who will kill Net Zero. Net Zero will kill Net Zero, in precisely the same way that intransigent, self-serving and lofty elitists, with their unworldly ideological agendas, created the opportunity for Trump himself

      [My emphasis]

      Worth reading in full.

      Liked by 3 people

    39. The Daily Sceptic is on a climate roll this morning. As well as Ben Pile’s excellent item, it has a good article by Chris Morrison titled, UKHSA Launches “Climate Mental Health Distress” Project With Taxpayer Money.

      That title is epitomised by this extract:

      The activities of Government bodies such as the UKHSA have made it difficult to distinguish between genuine psychological anguish and young spoilt adults with unchallenged luxury death-cult beliefs who just don’t appear to fancy a lifetime of striving and work.

      But the key comment (and relevance to this thread) is this:

      … Net Zero is dead – killed off on November 5th by the return of President Trump. The upcoming COP will be a wake – developing countries will demand free money or “climate reparations” as they call it, China and India will pay lip service. But without the backing and money of the most powerful country in the world, the idea that you can run stuff without hydrocarbon energy and processes is a lost cause. It will not die easily, particularly in the European countries. The U.K. will suffer egregiously if fanatics in the new Labour Government continue to hold sway. Net Zero promotion and the agitprop that underpins its survival are deeply embedded within political and bureaucratic elites, as the latest stunt from the UKHSA demonstrates.

      Those last two sentences are unfortunately true. But those of us who are opposed to this nonsense have now got a powerful new argument.

      Liked by 2 people

    40. The notion – exemplified by the Guardian article referred to by Mark (above) – that COP29 will ‘focus on finance’ illustrates perfectly how the UN and Western objective of international climate negotiation has failed. That objective was emission stabilisation (i.e. reduction) as is clear from Article 2 of the treaty that launched the COP process – the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC – https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf). Although it obliges developed countries to provide to provide financial resource to developing countries (Article 4.3), that’s essentially all about helping them with administrative matters and the transfer of technology. It is not about funding the costs of emission reduction nor about compensation for bad weather – matters that are not referred to in the treaty. That these are it seems to be the focus of COP29 further exemplifies how these conferences have lost their way.

      Liked by 2 people

    41. Robin,

      That’s an excellent summary. However, at the risk of joining those who believe the agenda is about attacking the west, have the COPs lost their way, or was the intention always about redistributing wealth from developed to developing countries? I am aware that there are quotes from some of the “green” bigwigs that might suggest that the latter is the case, that “climate change” is a Trojan Horse being used to drive through a rather different agenda.

      I don’t know what the answer is, but as the emphasis of COPs and the narrative around climate change subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) changes, I am beginning to wonder.

      Liked by 1 person

    42. Mark:

      Well, as the UNFCCC was enacted in 1992 – 32 years ago – and says nothing that’s even remotely about redistribution, it’s clearly not evidence of a different agenda. But it certainly does seem that some people are trying to introduce a new agenda now – an approach that’s unlikely to get anywhere in view of the second coming of the Donald.

      Liked by 1 person

    43. Robin, what the formal texts say and what senior officials think and do may be very different things. For example:-

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.” ~ Christiana Figueres

      “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.” ~ Ottmar Edenhofer

      Regards, John C.

      Liked by 1 person

    44. John C:

      Some senior officials to be sure. But Figueres was a strange person who didn’t even understand what was agreed in Paris despite her role in getting it signed. And Edenhofer is plainly an outlier – I know of no one who shares his views. In any case, these people are addressing only Western countries – remember it was big ‘developing’ countries such as China and India that ensured that they were exempted from any obligation, legal or political, under the Paris Agreement to reduce their emissions. And obviously they (and for example Russia – a ‘developed’ country) are not remotely interested in redistribution.

      But it’s all rather academic now. The Donald is not going to do any redistributing.

      Like

    45. Robin, I agree that at the aggregate international level the West is not going to do much redistribution now that The Donald is back. However, if you will allow a more parochial view, at the level of the UK, our overall government system seems well capable of redistributing the nation’s wealth into the arms of those who will, for a hefty price, decarbonise our economy, implement Net Zero and drive up energy prices – all of which hits the poorest the most, which I would find extremely bizarre if we had Labour government of the old school … But I should not show my age in this way. Regards, John C.

      Liked by 2 people

    46. Told you so:

      “After Trump re-election, UK will lead efforts to save Cop29, says Miliband

      Energy secretary says Britain must work on vital alliances with other countries following victory of climate-denier Trump”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/09/after-trump-re-election-uk-will-lead-efforts-to-save-cop29-says-miliband

      The UK must ramp up its efforts on renewable energy to foster national security in an increasingly uncertain world, the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has warned, on the eve of a fraught global summit on the climate crisis.

      He pledged that the UK would lead efforts at Cop29 to secure the global agreement needed to stave off the worst impacts of climate breakdown, in talks that have been thrown into turmoil by the re-election of Donald Trump as US president.

      “The only way to keep the British people secure today is by making Britain a clean-energy superpower, and the only way we protect future generations is by working with other countries to deliver climate action,” Miliband told the Observer. “This government is committed to accelerating climate action precisely because it is by doing this that we protect our country, with energy security, lower bills, and good jobs.”…

      What’s that saying about insanity being doing the same thing time and time again and always expecting a different result?

      Liked by 3 people

    47. Maybe Mr Miliband should take note:

      “‘A total waste of time’: why Papua New Guinea pulled out of Cop29 and why climate advocates are worried

      Country’s foreign minister says UN climate summits have produced ‘no results’ as Pacific nation takes the rare step of withdrawing from upcoming Cop29″

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/08/png-cop29-papua-new-guinea-un-climate-summit

      …Cop, the UN’s annual year-ending climate summit, has faced persistent criticism that big-emitting countries have not done enough to take meaningful climate action. Papua New Guinea is among the first nations to declare it will not attend due to big emitting countries failing to act as they have promised.…

      …“We will no longer tolerate empty promises and inaction, while our people suffer the devastating consequences of climate change,” Tckatchenko said at a meeting of small island states in Samoa last week. He added that “nothing concrete has come out of such major multilateral meetings.”

      “The last three Cop meetings have gone around in circles, producing no tangible results for small island states. Cop29 will be no different, so Papua New Guinea will not participate at the political level,” Tckatchenko said....

      Like

    48. Mark – from your “After Trump re-election” link – they can’t help themselves to start with “climate-denier Trump”.

      They have a playbook & can’t seem to realise most people are getting wise, or ignore this over the top smear against anybody who questions the “consensus view”.

      But at least the last quote by – David Hillman, director of the group Stamp Out Poverty, part of the Make Polluters Pay coalition, said: “The UK government must not use Trump’s election as a justification not to step up at Cop with the scale of ambition on finance required to meet the size of the challenge that confronts us, similarly to how uncertainty around Brexit was once engineered by some countries to halt important progress on taxing the banks.”

      Makes sense (sarc)

      Like

    49. In fairness, Trump does say that climate change is a hoax. Having said that, with the US imminently backing away from the COP process, the EU in meltdown (thanks in part to Germany’s energiewende and EV mandate), China, Russia, India et al uninterested, it’s difficult to see how virtually bankrupt Britain can pay or lead the way at COP29. It’s madness.

      Liked by 1 person

    50. Well, it’s definitely all about money and punishment now, and precious little else:

      “Cop29 could change the financial climate for the world’s wealthy polluters

      This week’s summit will focus on paying for the costs of global heating – and much more money is needed”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/10/cop29-summit-financial-agenda-wealthy-polluters

      About 50,000 government officials, policymakers, investors and campaigners will gather in Azerbaijan this week in the hope of answering a trillion-dollar question: how much money should go each year to helping developing countries cope with climate-related costs?

      The aim of the UN’s Cop29 climate talks in Baku, which is being called the “climate finance Cop”, is to establish a new annual climate financing target to replace the current $100bn pledge, set in 2009, which expires at the end of this year. There is one clear consensus already: the existing climate finance available to developing countries is nowhere near enough to withstand worsening climate impacts. The ambition is too low, and in 15 years the annual target has been met in full only once, in 2022.

      Campaigners have called for the governments of wealthier countries to contribute to a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance. Forecasts of how much this will be vary but are typically $500bn to $1tn a year, or less than 1% of global GDP. Some estimates are as high as $5tn.

      “Setting a more ambitious goal will be essential to helping vulnerable countries adopt clean energy and other low-carbon solutions and build resilience to worsening climate impacts,” said the World Resources Institute.

      But who should pay? To date, the financial contributions that enable developing countries to pursue low-carbon growth and greater climate resilience have come from countries defined by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as “high income”. The list includes the UK, US, Japan and Germany. But in the 30 years since it was created, countries including China, India and South Korea have dramatically increased their economic might – and their carbon emissions.

      It is likely that the talks will include calls to expand the list of countries contributing to climate financing. But even then the sums involved are too large for government spending ­budgets alone, according to delegates from many wealthy nations….

      [Mr Miliband, please take note].

      Liked by 1 person

    51. In today’s climate finance article (thanks Mark for the link), the Guardian says this:

      The aim of the UN’s Cop29 climate talks in Baku, which is being called the “climate finance Cop”, is to establish a new annual climate financing target to replace the current $100bn pledge, set in 2009, which expires at the end of this year.

      The much-mentioned $100bn p.a. ‘pledge’ by developed countries in 2009 is a myth, they made no such pledge: the Copenhagen Accord was agreed by only five countries (the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa) of which only the US is a developed country. And, in any case, the Accord was not legally binding: COP15 delegates only ‘took note’ of it. Note especially the Accord’s statement that the undertaking is made ‘In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency’. This refers to the US position that the funds will be available only if major developing countries such as China and India accept binding and verifiable emission reduction commitments. An extract:

      ‘…the money is only on the table so long as fast-growing nations like China and India accept binding commitments that are open to international inspection and verification.’

      In other words, the claim that developed countries pledged $100bn p.a. is total nonsense – making the rest of the Guardian article meaningless as well as absurd.

      Liked by 2 people

    52. Well, I think the agenda is fairly clear by now:

      “COP29: Will rich nations promise more money for climate change?”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63478446

      I think it’s fair to say that BBC journalism fails the test of knowing what it’s talking about, as demonstrated by Robin’s analysis above. This is how the BBC article commences:

      In 2009, the world’s developed nations agreed to give $100bn (£78bn) a year to poorer nations by 2020 to help them tackle and prepare for climate change.

      In the 15 years that have passed since that first goal was set, global temperatures have increased and emissions have grown – requiring trillions of dollars of investment, external to tackle the issue of climate change.

      At the UN climate summit COP29 this year in Baku, Azerbaijan, countries will recommit to a new goal – but first they must agree how much will be given, who is contributing and how the money will be spent.…

      Like

    53. It’s remarkable how the alleged developing countries’ $100bn p.a. promise keeps being trotted out despite being completely untrue.

      Like

    54. Robin, the whole net zero/climate change narrative is remarkable given how much of it is dishonest but apparently now embedded in the public consciousness. We keep being told that renewable energy is “green” “clean” and “carbon free”; also that it’s cheaper than fossil fuels and will bring bills down if only we roll it out on an ever larger scale. None of it’s true, but it’s the official narrative, and it’s rarely challenged.

      Liked by 3 people

    55. Green “nudge unit” at the BBC will be in full swing for COP29.

      As Robin says “$100bn p.a. promise keeps being trotted despite being completely untrue”.

      Think I’ve heard BBC say this, but only in passing/at the end, after they lead with the $100bn p.a. promise.

      BBC Verify may prove me wrong.

      Like

    56. “COP29 Will Be Haunted by the Ghost of the President Yet-to-Come”

      https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/11/cop29-will-be-haunted-by-the-ghost-of-the-president-yet-to-come/

      Spare a thought this morning for Justin Rowlatt of the BBC as he sits down for breakfast in Baku wondering how he will spin the looming disaster of the now Trump-wrecked COP29, which begins today. In happier days, the thought of wasting billions of dollars on free handouts, or climate reparations, as they are laughably called, would have warmed his heart. In happier days, western governments could pretend to be saving the planet by rebadging foreign aid for so-called climate projects. …

      …The latest COP in Azerbaijan is all about money – a massive annual trillion dollar heist planned by global elites as a transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. But Trump’s election has blown these plans out of the water. America’s commitment to the Paris agreement, crucial to much of this funding, will soon be ditched by Trump along with green boondoggles of every variety. Can Rowlatt and co. step up to the plate and put the best possible face on the new reality? Rarely can a BBC correspondent have faced a more difficult assignment.

      David Wojick of CFACT is not sanguine about the prospects of the useful idiots covering the conference for mainstream media. “That people take this nonsense seriously speaks volumes about the unreality of the UN climate programme. But it will be great fun to watch them hit the NO WAY wall,” he says.…

      Unfortunately, Chris also writes this:

      …This formed part of the agreement reached in Paris in 2015 that pledged $100 billion a year for climate action in the developing world….

      But in respect of that expenditure, he does usefully note this:

      …In fact, a recent survey by Reuters and Big Local News at Stanford University found that billions of dollars had been spent building new coal- and gas-fired power stations, along with airport and hotel developments. Japan is said to have provided at least $776.3 million to finance three airports including the Borg El Arab development in Egypt. The pragmatic Egyptian climate minister Mohamed Nasr noted that “people have to fly”.

      The two largest climate finance contributors to date are the USA and Japan. The researchers found that Japan grants itself a great deal of latitude when it comes to defining climate finance. It provided $2.4 billion to help fund the Matarbari ultra supercritical coal-fired power station in Bangladesh. Apparently, Japan considers Matarbari a project worthy of its climate backing because it uses Japanese technology to generate more energy with less coal. If worrying about carbon dioxide is your thing, you will not be pleased to learn that according to the researchers Matarbari will produce more emissions than the entire city of San Francisco in 2019….

      Like

    57. Greta’s back:

      “A ‘Cop of peace’? How can authoritarian, human rights-trashing Azerbaijan possibly host that?”

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/11/greta-thunberg-cop29-authoritarian-human-rights-azerbaijan-greenwashing

      Greta isn’t (or her advisers aren’t) stupid, and while there’s much in this that I disagree with, there’s much I can sign up too. She does usefully demonstrate the futility, stupidity, hypocrisy and political nature of the whole COP process.

      Like

    58. The Independent has a long COP29 article article this morning:

      Activists look to Britain for climate leadership as Trump’s win casts long shadow over crucial UN talks
      New controversies threaten to derail one of the most important climate summits in recent history

      It refers of course to the $100bn ‘commitment’, but I’ve probably said enough about that. However there are other egregious errors. For example:

      Every year the climate summit produces a treaty agreed by all countries…

      Not so. Multi country treaties (which are binding) usually require ratification by the governments of participant countries – the USA for example requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. Few, if any, of the agreements signed at COPs are treaties.

      Other than money, the summit will discuss progress on the world’s transition away from using fossil fuels, something countries agreed to at last year’s summit.

      No they didn’t: although the COP28 outcome referred to a transition, it was hedged about by various qualifications and, in any case, exempted developing countries from any obligation to reduce, let alone transfer away from, fossil fuels.

      Rich nations… are supposed to provide more money for climate action around the world. This commitment was a central part of the Paris Agreement…

      No it didn’t: the Paris Agreement doesn’t mention ‘rich nations’. And, although it does refer to developed countries’ obligation to ‘provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation’ that was clearly not a central part of the Agreement.

      Don’t journalists ever check the facts? No need to answer that.

      The rest of the article is a splendid example of wishful thinking.

      Liked by 2 people

    59. Although I’m not a subscriber, the FT sends me its headlines. This morning I got nearly 20 – mainly about Baku and substantially about how Trump’s election will affect it. But COP29 is an event of trivial importance. Why do the MSM keep going on about it? And why is Starmer wasting his time by going there (especially as few other senior world leaders can be bothered)?

      Liked by 1 person

    61. Robin,

      Please let us know if Piers responds. Meanwhile:

      “World fails first review of COP renewable energy goal

      A dramatic spending surge is needed to course correct, the International Renewable Energy Agency warned.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/dramatic-spending-surge-needed-to-hit-clean-energy-goals-world-renewables-agency-warns/

      Reaching the landmark renewable energy targets agreed at last year’s global climate summit will remain a distant dream unless the world invests more than $30 trillion over the next six years. …

      …IRENA’s first progress assessment, published Friday, gives the world a failing grade across the board. For the tripling target, the agency found that countries are on track for only half the renewable power growth required to meet the goal. …

      …Investment in renewables reached a record high of $570 billion last year, but what’s needed is $1.5 trillion a year, IRENA says. And spending on energy-saving measures must increase seven-fold to reach the doubling target, from $323 million last year to $2.2 trillion annually….

      That’s going well, then.

      Like

    62. China, still playing the west for fools:

      “China ‘concerned’ about Trump’s climate impact, says Beijing envoy

      “Everybody’s concerned about next steps,” Beijing’s top climate envoy Liu Zhenmin tells reporters.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-china-climate-impact-says-beijing-envoy/

      China is worried about the upheaval Donald Trump might bring to the fight against climate change, Beijing’s top climate envoy Liu Zhenmin said Monday.

      “The international situation has really changed — we’re also concerned about the United States after the election,” he said, speaking to reporters before a side event at the COP29 U.N. climate talks in Azerbaijan.

      Trump has promised to yet again withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change, which almost 200 countries signed in 2015. The pact commits countries to a goal of keeping global warming ideally to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

      Trump has also pledged a major shift in policy focus to further ramp up American oil and gas production, already the largest in the world.

      “Everybody’s concerned about next steps … whether after the U.S. election, U.S. climate policy will or won’t change,” said Liu. “But most colleagues [here at COP] still feel that regardless if a country’s climate policy changes or doesn’t change, international multilateral climate cooperation should continue.”

      China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluter, has cooperated with the Biden administration despite major tensions in other areas of their relationship. Liu and his U.S. counterpart John Podesta held talks in September ahead of COP29.

      Other Chinese diplomats were also voicing their concern about Trump on Monday. Foreign Ministry Deputy Head of European Affairs Cao Lei said the election may be “the turning point of [our] times” in comments reported by the South China Morning Post.……

      Liked by 2 people

    63. “Critics say approval of ‘climate credits’ rules on day one of Cop29 was rushed

      Agreement on rules paving way for rich countries to pay for cheap climate action abroad breaks years-long deadlock”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/critics-say-approval-of-climate-credits-rules-on-day-one-of-cop29-was-rushed

      Diplomats have greenlit key rules that govern the trade of “carbon credits”, breaking a years-long deadlock and paving the way for rich countries to pay for cheap climate action abroad while delaying expensive emission cuts at home.

      The agreement, reached late on the first day of Cop29 in Azerbaijan, was hailed by the hosts as an early win at climate talks that have been snubbed by prominent world leaders and clouded by the threat of a US retreat from climate diplomacy after Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election.

      But critics have warned the rules were rushed through without following proper process….

      …Carbon markets are a polarising force in climate policy. Supporters say they help direct crucial funds to saving the planet while critics point to the tattered history of fraudulent and harmful projects – particularly in the voluntary carbon market that some companies have enthusiastically embraced – that have eroded trust in the concept and driven calls for stricter rules.

      Efforts to agree on carbon market rules – known in Cop jargon as article 6 – have been a persistent stumbling block in UN talks to stop the planet from heating. Diplomats at the last climate talks rejected proposals from a UN supervisory body that was tasked with recommending solutions for countries to debate.

      This year, with pressure to make progress on carbon markets riding high, the group took a different approach, and adopted new standards on methods and removals while recommending the Cop29 negotiators give it the green light.

      Isa Mulder, a policy expert at the nonprofit group Carbon Market Watch, said that adopting the rules on the first day of the summit without discussion “undermined trust” in the UN climate conference process. “Kicking off Cop29 with a backdoor deal … sets a poor precedent for transparency and proper governance,” she said….

      Like

    64. We’re doomed:

      “Keir Starmer to unveil ambitious new UK climate goal at Cop29

      Exclusive: Target is 81% emissions cut compared with 1990, but activists say it must be backed by plan of action”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/keir-starmer-to-unveil-ambitious-new-uk-climate-goal-cop29-ndc

      Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.

      The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee….

      ...The UK is one of the first countries to announce an NDC, which are not due until February next year. So far, the NDCs that have been submitted have been found “underwhelming” by campaigners. The NDC submitted by the previous Cop host, the United Arab Emirates, was described as “greenwashing” by 350.org. A submission by the next host, Brazil, was also criticised for being insufficient and called “misaligned” by Climate Observatory….

      …Few big countries have yet come up with NDCs. …

      Liked by 1 person

    66. Robin, I’m afraid he is. As I have opined before, I did hope that the likes of Miliband were in the Cabinet, pre-election, to keep the left on board, but that once elected, common sense would prevail, and Miliband would be stood down or forced to behave in a way that preserved our wild places and energy security. Unfortunately it’s looking as though the entire cabinet subscribes to the madness, and that if Miliband is the High Priest, then perhaps Starmer is the archbishop.

      Liked by 1 person

    67. How can anyone be as mad as Ed? What are the chances of two people at the top of the same government, at the same time, being as mad as a cuckoo nesting in the Mad Hatter’s hat? Actually, make that three, because Lammy is probably equally unhinged. It just doesn’t make sense. We’re watching a Punch & Judy show. Who’s behind the stage?

      Like

    68. Well, it’s not going to happen. Starmer may cause untold misery trying to make it happen, but the Universe says no.

      Our present consumption emissions (i.e. just the imported embodied CO2) are ~1.5 x the 2035 target for all our emissions. Maybe they’re hoping to keep the imported emissions off book. Making that assumption:

      Territorially in Mt C the UK’s emissions:

      1990…………….162

      2017……………..99

      2035……………..31 (implied)

      On a per capita basis, 31 Mt C per year in 2035 divided among 73,000,000 people gives 420 kg C / person / yr or 1.5 t CO2 / person / yr.

      Countries presently emitting those per-capita rates include Namibia and Albania.

      Our NDC update is effectively a suicide note, if this is the plan.

      Liked by 1 person

    69. Robin – from your link –

      “This latest science, as well as updated assessments of how both technology and economics can support the delivery of strong climate action, guided my climate change committee’s advice to the secretary of state for energy security and net zero, Ed Miliband, over the UK government’s 2035 nationally determined contribution. This is the country-level plans that every nation across the globe need to deliver to the UN by February 2025, setting out how they will reduce their emissions, build resilience to climate impacts, and adapt to climate change.

      Our hope is that the UK government leads the way at Cop29 by committing to the 81% emission reduction target that the Climate Change Committee that I chair has advised. They also need to follow this up with the necessary actions that will deliver this ambitious change.”

      This guy seems delusional with the “This is the country-level plans that every nation across the globe need to deliver to the UN by February 2025” statement. He must know it’s never going to happen, but has to trot out this guff.

      Stick to science mate, although you may think CCC will make the global climate just right.

      Liked by 1 person

    70. The Guardian this morning:

      UK has ‘huge opportunity’ to lead on green investment, Starmer says
      PM says Britain can ‘win the race’ as Trump’s election casts doubt on global efforts to tackle climate change

      Asked about Trump’s position on the climate crisis, Starmer said: “The climate challenge is something that we have got to rise to and that’s why I’ve repeatedly said we’ve got to show leadership.

      It’s worrying that our ‘leader’ should be so delusional about what’s happening in the world. But, assuming he believes this nonsense, I also find it quite sad.

      Liked by 1 person

    72. Robin, you wrote about our ‘leader’, “But, assuming he believes this nonsense, I also find it quite sad.” I entirely agree – but fear it is much worse than simply being sad. The ‘leader’ has no meaningful followership at the international level, while all the time he is leading the UK into the abyss which will be very grim for us in the short, medium and (I fear) long term. Regards, John C.

      Liked by 1 person

    73. “Oil and gas are a ‘gift of god’, says COP29 host”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqd1rzw9r4o

      …addressing the conference on its second day, President Aliyev said Azerbaijan had been subject to “slander and blackmail” ahead of COP29.

      He said it had been as if “Western fake news media”, charities and politicians were “competing in spreading disinformation… about our country”.

      Aliyev said the country’s share in global gas emissions was “only 0.1%”.

      “Oil, gas, wind, sun, gold, silver, copper, all… are natural resources and countries should not be blamed for having them, and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market, because the market needs them.”…

      Liked by 1 person

    74. News from Oxford University today:

      It is encouraging to see Oxford academics making a strong show at COP29 amidst concerns of a faltering global efficacy in sufficiently dealing with climate change.

      Thomas Hale, George Carew-Jones, Sam Fankhauser, Kath Ford, Injy Johnstone, Ievgeniia Kopytsia have all headed to Baku.

      How very green. I look forward to receiving in due course a detailed explanation from them of exactly what they achieve while there that justifies those air miles.

      Liked by 1 person

    76. “The con of COP

      Another climate summit, another official caught doing oil and gas deals on the sidelines.”

      https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/12/the-con-of-cop/

      ‘Oil and gas are a gift from God… The people need them.’

      Surprisingly, these remarks were not made by US president-elect Donald Trump, waxing lyrical about the joys of ‘the liquid gold’ on a three-hour podcast. No, these were actually the words of the host of COP29 – delivered at this year’s United Nations climate summit.

      At each COP, the UN’s annual climate confab, world leaders are expected to reaffirm their commitments to eliminating greenhouse gasses and bringing an end to fossil fuels. But instead of mouthing the usual platitudes about the impending ‘climate emergency’ or ‘ecological crisis’, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, used his opening address in Baku this week to make the case for the ongoing exploitation of fossil fuels, and to denounce the hypocrisy of the West’s green virtue-signallers.

      And you know what? He had a point….

      Liked by 1 person

    77. “Azerbaijan president lauds fossil fuels, knifes Western ‘hypocrisy’ in COP29 opener

      Opening speeches rarely contain such frank and unsparing political attacks, nor such open fossil fuel defenses.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/azerbaijan-baku-president-ilham-aliyev-fossil-fuel-western-hypocrisy-cop-29-opener/

      The petrostate autocrat and host of this year’s COP29 climate talks, Ilham Aliyev, used his opening address to gripe at hypocritical Western governments who buy his gas and lecture him about torching the planet.

      “Unfortunately double standards, a habit to lecture other countries and political hypocrisy became kind of modus operandi for some politicians, state-controlled NGOs and fake news media in some Western countries,” Aliyev said.

      Opening speeches at the annual COP climate conferences rarely contain such frank and unsparing political attacks, nor such open fossil fuel defenses — especially not by the host nation.

      Oil and gas, Aliyev said, are “a gift of the God” — just the same as any other natural resource.

      “Countries should not be blamed for having them and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market because the market needs them,” he proclaimed. “The people need them.”

      It’s the second straight year that a fossil fuel-dependent nation has hosted COP. Last year, the United Arab Emirates played host but mounted a less belligerent case for fossil fuels, saying only that they would remain essential to the global economy for some time.

      Aliyev took particular aim at European countries that have readily signed deals to expand their purchasing of Azerbaijani gas in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

      “It was not our idea,” he said. “It was a proposal of the European Commission.” He described his meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in July 2022, when the EU signed a deal with Azerbaijan to double gas supplies from the country.

      “They needed our gas due to the changed geopolitical situation and they asked us to help,” the president said….

      Liked by 1 person

    79. Fraser Myers has a remarkable piece – The con of COP – in Spiked this morning.

      He opens with this:

      ‘Oil and gas are a gift from God… The people need them.’

      Surprisingly, these remarks were not made by US president-elect Donald Trump, waxing lyrical about the joys of ‘the liquid gold’ on a three-hour podcast. No, these were actually the words of the host of COP29 – delivered at this year’s United Nations climate summit.

      And goes on to observe that…

      … his intervention is both welcome and surprising. Finally, someone has made explicit what most world leaders know to be true, but have refused to say out loud – namely, that ending the use of oil and gas is simply not an option for nations that want to thrive.

      And…

      that, for most of the world, when push comes to shove, mitigating climate change is simply not as important as securing energy supplies and economic prosperity. Nor should it be for any country.

      And…

      The reasons for the continued rise of fossil fuels are not exactly hard to fathom, even if they are taboo to utter. The fact is, in contrast with ‘intermittent’ renewable energy sources, fossil fuels are relatively reliable and cheap, and they are easy to transport. Abundant and secure supplies of energy create prosperity, while high energy costs and supply uncertainties lead to stunted growth and deindustrialisation…. the Net Zero dogma that is preached annually at COP is a recipe for poverty and destitution. The poorest countries on Earth are absolutely right to reject this miserable ‘green’ future.

      The sooner we retire the West’s decadent green fantasies, the brighter humanity’s future will start to look.

      Splendid stuff!

      Liked by 1 person

    80. Ben Pile has a good one: in this morning’s Daily Sceptic:

      Starmer and Miliband “Show Leadership” at COP29 But No One is Following

      His opening paragraph:

      This time of year is the green movement’s version of Christmas. For each of the last 30 years (bar one, during the lockdowns), the entire Green Blob has jumped onto the jet planes it claims to hate to assemble at a different hosting country’s largest possible conference centre. The Blobbists are joined by nearly all of the world’s governments, who try to work out the parameters of global agreements on emissions reduction. But this year’s COP meeting – COP29 – started in farce as the President of the hosting country, Ilham Aliyev, told the conference that oil and gas are a “gift from God”, according to the Daily Mail. The only bigger farce is the U.K.’s delegation.

      He continues with an excellent dissection of the absurdity of the Government’s policy, concluding with this:

      The only hope we can entertain for the moment is that, with much more of the world including Europe and the Anglosphere likely to follow in Trump’s scepticism of the COP process, the lonely clown show that is the U.K. delegation to climate meetings will eventually realise that it was only ever there for the amusement of others.

      Well worth reading in full.

      Liked by 1 person

    81. Starmer, Miliband and rest of them keep talking about the “race” to net zero, to “clean, green” [sic] energy, etc, but it’s a one horse race. I suppose the UK might win it, but only if it does fall at one of the many hurdles.

      Like

    83. I usually find myself irritated by John Crace, but this is brilliant, and had me laughing out loud:

      “et-setting Starmer graces Cop29 with bold claims and few plans

      Prime minister stayed out of hot water by being short on detail – or opinions”

      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/12/jet-setting-starmer-graces-cop29-with-bold-claims-and-few-plans

      If it’s Tuesday, it must be Baku. Keir Starmer’s Rolling Thunder Permatour has now hit Azerbaijan for Cop29. Next week he will be off to Brazil for the G20. And who knows, he might even drop in to see Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the way back.

      After all it’s been almost a month since he was last in the US having dinner with The Donald in his understated golden penthouse. He wouldn’t want to appear too needy, of course, but why pass up an opportunity to persuade the president-elect that he had never really meant any of those beastly things he had said about him in the past. Just a joke. Hahaha. Lols.

      The prime minister has been in office for just over four months and he’s already clocked up as many air miles as the ever-eager James “Turn left at the aircraft door” Cleverly managed in his time as foreign secretary. Countless trips to Europe that barely register. Only on Monday he was in Paris for an Armistice Day service and a ride with Emmanuel Macron in the largest Jeep you’ve ever seen. It sure as hell beats a cold day in Westminster….

      And much more.

      Liked by 1 person

    84. “‘No sign’ of promised fossil fuel transition as emissions hit new high

      Despite nations’ pledges at Cop28 a year ago, the burning of coal, oil and gas continued to rise in 2024″

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/13/no-sign-of-promised-fossil-fuel-transition-as-emissions-hit-new-high

      There is “no sign” of the transition away from burning fossil fuels that was pledged by the world’s nations a year ago, with 2024 on track to set another new record for global carbon emissions.

      The new data, released at the UN’s Cop29 climate conference in Azerbaijan, indicates that the planet-heating emissions from coal, oil and gas will rise by 0.8% in 2024. In stark contrast, emissions have to fall by 43% by 2030 for the world to have any chance of keeping to the 1.5C temperature target and limiting “increasingly dramatic” climate impacts on people around the globe….

      Like

    85. Straight from the horse’s mouth. Ed explains to CH4 reporter what the UK’s ‘climate leadership’ is really all about.

      Mad Ed’s ‘climate leadership’ message to Trump – and the world – is that what Britain is doing is in “our national self-interest.”

      So it’s not about ‘saving the planet’ after all, it’s not about saying ‘look, climate change is real and it’s here, right now,’ it’s about showing the planet how to destroy one’s economy in the national ‘self-interest’!

      Will Trump – or the rest of the world – take notice? Hell yes, they will do the complete opposite if they are sane and actually working in the national self-interest!

      https://x.com/Channel4News/status/1856409962899275838

      Liked by 3 people

    86. There’s a lot of good stuff around today. For example, an article by Chris Morrison in the Daily Sceptic: The War on Fertiliser Comes to Britain

      I liked this bit:

      The world is rapidly moving towards some restoration of sanity and a realisation that it is impossible to live in any degree of comfort and security without hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, Britain finds itself under the control of one of the most extreme gangs of Net Zero fanatics on the planet. It says it all that the increasingly weird Sir Keir Starmer, U.K. Prime Minister, complete with his sidekick, the unhinged MilliVolt, is the only world leader from a major economy to turn up at the Trump-wrecked COP29.

      Worth reading in full.

      Liked by 2 people

    87. Tony Lodge, a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies, has an important article in the Telegraph:

      Our soaring reliance on foreign power exposes the great green energy scam
      At COP29 Britain is a global case study in what not to do. Miliband is doing the rest of the world a huge favour, irrespective of our pain

      It can also be accessed at NALOKT

      His opening paragraphs:

      News that Britain now has the highest industrial energy prices in the world, has fallen out of the world’s top ten manufacturers, faces power rationing and is spending over £3bn a year to import electricity marks a damning indictment on a generation of flawed and misguided energy policies.

      As the world’s green A-listers gather this week in Azerbaijan for COP29, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is probably right to claim that the world increasingly looks at the British energy model; but I would argue it is more in bewilderment and curiosity rather than any desire to copy or follow it. Energy policies here have wreaked havoc on consumers and firms for a generation and there is no end in sight.

      His conclusion:

      At COP29 Britain is a global case study in what not to do. Consequently, Ed Miliband is undoubtedly doing the rest of the world a huge favour, irrespective of the pain and costs he continues to pile on business, industry and households at home.

      Depressing stuff – but a must read.

      Liked by 2 people

    88. Robin: Ofgen has just approved 5 new interconnectors so it looks as if our dependence on electricity imports is going to increase substantially.

      Like

    91. LOL. Great stuff from Ben. COP29 is lining up to be the most entertaining ever.

      Don’t cry for me, Climatista’s…

      “Argentina withdraws negotiators from COP29…”

      This is the start of the exodus.

      Starmer and Miliband will be the last to realise.

      ‘Oh, Ed, turn the lights off when you go please.’

      ‘Ah, I see you already did – back home.’

      Like

    92. More on the Argentina development:

      “Argentina withdraws negotiators from Cop29 summit

      Move adds to concerns about the stability of the Paris agreement after the election in the US of Donald Trump”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/13/argentina-withdraws-negotiators-from-cop29-summit

      …On Wednesday, representatives from Milei’s government were ordered to leave the Azerbaijani capital. Speaking to the Guardian, Argentina’s undersecretary for the environment, Ana Lamas – the country’s most senior representative on the climate and nature after Milei dissolved the environment ministry – confirmed the decision, which was first reported by Climatica.

      “It’s true. We have instructions from the ministry of foreign affairs to no longer participate. That’s all I can tell you,” she said. Lamas said the decision applied only to Cop29, when asked if Argentina was planning to leave the Paris agreement.

      There is widespread concern about the future of the climate accord after the election in the US of Donald Trump, who has pledged to exit the agreement for the second time. Before the talks, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, said a second US departure might “cripple” the global deal to limit heating to below 2C above preindustrial levels.

      There are fears that other countries may leave the international climate agreements, including those led by climate deniers such as Argentina. On Tuesday, Milei spoke with Trump, after which Milei’s spokesperson said Trump had told his Argentinian counterpart he was his “favourite president”…..

      Liked by 1 person

    93. The Guardian article has a new denier spin – “Argentinian negotiators representing the government of the climate science denier Javier Milei“

      But ends with the usual Guardian quote – “This decision is purely ideological and goes against the best interest of the country, whose economy was severely impacted by the climate crisis. Like in other instances, such as the decision of Argentina to leave the Summit of the Future last September, this is yet another sign of an unhinged far-right policy that uses high-profile moments as a burlesque show for the pleasure of the global far-right movement.”

      Like

    94. “Poorer nations need $1tn a year by 2030 in climate finance, top economists find

      Study says funding to cope with climate breakdown needed five years earlier than expected”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/14/wealthy-countries-must-invest-1tn-a-year-by-2030-for-climate

      It’s amazing, isn’t it? Climate change is always worse than we thought. It’s going to cost more than we thought to “stop it” [sic]. And now we need to spend the money sooner than we thought.

      Poor countries need $1tn a year in climate finance by 2030, five years earlier than rich countries are likely to agree to at UN climate talks, a new study has found.

      Waiting until 2035 to receive the funding, which is to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with extreme weather, would place damaging burdens on vulnerable countries, warned the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, a group of leading economists.

      The study was published on Thursday morning as governments from nearly 200 countries worked on fraught negotiations over how much finance wealthier countries should provide, and how much could come from other sources, at the Cop29 summit in Azerbaijan. World leaders, who had attended the opening days of the conference in Baku, left their ministers and high-ranking officials to get on with the job of forging a new global plan on climate finance, due to wrapped up at the end of next week.

      But large areas of disagreement between the rich and poor world remain, including how much money should be provided and from what sources.

      The talks are focused on a goal of at least $1tn a year in climate finance for poorer countries by 2035. This figure comes from a previous study from the high-level group (IHLEG), a group of economists convened by Cop presidencies since 2021 and chaired by the economists Nicholas Stern, Vera Songwe and Amar Bhattacharya, which found in 2022 that about $2.4tn a year was needed...

      Like

    95. Mark: you asked me to let you know if Piers Forster responded to a comment I posted on a recent The Conversation article of which he was the author. Well, TC has closed comments. And no, he didn’t.

      Liked by 2 people

    96. By an extraordinary coincidence The Conversation has just revived a 3-year old article enabling me to reuse the point I made to Professor Forster. My post can be found HERE.

      Mark: you may feel this should be posted under Climate Litigation.

      Like

    97. And now amazingly The Conversation has just published yet another article that allows comments. And it’s on a topic that enables me to use the point I made in the now closed article by Piers Forster. AND Forster is the co-author of this article. Needless to say I’ve posted a comment – the first. It can be found HERE.

      Like

    98. Robin – remember in school waving your hand from the back of the class shouting “me sir” & constantly getting ignored. Seems so things never change.

      Like

    101. Thanks Mark for drawing our attention to that BBC report. Some detail:

      Matt McGrath tells us about a letter to the UN (specifically to Simon Stiell and António Guterres) calling for COP reform. It’s from various luminaries including former UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and former president of Ireland Mary Robinson .

      Remarkably the letter begins by demonstrating that its august signatories (an interesting list) are living in an absurd dream-world regarding what the COP process has achieved so far. For example, they say that ‘over 195 countries having agreed to strive to hold global warming to 1.5°C’, that ‘countries have now agreed to phase out fossil fuels’ and that ‘governments have pledged $100 billion annually to the Green Climate Fund’. Yet not one of these claims is true.

      They go on to say that ‘Science tells us that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 7.5% annually to have any chance of staying within the 1.5°C threshold, a prerequisite for the stability of our planet and a liveable future for much of humanity’. Yet, as I’ve demonstrated (twice) to Piers Forster recently, there’s no possibility of the 1.5C target being achieved. And in any case China, India, Russia (and the US!) for example are not going to agree to reduce their GHG emissions by 7.5% (or any percentage) annually. These people are not paying attention.

      But the objective of their letter is to say that ‘it is now clear that the COP is no longer fit for purpose’. And they make numerous recommendations about how the COP process might be improved. They include for example host countries being selected only if they ‘support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy’ and COP meetings being ‘transformed into smaller, more frequent, solution-driven meetings where countries report on progress [and] are held accountable in line with the latest science’.

      Unfortunately (for the authors of the letter) there’s no realistic prospect of much (if any) of this being agreed by the COP parties.

      Liked by 2 people

    105. Jit, I did that one-question quiz, got the answer right and was presented with this: ‘Correct, and maybe not what you expected’.

      How very patronising. I gave an answer (methane) that I expected to be right and it was right, as expected.

      The only way I would have been surprised is if I had guessed what was right and entered a different answer that I thought unlikely to be right, and then it turned out to be right.

      Also, the question is illiterate. ‘Which of the following greenhouse gas [sic] is the most effective… ?’

      And one of the three suggested ‘greenhouse gas’ is cellophane.

      Here’s my quiz for Auntie Beeb:

      Which of the following BBC employee is most likely to write such a quiz?

      * A woke intern with a hangover

      * A seven-year-old boy who has just told Prince Harry that England is destroying Caribbean coral reefs

      * Cellophane

      Liked by 2 people

    106. Mark – will give the Guardian it’s due, they usually save the unhinged looking lead pic for Trump.

      with this below the pic – “‘No one government or one country can stop this transition happening,’ said Ed Miliband.”

      Take it that was a swipe at Trumps US. Ed seems to be displaying the adage – ” ‘power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’” with no idea he is doing it.

      Liked by 1 person

    107. Vinny,

      Apologies – just found your comment in spam and set it free.

      Like

    108. Vinny, I went with methane too, on a per-molecule basis, half-suspecting that the BBC would say CO2, based on its much higher concentration. Cellophane? They could have gone with nitrous oxide. Or SF6.

      Like

    109. There’s an excellent article by the always perceptive Rupert Darwall in today’s Speccie:

      Cop is dying
      Keir Starmer should drop his climate targets

      Darwall’s article contains an abundance of good material. For example his reference to the absurd Christine Lagarde’s ‘nursery-school level of thinking about finance’. But I liked this in particular:

      On net zero being good for growth, Starmer should have a quiet word with Ed Miliband, as his net zero minister knows the truth. When Miliband was doing the same job under Gordon Brown, on 9 March 2009, he signed an impact assessment on the Climate Change Act’s 80 per cent target. ‘I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options,’ Miliband certified on the first page of an impact assessment. In a paragraph near the top of the document, it reads: ‘Where the UK acts alone, though there would be a net benefit for the world as a whole the UK would bear all the cost of the action and would not experience any benefit from reciprocal reductions elsewhere. The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak.’ The prime minister should heed that warning and withdraw the UK’s NDC before net zero does even more damage to the dangerously fragile British economy.

      Well said! That the Impact Assessment’s important message and similar warnings have somehow been completely overlooked is a continuing mystery.

      Liked by 2 people

    111. “Fears grow that Milei will withdraw Argentina from Paris climate accord

      Far-right president may announce country’s departure from agreement after meeting Donald Trump”

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/15/argentina-milei-paris-climate-accord

      There is growing concern that Argentina’s far-right president, Javier Milei, is set to announce his country’s departure from the Paris climate accord.

      Earlier this week, negotiators from Milei’s government were ordered to leave the Cop29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, after just three days. Now, the Guardian understands that Milei is considering announcing a formal withdrawal from the agreement, and that a decision could be made after a formal meeting with Donald Trump.

      On Thursday, Milei, a prolific climate science denier, became the first world leader to meet Trump after his election at his residence in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, where the Argentinian president took photos with the US president-elect, Elon Musk and Robert F Kennedy Jr before giving a keynote address. On Friday Milei was attending an investor conference organized by the Conservative Political Action Conference at Trump’s Palm Beach residence.

      Milei has previously called the climate crisis a “socialist lie” and pledged to withdraw Argentina from the Paris agreement to limit global heating to below 2C during his campaign last year, but he subsequently backed down. Trump has already pledged to withdraw the US from the climate accord for the second time after he pulled out in 2016, when no other countries followed....

      Liked by 1 person

    112. Maybe this suggests that the underlying basis of all the COPs really is about redistributing cash from the developed world to the developing world, and using an alleged climate crisis as the fig leaf to achieve this:

      “UN warns of ‘economic carnage’ if G20 leaders cannot agree on climate finance for poor countries

      Wealthy nations are yet to offer the hundreds of billions of dollars that economists say are needed to help the developing world cut emissions”

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/un-warns-of-economic-carnage-if-g20-leaders-cannot-agree-on-climate-finance-for-poor-countries

      OK, so the article is about the next jamboree, the upcoming G20 meeting (in Rio, of course – why hold it somewhere unpleasant?), but there is more than a little read-over between it and the agenda on display in Baku. E.g. this:

      ...The G20 nations are about to gather in Brazil for two days of talks, while many of their ministers remain in Azerbaijan where crucial negotiations at the Cop29 climate crisis summit have stalled. Rich countries’ governments have not yet put forward the offers of hundreds of billions of dollars in financial aid that economists say are needed to help poorer countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of extreme weather.

      Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, called on the G20 leaders to break the logjam. “The G20 was created to tackle problems that no one country or group of countries can tackle alone. On that basis, the global climate crisis should be order of business number one, in Rio,” he said.

      “Climate impacts are already ripping shreds out of every G20 economy, wrecking lives, pummelling supply chains and food prices, and fanning inflation. Bolder climate action is basic self-preservation for every G20 economy. Without rapid cuts in emissions, no G20 economy will be spared from climate-driven economic carnage,” he warned.

      The G20 must also discuss debt relief, he added, as many poor countries are unable to take measures to protect themselves from climate breakdown while they are already struggling with debt servicing costs that have been pushed higher by interest rate rises.

      “In turbulent times and a fracturing world, G20 leaders must signal loud and clear that international cooperation is still the best and only chance humanity has to survive global heating,” he added. “There is no other way.”

      Only a few heads of government of G20 countries attended the Cop29 talks when they began last week. Keir Starmer, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey flew into Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, but many countries sent ministers or high-ranking officials instead.

      Poor countries are hoping for a global financial settlement from Cop29 that will reach $1 trillion a year by 2030, a widely accepted figure based on research by the leading economists Nicholas Stern, Vera Songwe and Amar Bhattacharya….

      Liked by 1 person

    113. “China must now lead global warming fight, UN climate chief says

      The U.S. has traditionally taken a key leadership role, but Donald Trump’s return has thrown that into doubt.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/china-lead-global-climate-fight-un-climate-chief-simon-stiell-cop-azerbaijan-clean-energy/

      Good luck with that!

      China must step up and help lead the fight against climate change, starting with a strong new climate target, the United Nations’ top climate official said Friday.

      Simon Stiell, executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change, touted China’s investments in clean energy technology as a demonstration of “leading by example.” He then implored the world’s largest emitter to release a strong new plan to cut its planet-warming pollution — known as a nationally determined contribution, or NDC. 

      “A strong NDC would send an important signal to other countries that stronger targets drive investment, that courageous leadership pays off, that development and sustainability are not at odds — that they are compatible,” said Stiell, speaking on the sidelines of the global climate talks in Baku….

      Liked by 2 people

    114. “GOP lawmakers channel Trump at climate summit: Drill more fossil fuels

      Their message about expanding U.S. gas production came at a global meeting that’s focused on moving the world away from fossil fuels.”

      https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/16/gop-lawmakers-trump-climate-summit-00190005

      Republican lawmakers on Saturday foreshadowed America’s global climate message for the world under President-elect Donald Trump: Buy more U.S. natural gas.

      The assertions by five GOP Congress members at the COP29 climate talks contrasted sharply with global pledges to phase down fossil fuels, an overriding theme of the international summit.

      “American natural gas has helped us reduce emissions more than any other nation, and we have the capacity to continue to helping our allies reduce their emissions by exporting clean, reliable sources like LNG and nuclear,” Texas Rep. August Pfluger told reporters Saturday.

      The visit by Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee came as Biden administration officials and allies sought to assure other nations that U.S. climate action will continue at the state level and in corporate boardrooms. But Trump has pledged to dismember the climate law signed by President Joe Biden in 2022, roll back environmental regulations and encourage additional production of U.S. oil and gas, which is already at record-high levels.

      The Republicans called for a “diverse” energy portfolio that includes nuclear power, liquefied natural gas, fusion energy and carbon capture technologies. They argued that using U.S. gas results in less climate pollution than if it came from Russia or other countries, and they expressed concern that China would benefit from an expansion of clean energy such as solar because it dominates manufacturing of panels and other parts.

      “With technology, we can solve a lot of these problems without just banning fossil fuels,” said Republican Rep. Morgan Griffith, who represents Virginia coal country….

      Liked by 1 person

    115. “EU going too fast on climate, Cyprus president says

      “I do not consider it possible to achieve those goals within the timeframe we have set,” Nikos Christodoulides said, according to Ekathimerini.”

      https://www.politico.eu/article/nikos-christodoulides-eu-too-fast-climate-cyprus-president/

      Europe may have set the bar too high on its climate goals without focusing enough on economic competitiveness, Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides said after attending the COP29 global climate summit in Azerbaijan.

      While EU energy transition targets should be met, the bloc has set “very high goals,” Christodoulides told an energy conference in Nicosia on Friday having just returned from the COP29 gathering in Baku, Azerbaijan, Ekathimerini reported.

      The EU is looking to slash net greenhouse gas emissions in the bloc by 90 percent by 2040 and to reach zero net emissions by 2050.

      “I do not consider it possible to achieve those goals within the timeframe we have set. It’s greatly challenging — without having made progress on major issues related to competitiveness,” Christodoulides said without elaborating, according to the report.

      Nearly 200 countries are gathered in Baku, with a primary goal of agreeing on a new target on how much money needs to be provided to help developing countries adapt to climate change. Christodoulides said he didn’t have high hopes of a global consensus on the way forward.

      “To be perfectly honest, nothing I heard allows us to be particularly optimistic on the targets toward green transition,” Ekathimerini quoted him as saying.

      Liked by 1 person

    117. The Telegraph has published an amusing article by Matt Ridley today:

      It’s high time to end this ludicrous COP jamboree – but it just won’t die
      Eco-summits in petro-tyrannies sound like something out of a comic novel. Sadly, they are all too real

      Some extracts:

      There is something poetic in the way that the delegates attending the 11-day COP29 climate conference in Baku were forced to listen to their moustachioed autocrat host, Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, call his nation’s gas reserves a “gift of god”. The sound of spluttering into 67,000 soy macchiatos must have been audible all the way to Nagorno-Karabakh, the region that Mr Aliyev’s government has allegedly tried to ethnically cleanse.

      Mr Aliyev’s remark has prompted a letter to the UN from a clutch of the great and the good demanding that the COPs be reformed and shrunk. That would be a pity. Corrupt and conflicted as central-Asian petrostates may be, it’s nothing compared with the gift of the gods that is the climate cornuCOPia.

      The beauty of the COP process is that it can go on forever because it never makes a difference. It is, in a word, sustainable. Carbon dioxide emissions keep breaking records. Gas, oil and coal still supply 82 per cent of the energy the world uses. These meetings have gone on for nearly one third of a century already; they are an institution complete with traditions and ceremonies; people have spent entire careers attending them.

      The Taliban are attending the COP this year but most Western politicians have twigged that it is a waste of time. This year: no Biden, no Macron, no Modi, no Ishiba, no Scholz, no Xi. Only one G7 leader has not yet twigged that the whole thing is a performative farce: our very own Sir Keir.

      Now that Donald Trump and Javier Milei of Argentina are pulling out of the whole sham, we can begin to see a glimmer of hope that the COP might one day fade into irrelevance. It will probably never die entirely but become about as newsworthy as, say, the Henley Regatta. Just less fun.

      Worth a read – if only for a quiet chuckle.

      Liked by 2 people

    119. I think you’re on the same page, Robin. What tends to be the case with these projections is a sudden optimistic inflexion point, representing humanity mending its evil ways and the planet being saved. Naturally, when the inflexion point fails to materialise, we simply create a new one a few more years ahead. We are already past the point where the 2018 optimistic projections are realistic, I think. When we pass 1.5C, we will be told that the planet can be saved, if we halt global warming at 2C.

      As to the novelty of plotting temperature change against CO2 concentrations, this is no novelty at all. It was for a long time the front page of the KNMI’s climate explorer. (Maybe the Conversation figure goes back further, & KNMI only used data from Mauna Loa.) Also, the figure in The Conversation is linear, and does not seem to respect the acknowledged log-linear effect of CO2.

      Liked by 1 person

    120. Jit:

      I don’t think the IPCC report was referring to an inflection point. Its message – if I understand it correctly – is that, unless annual emissions can be reduced to 22.5 Gt by 2030 (presumably they were referring to a gradual process), warming in excess of 2ºC is likely.

      I was interested to note your observation that The Conversation figure (Forster’s figure) is linear not log-linear.

      Like

    121. “Australia accused of ‘exporting climate destruction’ on tiny Pacific neighbours with massive gas expansion plans

      Labor government ‘not acting in good faith’ when it stands on global stage and promotes its climate credentials, special envoy at Cop29 says”

      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/18/australia-accused-of-exporting-climate-destruction-on-tiny-pacific-neighbours-with-massive-gas-expansion-plans

      Pacific governments at a UN climate summit are criticising Australia’s plans for a massive gas industry expansion in Western Australia, saying it could result in 125 times more greenhouse gas emissions than their island nations release in a year.

      As the Cop29 summit in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku begins its second week, representatives from Vanuatu and Tuvalu have called on Australia to stop approving new fossil fuel developments, including a proposal to extend the life of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas facility until 2070.

      Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change, said Australia was “not acting in good faith” when it stood alongside Pacific leaders on the global stage and promoted its climate credentials while continuing to approve coal and gas projects.

      “As the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter, the Australian government is exporting climate destruction overseas, including to Pacific nations like Vanuatu, who experience the most devastating impacts of the climate crisis, despite contributing the least,” he said. “This is climate injustice.”....

      I believe Australia is in the running to host COP31. It could be quite a run – COP28 hosted by the UAE; COP29 by Azerbaijan (both countries whose economies are massively dependent on fossil fuel sales); COP30 by Brazil (which has just joined OPEC and recently hosted its World Oil Outlook 2024); and COP31 by Australia (the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter).

      Like

    122. Mark, it would also be interesting in another way: Australia recently backed out of hosting the Commonwealth Games because of the cost.

      Robin, I was basing that on the SPM for the IPCC report. There’s a figure on CO2 emissions in Section C that shows a sudden drop. I can’t see quite when it is/was supposed to be, because the type is so faint: looks like about 2020. It’s a not unfamiliar picture for me. The same thing is evident in the Tyndall Centre’s pathways for UK cities. This one’s Manchester, but you can pick your home town from the menu at the top.

      Like

    123. Jit: iirc, the calculated global emissions dropped a bit around 2020 due to the pandemic – or am I barking up the wrong tree? Measures of atmospheric CO2 levels continued their steady climb, however.

      Like

    125. “Cop29: ‘We’re here for life and death reasons,’ says ex-climate minister of Pakistan

      Sherry Rehman says rich nations should pay ‘internationally determined contributions’ to help poorer and worst-affected countries”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/cop29-were-here-for-life-and-death-reasons-says-ex-climate-minister-of-pakistan

      Amid the endless politicking and inscrutable arguments at the UN climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, this month, it can be hard to remember what is at stake. That’s why Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s former climate change minister, is calling on global leaders to “keep an eye on the big picture”.

      “We’re here for life and death reasons,” Rehman said.

      In August 2022, devastating flash floods submerged one-third of Rehman’s country, affecting 33 million people. Roads, crops and infrastructure were washed away, and damage to water systems forced millions of people to rely on contaminated water from ponds and wells.…

      Has the Guardian learned nothing? Is the habit of scare-mongering about the “climate crisis” (sic) so deeply ingrained that it no longer understands the difference between truth and made-up stuff?The “one-third” claim was promulgated, iirc, by none other than Sherry Rehman, and was instantly picked up and repeated by the likes of the BBC and the Guardian and much of the global media in fact. It was always obviously nonsense, and was subsequently de-bunked. It’s bad enough that it was rapidly repeated by much of the media at the time without checking whether it was an accurate claim, but why is the Guardian still saying it now, when we all know that it isn’t correct? For context:

      John’s article on the floods at the time:

      https://cliscep.com/2022/08/29/a-closer-look-at-pakistans-floods/

      Paul Homewood’s debunk:

      Pakistan Floods–Is A Third Really Submerged?

      Sherry Rehman in the Guardian saying the same things in the Guardian more than two years ago:

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/21/pakistan-floods-big-oil-gas-bill

      BBC corrections (h/t dfhunter at the time):

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/archive-2022/

      In coverage from the COP27 Climate Change summit in Egypt we referred to floods that “had left a third” of Pakistan under water. We should have attributed this claim to Pakistan’s climate minister. In fact experts estimate that the actual proportion of the country that was under water was around ten per cent.

      Liked by 2 people

    127. Jit: re the SPM for the 2018 IPCC report I based my TC comment on this:

      C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C 12 CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range).

      You’re right that further down in Section C there’s a figure re CO2 emissions showing a sudden drop (in 2000), but I read that as an illustration of what might happen rather than a prediction of what would happen – or a statement of what had to happen.

      Like

    128. Three weeks ago the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE) met for their annual summit – the 16th. Their communiqué – the Kazan Declaration – is interesting. It can be accessed HERE.

      There’s a lot of interesting material here. But of particular interest is item 15 – especially its first sentence:

      We reiterate that the objectives, principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), its Kyoto Protocol and its Paris Agreement, including its principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) in the light of different national circumstances, must be honoured.

      What this underlines is something that is often forgotten in climate reports and negotiations. And that’s the continuing and overriding importance of in particular (1) the UNFCCC’s clear distinction between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries, (2) Article 4.7 of the UNFCCC that allows developing countries to give overriding priority to ‘economic and social development and poverty eradication‘, (3) the total exclusion of developing countries from the obligations set out in the Kyoto Protocol and (4) Article 4.4 of the Paris Agreement that confirms the exemption of developing countries from any obligation to reduce their emissions by merely encouraging them ‘to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances’.

      All but one of the BRICS countries are developing countries – as are all but one the thirteen ‘partner’ countries that have just joined: Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The exceptions are Russia and Turkey, although the latter’s position is ambiguous.

      What this all means is that none of these countries, including Russia and Turkey, has any serious intention of prioritising emission reduction. Yet these countries are the source of about 60% of global GHG emissions – making the COP process completely pointless.

      Needless to say none of this has, so far as I can see, been reported by the MSM.

      Liked by 2 people

    129. Robin,

      Thank you for that last comment. Without being in any way disrespectful to you (for you have raised a point of fundamental importance) this is something that any serious journalist could and should be writing about – yet, by and large, they don’t. It’s appalling that the prevailing narrative, which is unquestioningly regurgitated, is profoundly inaccurate. Of course, it also gives the lie to claims by Starmer and Miliband about the importance of leading. Who do they think they are leading? Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Starmer? (Of course, he’s Sir Keir, not plain old mister, but it doesn’t work as well that way).

      Liked by 1 person

    130. He may be Sir Keir, but he’s also two tier, tin ear Keir, the farmer harmer, who got free gear from a queer peer.

      Liked by 1 person

    131. Vijay Jayaraj’s piece in WUWT covers the Kazan Declaration, and reaches the same conclusion.

      At the heart of the declaration lies a fundamental truth that the Western climate industrial complex often refuses to recognize: Access to affordable and reliable energy and economic development cannot be sacrificed at the altar of “decarbonization” if people are to thrive.

      Liked by 2 people

    132. Jit: thanks for drawing our attention to Vijay Jayaraj’s article. That BRICS conference (held only three weeks ago) was extraordinarily significant. Yet it hardly seems to have been noticed.

      I said in the header article (above) that nothing that’s happened since 2020 changes the conclusion of my ‘The West vs The Rest‘ article (that what was once the Third World has for several years been powerful enough to ignore the West and take charge of environmental negotiation making GHG reduction virtually impossible) and that the ‘Dubai Stocktake’ agreed at COP28 last year reinforced that. If I were writing the article today I would certainly add a reference to this BRICS conference.

      Is there any possibility of Western ‘leaders’ ever waking up to this harsh and desperately important reality?

      Liked by 2 people

    133. Mark – wonder if “ministers told to ‘cut theatrics” will include Antonio Guterres current secretary-general of the United Nations.

      Like

    134. Robin, regarding your question, there is a snippet in this Guardian piece (you’ll love this):

      “The climate crisis in charts: how 2024 has set unwanted new records

      Data tracks how Earth’s heating has led to rising sea levels and extreme weather – yet there is no sign of emissions slowing”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/20/the-climate-crisis-in-charts-how-2024-has-set-unwanted-new-records

      Despite countries having signed up to the Paris Agreement – pledging to reach “net zero” in coming decades, which would mean not emitting more carbon than is absorbed into the land and sea – there is no sign of this happening. This year is on track to set another new record for global carbon emissions. Data indicates planet-heating emissions from coal, oil and gas will rise by 0.8% in 2024. Emissions have to fall by 43% by 2030 for the world to have any chance of keeping to the 1.5C temperature rise target.

      Like

    135. Well, this would be progress, but it’s never going to happen, for the simple reason that China and India won’t agree to it. While we’re on, what about South Korea?

      “China and India should not be called developing countries, several Cop29 delegates say

      Delegates from poorer nations say classifications that date back to 1992 are obsolete and two countries ‘should be contributing’”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/19/china-india-developing-countries-cop29-climate-talks

      China and India should no longer be treated as developing countries in the same way as some of the poorest African nations are, according to a growing number of delegates from poorer country at the Cop29 UN climate talks.

      China should take on some additional responsibility for providing financial help to the poorest and most vulnerable, several delegates told the Guardian. India should not be eligible for receiving financial help as it has no trouble attracting investment, some said.

      Balarabe Abbas Lawal, Nigeria’s environment minister, said: “China and India cannot be classified in the same category as Nigeria and other African countries. I think they are developing but they are in a faster phase than states like Nigeria.

      “They should also commit in trying to support us. They should also come and make some contribution [to climate finance for poorer countries].”

      China and India are regarded as developing countries at the Cop29 climate talks, using classifications that date back to 1992 when the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) was signed. That means they have no formal obligation to cut their greenhouse gas emissions or to provide financial help to poorer countries, and technically are eligible to receive climate aid, though China chooses not to do so.

      “Those that actually deserve this support are African countries, poor Asian countries and small island states that are facing devastating climate change issues,” Lawal said.…

      Like

    136. Jo Nova reports on Mad Ed’s big announcement of a programme of nuclear co-operation to spread the technology around the world:

      https://joannenova.com.au/2024/11/big-news-the-climate-blob-finally-goes-nuclear-to-save-the-world-us-and-uk-offer-nuclear-secrets-and-australia-says-no/

      Shame he doesn’t seem very keen on supporting it at home. Also what technology do we have to offer as we are buying in virtually everything for HPC? The only candidate is the SMR from RR whereas the real leading countries have fully-fledged nuclear industries and supply chains. The RR concept is a tough sell – the FOAK from a company which, while highly capable, has never built a civilian plant (iirc: they may have been involved in some of our prototype/special projects like Dounreay).

      Like

    137. Jit, I’ve had another look at Vijay Jayaraj’s WUWT commentary on the BRICS conference and, although what he says is perceptive and useful, I think he misses an important point. For example he says this:

      However, most mainstream media didn’t notice—or intentionally underreported—that the core BRICS countries – including India, China and Russia – have openly declared that their domestic energy needs and economic wellbeing will take precedence over international climate agreements like the Paris Accords and “net zero” initiatives.

      What he misses here is that the Paris Agreement (via its parent the UNFCCC) allows developing countries to prioritise domestic energy needs and economic wellbeing over climate considerations. As I say in my The West vs. The Rest essay, taken as a whole the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement have put major developing countries in the COP driving seat and given them everything they want. Yet most Western commentators who keep blathering about the importance of for example the ‘landmark’ Paris Agreement obviously haven’t read the detail and haven’t noticed. The reality is that Western negotiators lost the initiative at Copenhagen (COP15) in 2009 – an outcome beautifully described by Rupert Darwall:

      ‘There was a clear victor. Equally clearly, there was a side that lost more comprehensively than at any international conference in modern history where the outcome had not been decided beforehand by force of arms.’

      Therefore none of the matters highlighted by Jayaraj (although it’s extremely useful that he’s done so) should be a surprise.

      Liked by 2 people

    138. “Vatican in row at climate talks over gender rights”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvpl5zw19o

      The Vatican has blocked discussions over women’s rights at the UN climate summit following a row over gay and transgender issues, sources have told BBC News.

      Pope Francis’ representatives have aligned with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Egypt to obstruct a deal which would have provided more support, including financial help, for women at the forefront of climate change, Colombia’s environment minister told the BBC….

      Some might call that an axis of evil. I couldn’t possibly comment.

      Like

    141. “Fury at climate talks over ‘backsliding’ on fossil fuels”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyx0xw5vyyo

      A row has broken out at COP29 climate talks as leading countries said a draft deal risked going back on a historic agreement to reduce the use of planet-warming fossil fuels.

      “Standing still is retreat and the world will rightly judge us very harshly if this is the outcome,” said UK energy minister Ed Miliband.

      The UK, European Union, New Zealand and Ireland said the proposed agreement was “unacceptable”.

      Developing nations said they are unhappy that a pot of money has not been agreed to help them tackle climate change….

      …Some developing nations and oil-rich countries are reluctant to push strong action on cutting fossil fuels because it could jeopardise their economic growth.…

      Like

    143. “The row comes as the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned countries that “failure is not an option”.”

      Nurse, that’s about the 100th time this megalomaniac has pronounced this b*ll, can we calm him down without drugs?

      Like

    145. Some highlights from that page:

      Panama’s special representative for climate change, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, who as we reported earlier has stolen the show at this year’s COP with his impressive hat, says he is “so mad” and calls the $250bn (£199bn) figure too low.

      It feels that the developed world wants the planet to burn.”

      Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez

      ===

      Mariana Paoli, global advocacy lead for Christian Aid, encouraged poorer countries to reject the deal instead of “signing up to this garbage”.

      Adding: “It is baffling that despite everyone knowing all year that this was the ‘finance COP’, rich countries are still refusing to put substantial enough funding pledges on the table”.

      ===

      Away from tense climate negotiations, something that’s really stood out to the BBC News team as we’ve walked around Azerbaijan’s capital city is just how many cats there are in the streets.

      ===

      At the Pacific Island nations exhibition stand, I spoke to Gabby, who is 15 and travelled here from her home in Vanuatu.

      She told me how schools can be shut for months or knocked down in cyclones.

      Politicians need to take more more urgent action, she says.

      ===

      The number coming out of Baku is $250bn (£199bn) a year, that’s the proposal for how much richer countries will give poorer countries to tackle climate change.

      But it’s a long way short of the $2.4bn [sic] a year the Independent High Level Expert Group says they’ll need.

      …

      So where will they get the money?

      Well, “taxes will have to go up”, says Dr Songwe [chair or something of some high level group or something].

      ===

      Ali Mohamed, who chairs the [African] group, says the $250bn (£199bn) figure floated in the text is “totally unacceptable and inadequate”.

      ===

      UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband says the country wants a “good outcome” from COP29, which has already “put Britain back on the map of global climate leadership” following his pledge to cut domestic emissions by 81% before 2035.

      ===

      Climate change is already causing huge financial losses around the world, costing an average of $143bn (£113bn) per year between 2000 and 2019, according to one paper.

      ===

      While COP29 was due to conclude today, one youth activist texted an invitation to a “youth sleepover” outside the plenary halls.

      It reads: Many of us will stay overnight to let negotiators know that we will not give up. Bring friends and snacks.

      Liked by 1 person

    146. There’s another one from the BBC now (I suppose they have to do something to justify the dozens of BBC journos who are there):

      “COP29 overruns as poor countries seethe over climate cash”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l9y89v9jno

      UN climate talks looked set to overrun into the weekend as a deep gulf formed between richer and poorer countries over cash to help those most vulnerable in a warming world.

      Wealthier nations offered to more than double to $250bn a year the cash they give developing countries annually to fight climate change.

      But poorer countries angrily rejected this as too low, with the group of small island nations saying they were “deeply disappointed” with an offer that showed “contempt for our vulnerable people”.

      Efforts to limit emissions of planet warming gases were also up in the air, as the meeting went past the official closing time on Friday, with no indication of when agreement might be reached....

      Liked by 1 person

    147. The whole thing has turned into a money feeding frenzy, with planet warming/climate change a secondary concern for most countries it seems.

      ps – can’t blame them, I would want as big a slice “bn” for my country as possible.

      Like

    148. It’s obviously all such a disappointment to the BBC that it doesn’t even make the front page of its website this morning. The Guardian website leads with the usual hysteria, of course:

      “Cop29 live: talks into overtime as Greta Thunberg says people in power ‘about to agree to death sentence’

      The talks in Azerbaijan have seen nations at odds over how much money developed countries should provide to poorer ones”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/23/cop29-talks-go-into-overtime-as-countries-wrangle-over-finance-deal-live-coverage

      Like

    149. “UN climate talks on verge of collapse as countries walk out over cash”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8jykpdgr08t

      It is very common for these conferences to overrun, but it would be highly unusual for talks to collapse entirely.

      If that were to happen, the final deal would likely be delayed until next June in Bonn, Germany, as happened with COP6 in 2000.

      Bonn is the location of the UN climate headquarters, and it is where countries typically gather for a mid-year climate conference – think of it as a mini-COP.

      The aim of these Bonn meetings is to make some progress in some of the technical aspects of the negotiations, so that political decisions can be taken at COP at the end of the year.

      Pushing back the COP29 deal to Bonn could therefore have knock-on consequences for progress ahead of next year’s COP30 in Brazil too.

      But talks haven’t collapsed yet, so let’s see how the next few hours go

      Like

    150. Hundreds of people are now milling around outside the meeting room that developing and vulnerable AOSIS nations walked out of.

      It’s a frenetic, confused atmosphere. No-one is quite sure what will happen next.

      “We have temporarily walked out but remain interested in the talks until we get a fair deal,” said Jiwoh Emmanuel Abdulahi, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Sierra Leone, who is talking on behalf of the Least Developing Countries.

      We’re waiting to see if these countries will come back – if they don’t, this could be the end of these talks.

      But delegations will have flights home booked – once the talks lose the required number needed to pass a deal, it’s game over.

      Like

    151. Justin Rowlatt has a ridiculous article this morning – Will China step up if Trump takes a step back on climate change? – on the BBC’s ‘InDepth’ section of its website. Ridiculous because, wishing I suppose to cheer himself up after a hopelessly failed COP, he’s trying to believe that, in view of the advent of Trump, China is poised to assume leadership of global emission reduction. Trying to find evidence supporting that view he spoke for example to ‘the chief negotiator of one of the most powerful countries at the COP climate gathering’ (unnamed) who made the shattering comments that “China could be stepping forward” and was being “unusually cooperative” across all the discussions – wow! He eventually settles on the absurd proposition that the recent huge increase in China’s export of renewables is the evidence he’s seeking. You see, as Professor Michael Jacobs (‘an expert on climate politics at Sheffield University’) says regarding China: “It now sees its best interest as encouraging other countries to also cut their emissions by using Chinese technologies and equipment”. Of course it does Justin – increasing the market for its products is any exporting country’s priority.

      Unless you’ve got time to spare don’t bother to read it.

      Liked by 2 people

    152. Rowlatt is just clutching at straws made in China! In Ref. 1 Darwall quoted a US State Department analyst as saying, in the wake of the Copenhagen COP of 2009, “It is clear that no one in the Chinese politburo is truly anxious about the climatic consequences of global warming.” Has anything changed in the 15 years since then?

      Reference 1. Rupert Darwall, “The Age of Global Warming – a history”, page 287.

      Regards, John C.

      Liked by 2 people

    153. Quite funny to see countries, that bring nothing to the party except an empty enamel cup that they keep shoving under people’s noses, flouncing off in a huff about not being given enough money.

      The West is bankrupt. Who will send the money? The EU? Not if member states have any say in it.

      Liked by 3 people

    154. One major developed country that’s keeping quiet is Russia – after the US by far the biggest developed emitter. How much will it contribute? I think we know the answer.

      Liked by 1 person

    157. Or there’s always the BBC version:

      “$300bn deal at COP criticised for failing to meet scale of climate challenge”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8jykpdgr08t

      I am really quite angry about some of the responses from developing countries. Nobody is entitled to money from anybody else. If the developed world is handing over money that it doesn’t have, but has to borrow and increase its huge national debt levels, then the developing world should be grateful. I get it that they (rightly, or more likely – or at least more often – wrongly) blame the developed world for many of their woes, but the arrogant sense of self-entitlement is off the scale, especially from countries which are going hell for leather to increase their own fossil fuel consumption, like India:

      A furious speech from India‘s representative shortly after the passing of the $300bn deal showed that intense frustration still remained over the agreement.

      “We cannot accept it … the proposed goal will not solve anything for us. [It is] not conducive to climate action that is necessary to the survival of our country,” Chandni Raina told the conference, saying the amount was too small.

      Nandan says the decision-making process was unfair and excluded nations, a comment which was met with cheers and applause in the room.

      Meanwhile, Nigeria‘s envoy Nkiruka Maduekwe described the deal as an “insult”.

      Liked by 1 person

    158. Finally, the Observer’s take:

      “Cop29 agrees $1.3tn climate finance deal but campaigners brand it a ‘betrayal’

      Deep divisions remain after high-stakes talks end with agreement to help developing world shift to low-carbon economy”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/23/cop29-agrees-13tn-climate-finance-deal-but-campaigners-brand-it-a-betrayal

      Rich and poor countries concluded a trillion-dollar deal on the climate crisis in the early hours of Sunday morning, after marathon talks and days of bitter recriminations ended in what campaigners said was a “betrayal”.

      The developing world will receive at least $1.3tn (£1tn) a year in funds to help them shift to a low-carbon economy and cope with the impacts of extreme weather, by 2035.

      But only $300bn of that will come in the form they are most in need of – grants and low-interest loans from the developed world. The rest will have to come from private investors and a range of potential new sources of money, such as possible levies on fossil fuels and frequent flyers, which have yet to be agreed….

      Like

    159. Thanks Mark. Here’s my comment on all this:

      As always with these conferences COP29 has come up with a desperate last minute ‘deal’. The BBC’s headline – Recriminations after COP29 agrees deal on $300bn for poorer nations – doesn’t sound impressive but reality cannot be known until we can see the actual text that is supposed to have been agreed. And experience says that will show that the ‘deal’ is indeed meaningless.

      Far from meaningless is David Turver’s commentary on all this:

      COP29 Flops as Starmer Makes UK Cop for the Lot
      As COP29 ends with a weaker deal than planned, the Government commits the UK to a damaging 81% emissions cut by 2035

      An extract:

      In an illustration of how obsolete these meetings are, Keir Starmer was the only major world leader to attend the Baku jamboree with the leaders of countries responsible for 70% of emissions staying away. The leaders of Brazil, China, EU, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan and the US all declined to attend. Javier Milei of Argentina even ordered his delegation to return home after three days.

      Turver’s main theme however is to look at the UK in the context of what’s going on globally. He does this beautifully although there’s nothing there that we don’t know already. Nonetheless it’s well worth reading.

      Another extract:

      Ed Miliband claims that the UK is showing “international leadership in tackling the climate crisis.” But you can only lead if others follow and the rest of the world is clearly not following our energy and emissions self-flagellation. As we shall see below, we are world leaders in impoverishing ourselves while the rest of the world goes in the opposite direction.

      From Turver’s Conclusion:

      Against the backdrop of the COP meeting arguing about extra funding that is likely to be ineffective, it is strange that the CCC recommended we aim for a cut in emissions of 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. It is even stranger that Prime Minister Starmer should accept that recommendation when his primary mission is supposed to be economic growth. The commitment to even deeper domestic cuts to emissions just as we provide extra funding to others as they increase emissions is going to reduce UK growth even more and make us relatively poorer.

      It’s more than ‘strange’ it’s absurd – and totally irresponsible.

      PS – there’s a particularly odd item in the BBC report:

      UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband stressed that the new pledge does not commit the UK to come up with more climate finance but it was actually a “huge opportunity for British businesses” to invest in other markets.

      If that’s true the COP29 ‘deal’ really is meaningless.

      Liked by 2 people

    160. I’m awaiting a link to the text of the final “deal” and looking forward to analysing it.

      Like

    164. Here’s another delusional piece from Ed. What he didn’t learn at COP29 is that the developing world just wants money – lots of it – and the rest of the world is no longer interested in self-harm net zero policies and isn’t much interested in “climate action”

      “UK will seek global coalition for climate action, says Ed Miliband as Cop29 ends”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/25/china-west-climate-finance-cop29-president

      Liked by 3 people

    165. The text of the COP29 ‘deal’ can be found HERE and it’s even more absurd than I expected. These I think are the key provisions:

      7. Calls on all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing to developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035;

      8. Reaffirms, in this context, Article 9 of the Paris Agreement and decides to set a goal, in extension of the goal referred to in paragraph 53 of decision 1/CP.21, with developed country Parties taking the lead, of at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing country Parties for climate action:

      (a) From a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources;

      (b) In the context of meaningful and ambitious mitigation and adaptation action, and transparency in implementation;

      (c) Recognizing the voluntary intention of Parties to count all climate-related outflows from and climate-related finance mobilized by multilateral development banks towards achievement of the goal set forth in this paragraph;

        9. Encourages developing country Parties to make contributions, including through South–South cooperation, on a voluntary basis;

        36. Decides to periodically take stock of the implementation of this decision as part of the global stocktake and to initiate deliberations on the way forward prior to 2035, including through a review of this decision in 2030;

        My comments:

        Item 7: ‘actors’ working together, is almost completely meaningless: who are these ‘actors’? And the USD 1.3 trillion p.a. they’re supposed to find is to come ‘from all public and private sources’ – i.e. there’s no need for it to come from developed countries and certainly not from their governments. This is hugely significant: where might it come from? And then there’s the extraordinary provision that nothing has to happen until 2035 – a decade from now!

        Item 8: merely sets a ‘goal’ – in no sense a commitment. And the goal is that USD 300 billion a year is to be paid to developing countries (no definition of which such countries) ‘for climate action’, whatever that means. And as above nothing has to happen until 2035. Note that developed countries merely have to take a lead: what does that mean – and who is supposed to follow? Then note:

        8 (a) that the funds can come from almost any source – governments need not pay a penny. (As Miliband has said.)

        8 (b) that any funds will it seems only have to be paid in return for evidenced ‘ambitious’ mitigation and adaptation. That’s most significant and doesn’t seem to have been mentioned elsewhere.

        8 (c) I’ve no idea what this is supposed to mean except that it seems to be another qualification of the ‘goal’.

        Item 9: seems to be an answer to my who is supposed to follow question above. I think the intention is to answer criticisms that big developing emitters don’t have to contribute. If so, it’s not much of an answer.

        Item 36: simply emphasises the absurdity of having a 2035 goal – the only certainty about that is that the world will be an utterly different place by then.

        As I noted at the outset, the whole thing is completely absurd and essentially meaningless: there’s no call for any payment before 2035 nor is anyone responsible for paying anything anyway.

        What a ludicrous and confusing waste of time and money!

        Liked by 2 people

      1. Thanks for the link, Robin. I think that must be close to the shortest COP “agreement” to date. When I motivate myself, I may write about it, though you’ve admirably summarised its failures already.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It seems early for a COP30 thread, but perhaps it’s time, after all:

        “‘Backsliding’: most countries to miss vital climate deadline as Cop30 nears”

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/countries-miss-climate-deadline-cop30-trump-pollution

        The vast majority of governments are likely to miss a looming deadline to file vital plans that will determine whether or not the world has a chance of avoiding the worst ravages of climate breakdown.

        Despite the urgency of the crisis, the UN is relatively relaxed at the prospect of the missed date. Officials are urging countries instead to take time to work harder on their targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions and divest from fossil fuels.

        Simon Stiell, the UN’s top climate official, said in a speech in Brazil on Thursday: “Because these national plans are among the most important policy documents governments will produce this century, their quality should be the paramount consideration … Taking a bit more time to ensure these plans are first-rate makes sense, properly outlining how they will contribute to this effort [to tackle the climate crisis] and therefore what rewards they will reap.”…

        I see the climate crisis has morphed into climate breakdown now. Thanks, Guardian.

        Like

      3. Somebody should recommend the new term ‘the climate crisis breakdown’ to the Guardian, in order to more accurately reflect the science (and particularly the politics). Missed COP deadlines is one worrying symptom. Perhaps ‘Fredi’ and her colleagues can start doing attribution studies linking extremely irritating events like COP backsliding to the accelerating climate crisis breakdown.

        Liked by 1 person

      Leave a comment

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