Comments on COP 28 - eco-imperialism, charade, phony, futile theatrics, coal, morally wrong, destructive

COP28 and the scourge of eco-imperialism  It’s the ideology of environmentalism that should be ‘phased out’. "The luxuriant doom-mongering of privileged eco-warriors who insist the world will end if we don’t phase out fossil fuels was confronted by a truth no reasonable person can deny: that fossil fuels remain vital to human life. In the gleaming oasis of Dubai it became clear that oil, gas and even coal are not going away anytime soon, however much the Gretas of the West might want them to. Why? Because – brace yourselves – India, China, Brazil and other nations are not prepared to sacrifice their economic health at the altar of our deranged anti-modernism."

 The COP28 charade  "In fact, COP 28 was a spectacular failure, as measured against the goals that the UN had set for it from the beginning. It did not achieve a single one of the objectives that climate activists sought. Even more important, in spite of the voluntary commitments that various governments made during the conference (mostly aimed at domestic audiences), it is virtually certain to have little or no effect on the global trends in GHG emissions or on the climate."

"Five things are notable about this reference. First, the statement of goals is not binding; it is not a legal commitment and there are no penalties if the Parties fail to act on it. Second, the term ‘transition away’ does not require specific cuts in either fossil fuel use or production. Third, the reference includes only fossil fuels in energy systems, not, for example, fossil fuel use as feedstocks in petrochemicals production. Fourth, the reference to a ‘just, orderly and equitable manner’ provides loopholes that will allow the developing countries to argue that the goal does not apply to them and/or that ‘orderly’ excludes hasty action. Fifth, despite its reference to ‘accelerating action’, there are no specific deadlines. In other words, the statement can be safely ignored unless countries intend to limit fossil fuel production and use anyway."

"The failure of the conference to meet the financial demands of the developing countries should have been the main story coming out of it. Instead, the media ignored it. We can expect the show to continue next year at COP 29 in Azerbaijan."

The Phony Climate Promises of COP28  "China is building massive coal plants even as it boasts about its growth in solar and wind. China is expected to add 95 to 120 gigawatts of solar power capacity this year—about as much coal power as it approved last year. But coal plants will produce power (and CO2 emissions) around the clock while solar farms won’t.

"The climate lobby’s plan was to use global agreements to browbeat democracies into committing to a net-zero transition before voters caught onto the costs and lifestyle impacts. The plan failed. Europeans are revolting against climate policies as fuel and electricity prices soar, causing Europe and the United Kingdom to backtrack on their gas-powered car bans.

"The COP28 agreement, weak as it is, reflects the arrogance of global elites who are ignoring what electorates are saying about the costs they are willing to pay. Elites have turned to government mandates and vast subsidies—i.e., coercion—because they can’t persuade voters that the climate benefits from reducing CO2 emissions justify the social and economic costs."

Joe Oliver: COP28 was futile climate theatrics "In spite of her (Thunberg) ministrations and those of King Charles, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Leonardo DiCaprio and other grand panjandrums, the 27 preceding COPs have had no discernible influence on the climate. Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise steadily, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Although COVID-19 reduced industrial carbon dioxide temporarily, it did not detectably impact carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nor is any resource-rich country meeting its zero emissions targets, while the largest developing countries are moving aggressively in exactly the opposite direction in order to deliver affordable energy to their needy citizens. World energy consumption has tripled in the past 50 years and fossil fuels provided 81 per cent of global energy consumption in 2021, the same as in 1999. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, global CO2 emissions from consumption of coal, liquid fuels and natural gas will increase over the next 30 years. So much for net-zero by 2050 since offsets will not be able to keep pace. How many trees can we plant?

"Absent from the COPs, including 28, is any attempt to compare the cost of getting to net-zero by 2050 with the damage imposed by higher temperatures. Since, according to McKinsey, the bill would reach a staggering $275 trillion, it seems only prudent to estimate what this expenditure might realistically save. Bjorn Lomborg suggests the benefit is less than the cost by a factor of six, therefore indicating a $230 trillion net loss, which should occasion a fundamental re-think of climate strategy.

"At home, Justin Trudeau’s hostility to energy resources has arguably imposed on Canada the highest proportional economic burden of any other resource-rich country, including a quarter trillion dollars in lost capital investments, with no possible impact on global temperatures. With Trudeau clearly unwilling to back off his ruinous climate policies, time is running out on sending bloated delegations to COP confabs."

COP28 Gets Coal In Its Stocking Last week, during the COP28 meeting in Dubai, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said, “There shouldn't be any more coal-fired power plants permitted anywhere in the world.” China, India, and a bunch of other countries didn’t get that memo.

\

It is morally wrong to blindly adhere to net zero – we must abandon it before it’s too late  "At Cop28, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman was right to call out delusional Western leaders with their pie-in-the-sky nonsense."

The lesson of fossil fuel advocates' failure at COP 28: stop "Arguing to 0," start "Arguing to 100"

"Many fossil fuel advocates thought it would be clever to agree to COP 28's "net zero by 2050" goal and then challenge a few of its implementation details. They were wrong.

"Indeed, many companies, politicians, developing countries, and oil-producing countries who know full-well that “net zero by 2050,” if realized, would be one of the most destructive developments in human history, think that it’s somehow necessary and practical to agree to the net-zero goals but then in practice just engage in marginal GHG emissions reductions that will bring us nowhere near net-zero by 2050, such as: expanding carbon capture, subsidizing some solar and wind, experimenting with hydrogen fuel, or substituting some natural gas for coal."

Historically historic  "What a show. What excitement. What a relief. COP28 went into overtime, of all things, exhausted delegates debated wording they no longer possessed the acuity to comprehend, and then miraculously they snatched rhetorical victory from the jaws of actual defeat and we got resounding with predictable declarations of a “historic deal”. For instance “COP28 strikes ‘historic’ deal to transition away from fossil fuels” from Euronews.green. Or “The COP28 United Nations climate summit clinched a historic climate deal on Wednesday” from Reuters. And the prating coxcombs at Canada’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change crowed “Canada contributes to historic outcomes on climate ambition and clean energy at COP28”. Of course after an almost identical theatrical performance a year ago in Egypt, journalactivists pronounced COP27 “historic”. Does anyone remember what for? Anyone?"