Great piece! I'm a scientist and data analyst and would love to help with this effort if another set of hands and eyes going through those 97,000 rows would be helpful.
I despise the term "lobbyist." A few centuries ago, the term made sense: advocates for businesses, government agencies or interest groups would gather in "lobbies" where decision-makers gathered, in hopes of advocating for their respective entities. If money passed hands, it was certainly on the "down-low," since it clearly constituted bribery, a serious and punishable offense.
Today's "lobbyists," especially those in Washington, D.C., are obviously and clearly specialists in the art of effective bribery. Today's bribes are referred to as "campaign contributions," but the function is exactly the same as the illegal bribery of previous times: "Here's a sizable sum to help you get reelected; now, about that legislation we discussed ..."
The "lobbyists" in "COP-out 28" are paid large sums of money to prevent policies which could curtail the exorbitant profits of fossil fuel providers. They are not there to support science-based policies which will curtail global warming and help the various populations in the world who suffer most from its effects. And since these "lobbyists" are most likely the highest paid, and presumably most effective, influencers at the conference, there is no mystery as to the net result: more of the same.
Here's an idea: how about a group of leading climate scientists getting together for public discussions about how to most effectively reverse climate change? Oh, that's right - it's already been done! Except instead of a showy conference, they simply published their conclusions at a website accessible by anyone: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
The problem is, few people are listening. Instead, we waste time with the farce known as COP28.
Ugly, was the start of this COP28 being in Dubai, with UAE top oil guy - Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, COP28 President, leading the pack. All those lobbyists will get there T-shirt. How do they tell their kids and other relatives "we could have stopped this but went on a power hungry assault of the earth instead."
Thank you for the great summary of these fossil fuel attendees, albeit like indicated undercounted. Like I alluded to in my last comment, I do hope this sort of spotlight helps dispel the jadedness around international summits like this. If it encourages people to come away knowing there are specific actors involved blocking progress and that things can be done about that or even in spite of it, that is great. And not just disregard the whole thing.
I mean there is a reason why it took until now to get the attendee transparency rule. I think it would be a mistake to turn away because of that rule instead of giving more attention to this.
Also wanted to share a funny Simpsons clip a friend sent me recently, I think it matches the theme.
20 years ago at COP9 in Milan, I reported for PBS "NOW With Bill Moyers." My story revealed how the fossil fuel industry, in lockstep with the American delegation, ensured no progress would be made. It's dispiriting to see how little has changed since 2009. https://vimeo.com/623927136
Hmm....someone who bypasses the normal customs and have questionable documentation: don't we call these folks undocumented immigrants? illegal immigrants? These terms are usually perjorative in other situations, but in this setting they seem entirely appropriate. COP 28 has been overwhelmed by gatecrashers, trespassers and disrupters and it's fantastic that you are highlighting the documents that reveal that these folks as the illegal aliens that they are for the stated purpose of this gathering.
It’s clear from the attendance at COP 28, and certainly the latest broad and growing level of scientific dissent that the climate science is far from settled, and the realization by many that even if NetZero were necessary, the policy solutions are highly unworkable.
I see many fossil fuel lobbyists attending COP, and they are no better or worse than the many activists and alarmists that get paid to scare and confuse the general population.
This whole circus is just not productive, and a waste of our intellectual and technical resources and needs to stop… we cannot continue with this deranged farce on a topic that could adversely effect most of the population.
The way forward is to stop listening to anyone other than the top scientists on BOTH sides of the climate change emergency argument, and let’s convene a well-organized scientific review without political subjugation or confinement of the truth.
This review should be facilitated by the best, and included should be experts in the science of risk assessment.
This process must not be anything to do with The UN or the IPCC as they are far too biased to be objective.
The western nations that have the most to get right should host this process.
It should invite all factions of the scientific spectrum.
The outcome should be journalized by the best media entities so that the funding can be communicated without censorship to the general public in their own language.
What’s interesting is that the scientific data is mostly not in dispute, but the interpretation and the weight of the risk management is where the dissent resides.
I would lock out any activists or lobbyists from this review process as they have been most of the problem in distorting facts and have had far too much say already.
Then, at the conclusion of this process a summary report signed by all will be produced that will summarise the findings into a “range” of concurrence and risks.
This will then be presented to national governments that will have to craft what is hoped will be meaningful and manageable policies that balance the environmental versus economic risks on behalf of their populations.
Anything less than this attempt at a future plan is irresponsible, and without such a review process we will continue to follow dissent and ineptitude leading to the destruction of our civilization.
The leaders at COPs are supposed to use the IPCC's Climate Assessment Reports and Special Reports to guide global policy decisions. Exxon and Shell are not needed for that, and holding COP28 at the UAE with an oil barron in charge is a loud and clear message that this gathering will not take achieving 50% reductions of GHG emissions by 2030 and down to net zero GHG emissions by 2050 seriously.
We know what needs to be done according to the IPCC. Half the work is a strong price on climate pollution. That's viable with a cash-back rebate of the money collected to households, which also supports the high price required. Failure to put a steadily rising global carbon price floor on fossil fuel production will mean we have no chance of meeting the Paris Accord goal.
"Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies” - IPCC SR15
The growing gap between the required carbon price ($85/tCO2e) and the average global carbon price ($5) should be remedied at COP28. I haven't heard a word about it yet.
Great piece! I'm a scientist and data analyst and would love to help with this effort if another set of hands and eyes going through those 97,000 rows would be helpful.
I despise the term "lobbyist." A few centuries ago, the term made sense: advocates for businesses, government agencies or interest groups would gather in "lobbies" where decision-makers gathered, in hopes of advocating for their respective entities. If money passed hands, it was certainly on the "down-low," since it clearly constituted bribery, a serious and punishable offense.
Today's "lobbyists," especially those in Washington, D.C., are obviously and clearly specialists in the art of effective bribery. Today's bribes are referred to as "campaign contributions," but the function is exactly the same as the illegal bribery of previous times: "Here's a sizable sum to help you get reelected; now, about that legislation we discussed ..."
The "lobbyists" in "COP-out 28" are paid large sums of money to prevent policies which could curtail the exorbitant profits of fossil fuel providers. They are not there to support science-based policies which will curtail global warming and help the various populations in the world who suffer most from its effects. And since these "lobbyists" are most likely the highest paid, and presumably most effective, influencers at the conference, there is no mystery as to the net result: more of the same.
Here's an idea: how about a group of leading climate scientists getting together for public discussions about how to most effectively reverse climate change? Oh, that's right - it's already been done! Except instead of a showy conference, they simply published their conclusions at a website accessible by anyone: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
The problem is, few people are listening. Instead, we waste time with the farce known as COP28.
https://bityl.co/MgtZ
One cartoon is worth a lot of words.
Ugly, was the start of this COP28 being in Dubai, with UAE top oil guy - Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, COP28 President, leading the pack. All those lobbyists will get there T-shirt. How do they tell their kids and other relatives "we could have stopped this but went on a power hungry assault of the earth instead."
"More like Conference of the Worst Party Ever!"
lmao
Thank you for the great summary of these fossil fuel attendees, albeit like indicated undercounted. Like I alluded to in my last comment, I do hope this sort of spotlight helps dispel the jadedness around international summits like this. If it encourages people to come away knowing there are specific actors involved blocking progress and that things can be done about that or even in spite of it, that is great. And not just disregard the whole thing.
I mean there is a reason why it took until now to get the attendee transparency rule. I think it would be a mistake to turn away because of that rule instead of giving more attention to this.
Also wanted to share a funny Simpsons clip a friend sent me recently, I think it matches the theme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcArJEYvaHw
20 years ago at COP9 in Milan, I reported for PBS "NOW With Bill Moyers." My story revealed how the fossil fuel industry, in lockstep with the American delegation, ensured no progress would be made. It's dispiriting to see how little has changed since 2009. https://vimeo.com/623927136
Hmm....someone who bypasses the normal customs and have questionable documentation: don't we call these folks undocumented immigrants? illegal immigrants? These terms are usually perjorative in other situations, but in this setting they seem entirely appropriate. COP 28 has been overwhelmed by gatecrashers, trespassers and disrupters and it's fantastic that you are highlighting the documents that reveal that these folks as the illegal aliens that they are for the stated purpose of this gathering.
COP 28 … It’s a total COP-OUT!
Time for a truthful Scientific review….
It’s clear from the attendance at COP 28, and certainly the latest broad and growing level of scientific dissent that the climate science is far from settled, and the realization by many that even if NetZero were necessary, the policy solutions are highly unworkable.
I see many fossil fuel lobbyists attending COP, and they are no better or worse than the many activists and alarmists that get paid to scare and confuse the general population.
This whole circus is just not productive, and a waste of our intellectual and technical resources and needs to stop… we cannot continue with this deranged farce on a topic that could adversely effect most of the population.
The way forward is to stop listening to anyone other than the top scientists on BOTH sides of the climate change emergency argument, and let’s convene a well-organized scientific review without political subjugation or confinement of the truth.
This review should be facilitated by the best, and included should be experts in the science of risk assessment.
This process must not be anything to do with The UN or the IPCC as they are far too biased to be objective.
The western nations that have the most to get right should host this process.
It should invite all factions of the scientific spectrum.
The outcome should be journalized by the best media entities so that the funding can be communicated without censorship to the general public in their own language.
What’s interesting is that the scientific data is mostly not in dispute, but the interpretation and the weight of the risk management is where the dissent resides.
I would lock out any activists or lobbyists from this review process as they have been most of the problem in distorting facts and have had far too much say already.
Then, at the conclusion of this process a summary report signed by all will be produced that will summarise the findings into a “range” of concurrence and risks.
This will then be presented to national governments that will have to craft what is hoped will be meaningful and manageable policies that balance the environmental versus economic risks on behalf of their populations.
Anything less than this attempt at a future plan is irresponsible, and without such a review process we will continue to follow dissent and ineptitude leading to the destruction of our civilization.
Republished from https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/cop-28-its-a-total-cop-out
The leaders at COPs are supposed to use the IPCC's Climate Assessment Reports and Special Reports to guide global policy decisions. Exxon and Shell are not needed for that, and holding COP28 at the UAE with an oil barron in charge is a loud and clear message that this gathering will not take achieving 50% reductions of GHG emissions by 2030 and down to net zero GHG emissions by 2050 seriously.
We know what needs to be done according to the IPCC. Half the work is a strong price on climate pollution. That's viable with a cash-back rebate of the money collected to households, which also supports the high price required. Failure to put a steadily rising global carbon price floor on fossil fuel production will mean we have no chance of meeting the Paris Accord goal.
"Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies” - IPCC SR15
The growing gap between the required carbon price ($85/tCO2e) and the average global carbon price ($5) should be remedied at COP28. I haven't heard a word about it yet.
The rising carbon price gap: https://bit.ly/carbon-price-gap-pdf.