Hmmm...seems like this comment thread is also being flooded by fossil fuels lobbyists as well, which really helps make the case about how such moves are designed to suppress discussion not facilitate it at COP28. Do drug dealers have a perspective and should be given a seat at the table when discussing how to manage drug abuse in our cities and country? Or can I distinguish between legitimate use of medications and drug abuse without their input?
Rebuttals to articles like this typically rely on the traditional straw man argument that without the fossils we'll all revert to hunter-gatherer, cave-dwelling status. Indeed, that was the explicit argument put forth by Sultan Al Jaber in his famous interview where he claimed there is no science behind the idea that we need to phase out the fossils.
Five years ago I repeated a statement I had read a few years earlier: that there were something like 500 new coal-fired power plants across the world in various stages of development, " because coal is the cheapest and fastest way to produce electricity" for energy-starved, developing countries. I was corrected by the gentleman with whom I was conversing, who told me that solar had then overtaken coal as being the "cheapest, fastest" way to produce electricity. That is even more true today.
The fossils are correct about one thing: technology is rapidly improving our ability to provide energy to a rapidly growing population; they are incorrect, however, on what that technology will provide. While they are insistent that technology will provide a means for humans to continue to burn fossils and allow them to maintain their profits, instead technology will provide a way for us to wean ourselves from this 'dirty energy.'
So, yeah - the greedy bastards want to keep their profits even if it means destroying the planet's ability to sustain life. Pretty simple, really.
Thank you for this full accounting of the fossil fuel industries influence. Genuinely exceptional work!
I don't have anything to add other than to say I hate the argument from fossil fuel experts are the energy policy experts and so their presence at summits like this are not just important but necessary.
And it is such bullshit. Not only does being in the business of exploiting fossil fuels NOT make someone automatically an expert in broad society wide energy policy, fossil fuel companies are in fact pretty fucking bad at it. Multiple events in the recent past have proven that, Texas immediately comes to mind.
Sorry for the language lol but this argument from fossil fuel companies is especially aggravating to me since there are so many actual energy experts who aren't employees of fossil fuel companies that deserve to be recognized by world leaders, instead of fossil fuel companies.
Thank you for this excellent summary of the history and current situation. When fossil corporations are larger and more powerful than some countries, giving them a seat at the table with actual government representatives doesn’t bode well for the future of humanity and the earth. I’m thankful for the dedicated and persistent activists.
thanks for the update and your take of COP28. Maybe the best course of action would be for those serious about bringing about the transition to green energy not show up and reveal the truth: the rediculousness of just a bunch of green washers at the confereence. If you invite foxs into the chicken coop.....the chickens -if they be smart- would not show up. Same with CO28. *protest instead of comply*
COP 28 … Maybe still a crazy reality show….. but at least more reality for all!…
We hear complaints from the climate emergency advocates about the attendance at COP28 by the fossil resource sectors and even concerns about the event organizers agenda..
Putting aside that the whole COP thing is an overblown event devoid of any real purpose other than to allow the so called climate elites to virtue signal.. It is appropriate for all sides of the climate change argument to be present.
If the climate emergency activist cannot tolerate input from all sides of the very important argument that will effect EVERYONE on the planet then we must draw the conclusion that their scientific case that we have a climate emergency is weak.
Its high time for a much more open discussion on the UN climate emergency agenda that quite frankly is biased toward politics rather than science and is clearly unrealistic.
The oil and gas lobbyists have a reasonable and righteous purpose to be present as they represent the current ability of our civilization to survive and thrive and they serve the bulk of the population as we are all customers of their technology and without them, we would be back in the dark ages.
A good study for all of us would be to visualize a world without the use of fossil resources...It would mean …. No fuel, No plastics, No modern medicine, No internet, No modern manufacturing, No modern buildings, No food to feed the existing size of population... and much more life limiting essentials not mentioned.
We should welcome the dialogue and the balanced reality to ensure we get the climate change science and the associated policies correct.
Its now time for a truthful Scientific review….
It’s clear from the d 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 and its clear that the current NetZero goals and plans are grossly unrealistic and place the whole global population into a prosperity and sustainability panic mode that is highly dangerous and irresponsible...
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 the current 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.
Hmmm...seems like this comment thread is also being flooded by fossil fuels lobbyists as well, which really helps make the case about how such moves are designed to suppress discussion not facilitate it at COP28. Do drug dealers have a perspective and should be given a seat at the table when discussing how to manage drug abuse in our cities and country? Or can I distinguish between legitimate use of medications and drug abuse without their input?
Rebuttals to articles like this typically rely on the traditional straw man argument that without the fossils we'll all revert to hunter-gatherer, cave-dwelling status. Indeed, that was the explicit argument put forth by Sultan Al Jaber in his famous interview where he claimed there is no science behind the idea that we need to phase out the fossils.
Five years ago I repeated a statement I had read a few years earlier: that there were something like 500 new coal-fired power plants across the world in various stages of development, " because coal is the cheapest and fastest way to produce electricity" for energy-starved, developing countries. I was corrected by the gentleman with whom I was conversing, who told me that solar had then overtaken coal as being the "cheapest, fastest" way to produce electricity. That is even more true today.
The fossils are correct about one thing: technology is rapidly improving our ability to provide energy to a rapidly growing population; they are incorrect, however, on what that technology will provide. While they are insistent that technology will provide a means for humans to continue to burn fossils and allow them to maintain their profits, instead technology will provide a way for us to wean ourselves from this 'dirty energy.'
So, yeah - the greedy bastards want to keep their profits even if it means destroying the planet's ability to sustain life. Pretty simple, really.
Stall tactics or not, the fossil fuels industry's attempts to resist scaling back on production and use of oil are the kind of delay we can't afford.
Thank you for this full accounting of the fossil fuel industries influence. Genuinely exceptional work!
I don't have anything to add other than to say I hate the argument from fossil fuel experts are the energy policy experts and so their presence at summits like this are not just important but necessary.
And it is such bullshit. Not only does being in the business of exploiting fossil fuels NOT make someone automatically an expert in broad society wide energy policy, fossil fuel companies are in fact pretty fucking bad at it. Multiple events in the recent past have proven that, Texas immediately comes to mind.
Sorry for the language lol but this argument from fossil fuel companies is especially aggravating to me since there are so many actual energy experts who aren't employees of fossil fuel companies that deserve to be recognized by world leaders, instead of fossil fuel companies.
Thank you for this excellent summary of the history and current situation. When fossil corporations are larger and more powerful than some countries, giving them a seat at the table with actual government representatives doesn’t bode well for the future of humanity and the earth. I’m thankful for the dedicated and persistent activists.
If the definition of fossil fuel interests is anyone who benefits from their use then all 70,000 COP28 attendees have fossil fuel interests.
I’m fascinated by the comments here. We do live in interesting times.
thanks for the update and your take of COP28. Maybe the best course of action would be for those serious about bringing about the transition to green energy not show up and reveal the truth: the rediculousness of just a bunch of green washers at the confereence. If you invite foxs into the chicken coop.....the chickens -if they be smart- would not show up. Same with CO28. *protest instead of comply*
COP 28 … Maybe still a crazy reality show….. but at least more reality for all!…
We hear complaints from the climate emergency advocates about the attendance at COP28 by the fossil resource sectors and even concerns about the event organizers agenda..
Putting aside that the whole COP thing is an overblown event devoid of any real purpose other than to allow the so called climate elites to virtue signal.. It is appropriate for all sides of the climate change argument to be present.
If the climate emergency activist cannot tolerate input from all sides of the very important argument that will effect EVERYONE on the planet then we must draw the conclusion that their scientific case that we have a climate emergency is weak.
Its high time for a much more open discussion on the UN climate emergency agenda that quite frankly is biased toward politics rather than science and is clearly unrealistic.
The oil and gas lobbyists have a reasonable and righteous purpose to be present as they represent the current ability of our civilization to survive and thrive and they serve the bulk of the population as we are all customers of their technology and without them, we would be back in the dark ages.
A good study for all of us would be to visualize a world without the use of fossil resources...It would mean …. No fuel, No plastics, No modern medicine, No internet, No modern manufacturing, No modern buildings, No food to feed the existing size of population... and much more life limiting essentials not mentioned.
We should welcome the dialogue and the balanced reality to ensure we get the climate change science and the associated policies correct.
Its now time for a truthful Scientific review….
It’s clear from the d 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 and its clear that the current NetZero goals and plans are grossly unrealistic and place the whole global population into a prosperity and sustainability panic mode that is highly dangerous and irresponsible...
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 the current 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.
You obviously don’t understand that without fossil fuels we would be living in caves.