I hadn't thought of the idea that fossil fuel interests using their influence to create apathy about meetings like COP, but it does make sense, so you are right there.
For me personally though, I have a similar reaction to the stranglehold fossil fuels still have over ostensibly climate focused summits like COP. It does have a way of clarifying what the reality is on the international scene and what can actually be accomplished there. And rather than just saying "screw it fossil fuels have the power of entire countries", I do look at it as "ok well what *can* we do?" Can we get real progress on the green climate fund, or loss and damage funding like mentioned. Can we get relatively good language on phasing out coal, possibly using the power of oil and gas countries to our advantage here, since they are largely competing products?
And this is why your reporting, or other climate journalists reporting is so important. That the COP28 president is using the summit to get oil deals is just bonkers. But this kind of information is vital for me for the clarification of what can be done. So thank you so much.
For Biden's no show, tbh I do agree with the reasoning given. Of the "big three" he has already met with Xi on climate, and he won't meet with Putin for obvious reasons, so on that front I'm not really concerned at this specific moment.
We will see the ultimate outcome of COP28 shortly, but despite the knowledge of the challenges, I'm always a little hopeful each year.
I personally don’t care if Biden shows or not as long as someone who really has the skills to negotiate and know what he is talking about like John Kerry is there. Biden’s appearance would be a symbolic gesture above all anything, and right now what matters are firm commitments and action.
I genuinely do not understand why people who seem to care. Can’t take a stand “boycotting is our only tool⁉️ those who just talk, without action amount to nothing at all.
The energy transition moves along better in places with less fossil fuel influence. Just check out the chart in the link, comparing the growth rates in the addition of renewables. First, China, then the EU then the US and rest of the world.
The US gets the scarlet L. And while China is castigated for some increases in coal power, they have prepared for the addition of more variable renewables going forward by equipping old and new coal plants with fast start/stop capabilities. And our "superior" emissions claims generally rest on not counting methane venting and leaking.
This is a great article - I want to put in my local climate newsletter, giving you the credit, of course. Can I just copy and paste, or should I do it another way? Or is it legal? I love your newlsetter and don't want to get kicked off!
Donald Trump was correct….We need to stay away from almost all the things that the UN orchestrates like COP 28 as they are all socialist leaning multilateral schemes to transfer wealth from the west to the rest.
Most of what the UN does is either a cash grab or a mechanism to control nations in following these wealth transfer ploys.
Here are the details..
The COP organizers have identified four main themes they want agreement upon….
How to accelerate all countries’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to meet a proposed 2050 “Net-Zero” target … This is certainly a prosperity killer!!
How to persuade all countries to phase out production of fossil fuels by 2050… Both a prosperity and a real killer…. Yes…people will die… And good luck at getting everyone to comply…. unless of course you have a gullible boy-scout government like ours.
How to induce wealthier countries to give much more money to poorer countries to help them both mitigate and adapt to climate change…. Putting numbers on this …. Rich countries are now paying about US$70 billion in climate aid, mostly to help finance GHG emissions reduction. The developing countries want this raised to at least US$1.4 trillion per year by 2026, 20 times higher…. Based on Canadas share by GDP That’s about $5000 per household per year and that’s on top of all the other national prosperity killing costs of meeting NetZero. They want to put their hands in our pockets …..for ever.
How to increase the UN’S role as central co-ordinator and global regulator of climate efforts...... and we cannot let that happen!!!.
Not sure I buy the flailing by the French MEP. Big deal, they have access to email about a summit they are hosting. What organizer wouldn’t? Making a leap from email access to actually overseeing the work of scientists is a big one.
I genuinely don't understand how someone who writes a newsletter called "Take back manufacturing" can be upset at the US efforts to hit net-zero targets or phase out fossil fuel production, regardless of climate change.
It is over a year in to the Inflation Reduction Act, and every single thing points to it fueling a domestic manufacturing renaissance *right now*, so not even 5-10 years down the line.
"While the biggest impacts will begin in 2024 and 2025, there have been more than 270 new clean energy projects announced since its passage, with investments totaling some $132 billion, according to a Bank of America analyst report.
Roughly half of those investment dollars are going to electric vehicles and batteries, while the rest are going to renewable energy like solar, wind and nuclear. These investments are expected to be accompanied by over 86,000 jobs, including 50,000 jobs related to EVs."
And even though the IRA has a lot of uncapped tax credits and subsidies, it is still only a portion of the total investment, about a third. The rest is from the private sector.
"according to an April 2023 analysis by Goldman Sachs, the now estimated $1.2 trillion in federal incentives may encourage up to $3 trillion in private investment over the next decade, resulting in millions of new, well-paying jobs."
Europe for the past year has been complaining about how the US is taking a lot of their investment and potential jobs because US manufacturing is increasing at such a rapid rate.
Why isn't this what you want, again regardless of climate change?
To be fair, it's highly important for Biden to be at the tree lighting ceremony. If we lose faith in Christmas, we lose everything. </sarcasm>
I hadn't thought of the idea that fossil fuel interests using their influence to create apathy about meetings like COP, but it does make sense, so you are right there.
For me personally though, I have a similar reaction to the stranglehold fossil fuels still have over ostensibly climate focused summits like COP. It does have a way of clarifying what the reality is on the international scene and what can actually be accomplished there. And rather than just saying "screw it fossil fuels have the power of entire countries", I do look at it as "ok well what *can* we do?" Can we get real progress on the green climate fund, or loss and damage funding like mentioned. Can we get relatively good language on phasing out coal, possibly using the power of oil and gas countries to our advantage here, since they are largely competing products?
And this is why your reporting, or other climate journalists reporting is so important. That the COP28 president is using the summit to get oil deals is just bonkers. But this kind of information is vital for me for the clarification of what can be done. So thank you so much.
For Biden's no show, tbh I do agree with the reasoning given. Of the "big three" he has already met with Xi on climate, and he won't meet with Putin for obvious reasons, so on that front I'm not really concerned at this specific moment.
We will see the ultimate outcome of COP28 shortly, but despite the knowledge of the challenges, I'm always a little hopeful each year.
I personally don’t care if Biden shows or not as long as someone who really has the skills to negotiate and know what he is talking about like John Kerry is there. Biden’s appearance would be a symbolic gesture above all anything, and right now what matters are firm commitments and action.
I genuinely do not understand why people who seem to care. Can’t take a stand “boycotting is our only tool⁉️ those who just talk, without action amount to nothing at all.
The energy transition moves along better in places with less fossil fuel influence. Just check out the chart in the link, comparing the growth rates in the addition of renewables. First, China, then the EU then the US and rest of the world.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/11/28/renewables-helping-china-to-halve-power-prices-compared-to-us-europe/
The US gets the scarlet L. And while China is castigated for some increases in coal power, they have prepared for the addition of more variable renewables going forward by equipping old and new coal plants with fast start/stop capabilities. And our "superior" emissions claims generally rest on not counting methane venting and leaking.
This is a great article - I want to put in my local climate newsletter, giving you the credit, of course. Can I just copy and paste, or should I do it another way? Or is it legal? I love your newlsetter and don't want to get kicked off!
Donald Trump was correct….We need to stay away from almost all the things that the UN orchestrates like COP 28 as they are all socialist leaning multilateral schemes to transfer wealth from the west to the rest.
Most of what the UN does is either a cash grab or a mechanism to control nations in following these wealth transfer ploys.
Here are the details..
The COP organizers have identified four main themes they want agreement upon….
How to accelerate all countries’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to meet a proposed 2050 “Net-Zero” target … This is certainly a prosperity killer!!
How to persuade all countries to phase out production of fossil fuels by 2050… Both a prosperity and a real killer…. Yes…people will die… And good luck at getting everyone to comply…. unless of course you have a gullible boy-scout government like ours.
How to induce wealthier countries to give much more money to poorer countries to help them both mitigate and adapt to climate change…. Putting numbers on this …. Rich countries are now paying about US$70 billion in climate aid, mostly to help finance GHG emissions reduction. The developing countries want this raised to at least US$1.4 trillion per year by 2026, 20 times higher…. Based on Canadas share by GDP That’s about $5000 per household per year and that’s on top of all the other national prosperity killing costs of meeting NetZero. They want to put their hands in our pockets …..for ever.
How to increase the UN’S role as central co-ordinator and global regulator of climate efforts...... and we cannot let that happen!!!.
Not sure I buy the flailing by the French MEP. Big deal, they have access to email about a summit they are hosting. What organizer wouldn’t? Making a leap from email access to actually overseeing the work of scientists is a big one.
Well adnoc isn’t supposed to be hosting the summit
Well, of course, but they kinda laid that out a while ago - to gripe now they have access to emails regarding it is strange.
I genuinely don't understand how someone who writes a newsletter called "Take back manufacturing" can be upset at the US efforts to hit net-zero targets or phase out fossil fuel production, regardless of climate change.
It is over a year in to the Inflation Reduction Act, and every single thing points to it fueling a domestic manufacturing renaissance *right now*, so not even 5-10 years down the line.
"While the biggest impacts will begin in 2024 and 2025, there have been more than 270 new clean energy projects announced since its passage, with investments totaling some $132 billion, according to a Bank of America analyst report.
Roughly half of those investment dollars are going to electric vehicles and batteries, while the rest are going to renewable energy like solar, wind and nuclear. These investments are expected to be accompanied by over 86,000 jobs, including 50,000 jobs related to EVs."
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/one-year-biden-still-needs-explain-his-signature-clean-energy-legislation-2023-08-16/
And even though the IRA has a lot of uncapped tax credits and subsidies, it is still only a portion of the total investment, about a third. The rest is from the private sector.
"according to an April 2023 analysis by Goldman Sachs, the now estimated $1.2 trillion in federal incentives may encourage up to $3 trillion in private investment over the next decade, resulting in millions of new, well-paying jobs."
https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniversary-manufacturing-resurgence
Europe for the past year has been complaining about how the US is taking a lot of their investment and potential jobs because US manufacturing is increasing at such a rapid rate.
Why isn't this what you want, again regardless of climate change?