The 28th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from November 30 to December 13, 2023. According to various reports, more than 100,000 people attended the conference and its associated events.
Most of the outcomes of the conference are listed in the conference decision on the “Outcome of the first global stocktake”. The decision document is 21 pages of highly bureaucratic language mostly recalling past COP decisions and exhorting the Parties to increased efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In the following summary of the conferences results, I will summarize them with reference to some of the key themes of the conference as set out by the Conference Chair.
“Stimulating a course correction for climate action”
Goal: Using the recently completed global “stock take” on the performance of countries to reduce emissions fast enough to meet the 1.5 degrees C. goal, the conference sought to bring political pressure to bear on countries urgently to adopt more stringent emission-reduction policies both pre-2030 and pre-2035.
These plans are called the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The UN “stocktake” was intended to be an assessment, based on the NDCs, and the measurement of GHG emissions reductions achieved to date, of how well the Parties were doing in seeking to reduce emissions so as to meet the aspirational goal of limiting the rise in average global temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees C. by 2100.
The stocktake “recognized” that “limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C. with no or limited overshoot requires peaking in global greenhouse gas emissions at the latest before 2025 and rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43 per cent by 2030 and 60 per cent by 2035 relative to the 2019 level and to reach net zero CO2 emissions by 2050”.
The NDC analysis found that GHG emission levels in 2030 are “likely to be 5.3 per cent lower than in 2019 if all NDCs, including all conditional elements, are fully implemented and that enhanced financial resources, technology transfer and technical cooperation, and capacity-building support are as needed to support this.”
The decision document “called on the Parties” voluntarily to make national efforts to do eight things:
Triple renewable energy capacity globally and double the annual average rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030;
Accelerate efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power;
Accelerate efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems, utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century;
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;
Accelerate zero- and low-emission technologies, including inter alia renewable, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production;
Accelerate and substantially reduce non-carbon-dioxide emissions globally, including in articular methane emissions by 2030;
Accelerate the reduction of emissions from road transport on a range of pathways, including through development of infrastructure and rapid deployment of zero-emission and low-emission vehicles; and
Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible.
While this statement of goals is not binding, much of the negotiation of the decision document focused on it, especially on the reference to “transitioning away from fossil fuels”. The UN and the EU tried unsuccessfully to get agreement on “phasing out” or “phasing down” fossil fuel use and production, but were unable to get agreement on those words.
“Delivering on promises made to the developing world”
Goal: The conference sought to ‘operationalize” the Loss and Damages Fund that was approved in principle at COP27, elicit voluntary pledges, and seek longer-term financial pledges. It also sought of agreement on the level of the post-2025 climate aid commitment (hoping for at least USD 1.4 trillion per year).
The decision document stated that the adaptation finance needs of the developing countries are estimated at USD 215-387 billion annually up until 2030, and that about USD 4.3 trillion per year needs to be invested in clean energy up until 2030, increasing thereafter to USD 5 trillion per year up until 2050, to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
The conference sought support for more funds for climate adaptation and for “operationalizing” the Loss and Damages fund (the fund intended to tax developed countries to pay for the adverse effects of severe weather events in developing countries). To date, there is no agreement on which countries should pay and how much they should pay or on which countries will qualify to receive payments and how much they will qualify to receive. It remains to seen which “extreme weather events” are considered to be caused by human-related GHG emissions and which are not.
The decision document “noted with deep regret” that the goal of having Annex II countries (i.e. mainly the OECD developed countries) provide at least $100 billion in climate aid per year in the pre-2025 period was not met in 2021. It welcomed pledges made by 31 contributors (including Canada) for the “replenishment” of the Green Climate Fund, resulting in a nominal pledge of USD 12.8 billion to date (i.e. a long way from USD 1.4 trillion).
The document also welcomed the pledges made to provide USD 188 million for the Adaptation Fund (i.e. far below the billions per year sought) and pledges for USD 792 million for Loss and Damages. These were voluntary commitments, so there was no agreement to make them obligatory.
“Scaling Up Accountability”
Goal: The conference sought to “add new mechanisms for regular follow up of NDC implementation through the existing UNFCCC institutions. The conference also sought member states’ agreement to have additional summit meetings (to keep up the political pressures at the highest levels); and the “mobilization” of non-state actors” like ENGOs, Indigenous groups and municipalities. Finally, it sought agreement to further international “coordination of regulation”.
The decision document included no reference to the increased institutional and governance structures discussed and agreed to at the conference.
The United Nations produces reports on the Global Climate Action Portal listing all the announcements made at COP 28. There were 175 separate announcements, the titles and brief descriptions of which require 45 pages of dense text. Many new organizations and initiatives were announced covering a wide range of topics.
Next Meetings
COP 29 will take place in Azerbaijan from November 11 to 22, 2024 and Brazil will host COP 30 from November 10 to 21 2025.
When times are tough, there’s nothing like a bit of winter sunshine to cheer you up. And boy, are there a lot of people who need to get away from the rain and sleet back home. This year, no fewer than 90,000 have abandoned their credibility, boarded their jet planes, and made their way to the bright lights of Dubai for the gabfest that is the annual Conference of the Parties (usually referred to as a ‘COP’) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
By all accounts, it has been a lot of fun, tables groaning with gourmet burgers and fine wines, with only slightest seasoning of guilt over the enjoyment of all this excess at a time when most of us are struggling.
As we at Net Zero Watch like to point out, the COPs have long followed an entirely predictable pattern. Each year, hundreds of posturing delegates and thousands of protestors, celebs, and assorted hangers-on fly in from around the world to lecture us all on our carbon footprints. They then start up the negotiations, rapidly reach deadlock, before announcing a last-minute breakthrough. Then, in the cold light of day, everybody accepts nothing has been achieved beyond expanded waistlines and serious hangovers for all the delegates.
Who can now doubt that the climate COPs have become a charade, a meaning-less ritual with a comfortable and familiar liturgy that makes everyone involved feel good about themselves, but in which no- body really has the slightest faith?
Take a look, and see what we mean (click on image below to enjoy the panto).
An oil processing facility operates beside dunes at Saudi Aramco’s Shaybah oil field in the Rub’ Al-Khali desert, also known as the ‘Empty Quarter,’ in Shaybah, Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2018. Saudi Arabia is seeking to transform its crude-dependent economy by developing new industries, and is pushing into petrochemicals as a way to earn more from its energy deposits. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
The Saudi Arabian energy minister said Wednesday that the new United Nations (UN) green energy transition pledge will not diminish the country’s ability to sell fossil fuels, according to Al Arabiya, a Saudi Arabian news outlet.
Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said that the landmark international pledge to transition away from fossil fuels will not affect Saudi Arabian crude oil sales, according to Al Arabiya. The UN hailed the agreement as “the beginning of the end” for fossil fuels, but Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil, does not seem especially concerned that the pledge spells doom for the country’s economic lifeblood.
Nearly 200 countries, including the U.S., signed onto the energy transition pledge on Wednesday, just before the annual UN climate summit adjourned.
“We were given priority that I don’t think I have ever seen it in any such conference,” bin Salman told Al Arabiya regarding the level of access he and his colleagues received at the summit.
The pledge calls for “developed” countries, such as the U.S. and countries in Western Europe, to lead the way in the transition away from fossil fuels and in pursuit of green energy as “developing” countries follow that lead.
Notably, Saudi Arabia is considered a “developing” country despite its status as the world’s second-largest oil producer in 2022 and ranking as a top-ten emitter of carbon dioxide.
President Joe Biden, meanwhile, reacted to the announcement of the new commitment by asserting that fossil fuels “jeopardize our planet and our people,” according to the White House. “The climate crisis is the existential threat of our time. But as America has always done, we will turn crisis into opportunity – creating clean energy jobs, revitalizing communities, and improving quality of life.”
Saudi Arabian representatives, as well as delegates from other major oil-producing countries, reportedly resisted efforts from other officials to orient the commitment around a promise to “phase out” fossil fuels altogether, as opposed to a more broadly-defined energy transition.
Ultimately, it appears that Saudi Arabia, a leading member of OPEC+, got its way. The agreement does not call for a fossil fuel “phase out,” instead advocating for governments to accelerate the deployment of carbon removal technologies that could ostensibly prolong global reliance on fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and storage.
It remains to be seen whether or not the agreement’s signatories will actually follow through with the pledge’s stipulations. Lofty targets have been set at past UN climate conferences, only to be effectively ignored.
For example, at the 2021 summit, global leaders announced commitment to phasing down reliance on coal-fired power plants, but global coal demand is expected to remain at near-record levels in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency.
The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, As usual, you will receive my monitor on global temperature rise. After that, I will deal with the role of the German government at the climate conference in Dubai.
In November 2023, the deviation of global temperature from the 30-year average of satellite measurements from the University of Alabama (UAH) remained the same compared to October. The value is 0.91 degrees Celsius. The El Niño is expected to last until April-June 2024. However, the peak seems to have been passed. The average temperature increase per decade since 1979 has been 0.14 degrees Celsius.
The UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai
The UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai shows how far Germany has moved away from the real energy policy of other countries. Chancellor Scholz did not achieve much resonance with his appearance, because the others know the German tune that wind power and photovoltaics save the world.
They know the fatal consequences of German energy policy on economic development and know that this naïve, unrealistic German energy policy has led the country to the highest electricity prices in the world. Scholz: “The technologies are there: wind power, photovoltaics, electric drives and green hydrogen.” In other words, he is reducing the energy future to two energy sources, because electric drives and green hydrogen are not primary energy sources.
In 2022, 5% of the primary energy generated globally came from solar and wind energy. Therefore, his call for a tripling of wind and solar energy by 2030 is at best suitable for meeting the world’s growing hunger for energy rather than replacing the coal, oil and gas base in any relevant form. And he forgets, as he always does in this country, two technological paths that the whole world will take – except for the green-ideological barricaded Germany: the expansion of nuclear energy and CO2 capture in the use of coal, oil and gas. The 250 German delegates had to take note of the fact that 22 countries were calling for the tripling of nuclear energy capacity in Dubai. Nuclear energy – Olaf Scholz’s dead horse – has thus left its wallflower existence at world climate conferences behind and has become part of the final document.
The resolution, adopted on 13 December, calls on states to make a just, orderly and fair transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. In addition, the draft calls for greater reliance on other emission-free or low-emission technologies. In addition to renewables, nuclear power, hydrogen and technologies for capturing and storing CO₂ (CCS) are also mentioned. The final document does not provide for a binding phase-out of coal, oil and gas. Germany only attracts attention when it puts on its spending pants, as it did on the first day, when Minister Schulze put 100 million on the table in Dubai for distribution to other countries. In the end, Minister Baerbock added another €60 million. This ignores the fact that Germany has been distributing the largest chunk of taxpayers’ money of any country in the world for years: €10 billion per year for climate protection projects in other countries. Mr. Lindner is still looking for spending cuts to avoid further debt in order not to have to abandon the debt brake. This would be a large fund, the deletion of which would not result in any loss of prosperity in Germany.
In their fight against coal, oil and gas, Chancellor Scholz and the German delegation conceal the fact that CO2 emissions in this country, which have been falling for decades, have only risen again as a result of the traffic light government as a result of the decommissioning of the last six nuclear power plants. In the following figure, we can see the CO2 pollution of the German electricity supply. Since 2021, it has been increasing again. In 2023, CO2 intensity did not increase further because energy-intensive industry collapsed by 20% in 2023 and therefore the demand for coal-fired electricity did not increase further. At the time of the Dubai conference, Germany had a CO2 intensity of 597g CO2/kWh – one of the highest in the last 6 years.
In addition to the additional CO2 emissions, the German government is also responsible for a doubling of electricity prices on the stock exchange. In one year alone, this amounts to €25 billion in additional costs for citizens and businesses (500 TWh times €5 cents/kWh). In addition, there is a €10.6 billion EEG levy for 2024 for wind and solar energy, which is now to be paid by taxpayers through the federal budget. Not to mention the increased grid costs and costs for parked wind power (1 billion in 2022).
The German government’s green coal phase-out plan does not lead to any reduction in greenhouse gases
According to the coalition agreement of the federal government, the coal phase-out should “ideally” be brought forward to 2030. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, 50 new gas-fired power plants (25,000 MW) are to be built (construction period approx. 6 years), which will be mainly supplied by additional liquefied natural gas. That’s not wise. First, imported liquefied natural gas is more expensive than pipeline gas. But based on a calculation by the US scientist Robert Howarth of Cornell University, this path leads to extremely high greenhouse gas emissions.
Howarth convincingly calculates that the greenhouse gas emissions of a gas-fired power plant powered by liquefied natural gas from the USA are as high as those of a coal-fired power plant in Germany. Natural gas has a greenhouse effect 30 times higher than CO2. So much gas is lost on the way from production to liquefaction, transport and regasification in Germany that the gas-fired power plant operated by it has no less of a greenhouse effect than a coal-fired power plant.
Liquefied natural gas instead of coal – this green path of the German government makes Germany’s electricity generation more expensive and increases greenhouse gas emissions. It would be better, as Howarth writes, to keep the coal-fired power plants in Germany on the grid and not replace them with liquefied natural gas (LNG) power plants. If the existing coal-fired power plants were then equipped with CO2 capture, one would even contribute to CO2 reduction. The production of its own shale gas in northern Germany would also bring great ecological and economic advantages over LNG imports. As a rule, however, the green-red-yellow federal government too often decides on the solution that is the worst for Germany out of ignorance or ideology.
Ms. Baerbock and the Paris Agreement
In her press conference in Dubai, the German Foreign Minister declared: “We are here to save the world for all humanity.” Again and again, she refers to the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, which aims to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times – preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius. At this point, we do not want to deal with the fact that the period around 1860 with the end of the Little Ice Age was one of the coldest periods of the last 2000 years. To take this time, which was dangerously cold for humanity, as a starting point for a temperature target may well be questioned. The average temperature of the last 2000 years is more likely to be around the year 1950. However, it is more important to deal with the wording of the Paris Agreement. Article 4, paragraph 1 of the agreement sets out the emission targets for this century.
“In order to achieve the long-term temperature target referred to in Article 2, the Parties shall aim to reach the global peak of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognising that the timeframe for reaching the peak will be longer for the Parties that are developing countries, and thereafter rapid reductions in line with the best available scientific data. evidence to achieve a balance in the second half of this century between anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases from sources and removals of such gases by sinks … to produce.”
In the second half of this century, therefore, a balance should be achieved between CO2 emissions and CO2 sinks, i.e. oceans and plants that absorb CO2. As the CO2 balances of the Global carbon project published a few days ago show, 57% of CO2 emissions are now absorbed by oceans and plants.
The historical development shown below shows that the uptake of plants and the oceans has increased with the increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Reducing emissions to the level of ocean and plant uptake in the second half of the century, as required by the Paris Agreement, would stop further increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. In this respect, net zero is achieved when CO2 emissions are halved. This is because the uptake of oceans and plants depends solely on the CO2 concentration achieved in the air and not on the emissions from the chimneys. So if the uptake of oceans and plants remains constant and emissions are halved, the CO2 problem will be solved.
I wish you all a blessed Christmas season and a Happy New Year 2024 Yours sincerely , Fritz Vahrenholt
As I pointed out several years ago, the climate alarmists have a civil war going on between radicals and moderates. Radical leader Greta Thunberg’s famous “How dare you” was addressed to moderate COP negotiators, not skeptics.
In recent years, every COP had been dominated by an angry motion from the radicals, which was ultimately defeated in the final hours. Ironically these noisy motions tend actually to inhibit progress on the big green agenda, so I welcome them.
COP 28 was no different. The basic idea was to finally mention fossil fuels in the final statement after 27 COPS did not so. Makes sense, given that burning fossil fuels are the supposed reason for the climate alarm.
Seemed simple enough, but the radicals had to go full bore on it. They demanded an agreement to actually phase out fossil fuels. Out in the sense of none.
No oil, no gas, no coal, nothing.
To see how radical this phase-out stuff really is, note that the alarmist abomination called net zero does not do this. The net in net zero specifically allows for future fossil fuel emissions, provided these are offset in some way. Moreover, it allows for unlimited fossil fuel use if carbon capture can ever be made to work. Net zero is about emissions, not fuel.
Moreover, a lot of fossil fuels are used as petrochemical feedstock, which does not create CO2 emissions. As my colleague Ron Stein strenuously points out, petrochemical products are fundamental to our way of life. Phasing out fossil fuels would mean ending petrochemicals.
A lot of countries objected to this radical phase-out insistence. Some were oil and gas producers, and the radical press focused on them. But a bunch of others were countries that rightly saw fossil fuel as powering economic improvement. This humanitarian side of the argument seldom got reported.
There was an exquisite moment in the middle of all this mindless ho-ha. The moderate President of COP 28 had said there was no science supporting the need to obliterate fossil fuel use. The radicals were outraged and said so.
In response, the Pres then held a press conference featuring the Chief of the IPCC. The Chief said that meeting the holy target of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C just required reducing oil use by 60% and nat gas use by 45% (not even half). Nothing like phasing out fossil fuel use was required. He specifically said the President was correct.
None of this made the slightest difference to the radicals. The radical rag CNN even did a long piece on the press conference without mentioning the IPCC or its Chief. This is the clearest proof that science is of no interest to the radical alarmists that I have seen to date.
When push came to shove, at the end, the radicals simply lost big time. The final statement says nothing about phasing out fossil fuels. It doesn’t even say that about the demon coal, which is just supposed to be phased down, not out, someday.
The final COP 28 statement simply “calls on Parties” (the P in COP, actually member countries) to “contribute” to “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science;”
So it is just contributing to net zero by 2050. The nature of this contribution is up to each country, and some have net zero targets later than 2050, like China and India.
Note that a transition is significantly different from a phase-out. A transition implies that the needed energy is still there, just from a different source.
Phase-out says nothing about meeting energy needs.
The Chinese may have had something to do with this language because they repeatedly say they will switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources when those sources actually provide the needed energy (which is likely never, and they know it). In any case, a transition is nothing like a phase-out.
It is also likely that the phrase “in keeping with the science” comes from the COP President. Keeping his voice on the table, as it were. He should smile.
In COP 28, the moderates won, and the radical alarmists lost, wasting everybody’s time in the process. The actual negotiations got no press. It was noise all the way down.
ADOPTED: With an unprecedented reference to transitioning away from all fossil fuels, The UAE Consensus is delivering a paradigm shift that has the potential to redefine our economies.#COP28#UniteActDeliver#UAEConsensuspic.twitter.com/wmdta57peF
What did I say? After the near collapse of climate talks, global leaders “rescued” COP28 at the last minute, scoring top marks in Climate Bingo: the talks are “historic“, “landmark“, “unprecedented” and use the actual phrase “transition away from fossil fuels” for the first time ever. Be still my beating heart.
A hundred billionaires met with 70,000 groupies, using millions of dollars mostly taken from other people, and have decided they need to do it all again.
The point of these meetings is to issue more press releases, reward the faithful underlings, arrange golden handshakes behind the scenes, and transfer billions of dollars from the riff raff to the Private-Jet-Class. This glorious goal is achieved when the Grand UN Performance of vague non-binding Hopium is used to fool investors and voters in domestic theatres.
And so it comes to pass that all nations have finally agreed to do what they were doing anyway. But UN-speak translates the nothingness into hyperbole:
“The agreement marks “the beginning of the end of fossil fuels” — UNFCCC
The president of the European Commission has welcomed the COP28 agreement, hailing it a “global turning point”. –more Sky News.
Despite that — the world continues on the transition to fossil fuels and away from wood and donkeys, while everyone — except the patsies — plays the game and pretends to power themselves with sunshine and breezes.
Oblivious to the trillions of dollars being spent, 82% of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels, and the new annual growth in fossil fuels is so fast that all the additional unreliable energy sources added this year cannot even keep up with it.
The spokeswoman for a bunch of small islands told the world the deal was nothing much and got a two minute long standing ovation anyway:
The lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, Anne Rasmussen, criticised the deal as unambitious.
“We have made an incremental advancement over business as usual, when what we really need is an exponential step change in our actions,” she said.
But she did not formally object to the pact, and her speech drew a standing ovation that lasted nearly two minutes. — Reuters
It doesn’t matter what she said, just like it doesn’t matter that 90% of their islands are not sinking either. The islands are the token mascots and must be cheered. It’s a performance religion.
It’s the empty UN landmark deal that almost no one will achieve
Even the propaganda machine in Geneva has to admit that the “central outcome” is just a stocktake, which shows emissions *need* to be cut by an impossible amount and people are not achieving it. This is as good as it gets:
The global stocktake is considered the central outcome of COP28 – as it contains every element that was under negotiation and can now be used by countries to develop stronger climate action plans due by 2025.
The stocktake recognizes the science that indicates global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut 43% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels, to limit global warming to 1.5°C. But it notes Parties are off track when it comes to meeting their Paris Agreement goals. — UNFCCC
The UNFCCC hopes everyone will turn up with better plans next year:
In the short-term, Parties are encouraged to come forward with ambitious, economy-wide emission reduction targets, covering all greenhouse gases, sectors and categories and aligned with the 1.5°C limit in their next round of climate action plans (known as nationally determined contributions) by 2025.
If your government is one of the ones sincerely trying to meet impossible, stupid targets, you know you live in The Patsy State.
My thanks to Robin Guenier for drawing my attention to the prescient words of Bjorn Lomborg written just five days ago, and predicting with uncanny accuracy the outcome of the latest COP farce:
The spectacle of another annual climate conference is ongoing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) until Dec. 12. Like Kabuki theater, performative set pieces lead from one to the other: politicians and celebrities arrive by private jets; speakers predict imminent doom; hectoring nongovernmental organizations cast blame; political negotiations become fraught and inevitably go overtime; and finally: the signing of a new agreement that participants hope and pretend will make a difference.
The article from which that quotation has been lifted is well worth a read. Inter alia, it contains three killer paragraphs that go to the heart of the issue, but which are missing from most discussions in the mainstream media of climate change and policies associated with it:
What won’t be acknowledged in the UAE—because it has never been acknowledged at a global climate summit—is the awkward reality that while climate change has real costs, climate policy does, too.
In most public conversations, climate change costs are vastly exaggerated. Just consider how every heat wave is depicted as an end-of-the-world, cataclysmic killer, while the far greater reductions in deaths from warmer winters pass without being remarked on. Yet the costs of climate policy are bizarrely ignored.
Analyzing the balance between climate and policy costs has been at the heart of the study of climate change economics for more than three decades. Renowned economist William Nordhaus is the only climate change economist recognized with a Nobel prize. His research shows that we should absolutely do something about climate change: Early cuts in fossil fuel emissions are cheap and will reduce the most dangerous temperature rises. But his work also shows that highly ambitious carbon reductions will be a bad deal, with phenomenally high costs and low additional benefits.
That clear-sighted understanding, lacking from the vast majority of policy-makers (and tens of thousands of pointless hangers-on) attending the latest jamboree, sets out very clearly what is wrong with the whole COP process – it is predicated on misguided assumptions, and it fails in its own terms to achieve anything useful. So much for the background and the predictions. How did it actually measure up in practice?
Bang on cue, I would say. The agreement that was finally signed off (at least, this is the latest iteration available) can be found here. It is the usual mish-mash that we have learned to expect – a mixture of background information (known in the trade as “recitals”) and back-slapping mutual self-congratulation; followed by non-binding aspirations. Because they are non-binding, everyone can happily sign up to them, safe in the knowledge that no enforcement procedure exists to punish them when they fail to take it seriously and don’t act on its exhortations. I suppose it’s impossible to persuade almost 200 nation states to agree on anything meaningful, so to that extent it’s difficult to complain about the inevitable fudge. However, this has happened on 27 previous occasions, so one might have thought that an understanding of Realpolitik might have dawned by now. Perhaps it has, but they can’t admit that the whole process is flawed and pointless, so on and on it goes.
It runs to 21 pages and 196 paragraphs and achieves nothing. It “recalls” on 27 occasions what has been agreed to in the past. It “underlines” the critical role of multilateralism and also “the urgent need to address, in a comprehensive and synergetic manner, the interlinked global crises of climate change and biodiversity loss in the broader context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the vital importance of protecting, conserving, restoring and sustainably using nature and ecosystems for effective and sustainable climate action”. This is stated in a non-ironic way, with no apparent understanding of the often conflicting nature of these goals. It does however realise (another underlining) that the “Parties are not yet collectively on track towards achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals”. Another three “underlines” are thrown in for good measure.
There are nine acknowledgments of various kinds, including “that climate change is a common concern of humankind and that Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the right to health, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity”. I hope that satisfies the 90,000 hangers-on, though I very much doubt if it satisfies the people whose lives have already been blighted by renewable energy developments and associated activities.
47 paragraphs are devoted to “recognizing” various issues, while five are devoted to “noting” others. A further 19 are “welcomed”, while a further nine are “affirmed” or “re-affirmed”. Four more are “underscored” (I’m not sure how that differs from underlining), and “concern”, “serious concern” or even “alarm and serious concern” are expressed on eleven occasions.
A bit of self-congratulation follows, with 19 things being welcomed. Then there follow a couple of “commitments”. This is more like it. I assumed that we were getting to the meat of some real firm and binding clauses, since that’s what committing to something usually means. Silly me. The reality is that the agreement is committing to fudge the issues.
Paragraph 6 “Commits to accelerate action in this critical decade on the basis of the best available science, reflecting equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the light of different national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty”. It sounds great, but it doesn’t impose an obligation on anyone to do anything. On the contrary, it’s a re-statement of the cop-out clause for the so-called “developing” countries, a definition that has long since ceased to serve a useful purpose, since it includes countries like China and South Korea. I suspect that they are both very happy to see this being included.
Paragraph 153 “Reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism, especially in the light of the progress made under the Paris Agreement and resolves to remain united in the pursuit of efforts to achieve the purpose and long-term goals of the Agreement”. Well, that’s nice, but again, nobody actually has to do anything as a consequence of this “commitment”. The reference to progress made under the Paris Agreement also sits uneasily alongside paragraph 24 (“Notes with significant concern that, despite progress, global greenhouse gas emissions trajectories are not yet in line with the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, and that there is a rapidly narrowing window for raising ambition and implementing existing commitments in order to achieve it”) and paragraph 25 (“Expresses concern that the carbon budget consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal is now small and being rapidly depleted and acknowledges that historical cumulative net carbon dioxide emissions already account for about four fifths of the total carbon budget for a 50 per cent probability of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C”). Still, who cares? After all, this waffle is all about throwing a bone to everyone with a bee in his/her bonnet, rather than with achieving anything.
So, why have some people being getting mildly excited? Because of paragraph 28, I suspect:
Further recognizes 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 the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches: (a) Tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030; (b) Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power; (c) Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems, utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century; (d) Transitioning 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; (e) Accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production; (f) Accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030; (g) Accelerating the reduction of emissions from road transport on a range of pathways, including through development of infrastructure and rapid deployment of zeroand low-emission vehicles; (h) Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible
OK, so it talks about “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, but it doesn’t oblige anyone to do so. On the contrary, it does nothing more than call on “Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches”. This is so weak as to be meaningless. Calling on someone to do something doesn’t mean that they have to do it. Taking into account their different national circumstances is a green light for “developing countries” (as rather generously defined) to ignore it, and even for other countries to seek to argue that their current national circumstances from time to time are so special, problematic, or whatever that they can and should ignore it too. Then there’s paragraph 29:
Recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security
Any energy minister worth his or her salt can use that to claim to be complying with paragraph 28 while doing no more than paying lip service to it. Having said that, they don’t even need paragraph 29 to come to their aid, unless they want the benefit of a diplomatic fig leaf, since paragraph 28 contains no binding commitments and no sanctions for non-compliance.
The agreement even contains 14 “invitations” to various people to do various things. In a document such as this, such language is risible. It’s tantamount to saying they might like to think about it, but they really mustn’t worry if they don’t want to. The same can be said of the 31 references to “encouraging” people to take action – it’s not much stronger than inviting them to do so, and it certainly contains no element of obligation.
There isn’t even any hint of criticism for parties who have failed to comply with things they have previously been asked to do. Rather there is an expression of sincere understanding of the difficulties of doing so. Take paragraph 41:
Notes the capacity challenges of the least developed countries and small island developing States related to preparing and communicating nationally determined contributions.
Given that these are the countries that by and large make the most noise in terms of demanding financial contributions and “carbon” cuts from developed countries, is it really to much too ask that they might make a bit of an effort themselves?
Section C deals with finance, and is interesting, since it recognises the enormous scale of what is being demanded (or should I say urged, encouraged, invited…?). For instance, paragraph 67:
Highlightsthe growing gap between the needs of developing country Parties, in particular those due to the increasing impacts of climate change compounded by difficult macroeconomic circumstances, and the support provided and mobilized for their efforts to implement their nationally determined contributions, highlighting that such needs are currently estimated at USD 5.8–5.9 trillion for the pre-2030 period.
Paragraph 68 “Also highlights that the adaptation finance needs of developing countries are estimated at USD 215–387 billion annually up until 2030, and that about USD 4.3 trillion per year needs to be invested in clean energy up until 2030, increasing thereafter to USD 5 trillion per year up until 2050, to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050”.
Given the monumental nature of those numbers, I find it strange that paragraph 78 “Welcomes the pledges made by 31 contributors during the second replenishment of the Green Climate Fund, resulting in a nominal pledge of USD 12.833 billion to date, and encourages further pledges and contributions towards the second replenishment of the Fund, welcoming the progression over the previous replenishment”, since in the scheme of things, that is chickenfeed.
Paragraph 158 “Acknowledges the important role and active engagement of non-Party stakeholders, particularly civil society, business, financial institutions, cities and subnational authorities, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, youth and research institutions, in supporting Parties and contributing to the significant collective progress towards the Paris Agreement temperature goal and in addressing and responding to climate change and enhancing ambition, including progress through other relevant intergovernmental processes”. Is that by way of saying thank you to the 90,000 hangers-on for showing up? Or to encourage them to turn up again next year? If so, I suspect the organisers will be in for a disappointment – despite the fact that no doubt the “climate crisis” will be even more incredibly urgent next year, I have a feeling that Azerbaijan as a venue might just attract fewer people than Dubai.
I would have ended by saying “see you all again next year” but, funnily enough, I suspect we won’t.
Climate campaigners from Al Gore and John Kerry, down to the oddest imported student radical, are freaking out over the draft final text as the climate talks in Dubai near their conclusion.
At issue is whether the “outcome” will call for the “phase out” of fossil fuels, or merely call for fossil fuel “reduction” and similar “weasel words.”
Either term will leave nations with tons of wiggle room to avoid, or delay destroying their economies through energy starvation.
As veterans of the UN climate process since the whole shebang began, CFACT has seen this drama play out before.
The UN conference nears its end with no agreement in sight and goes into late night extra innings.
No matter what happens, the conference officials emerge bleary-eyed and proclaim a major victory, leaving it up to the rest of us to sort through what happened and figure it out. Often, as is likely this time, the conference ends in de facto collapse.
“COP28 is now on the verge of complete failure,” Al Gore said Monday. “This obsequious draft reads as if OPEC dictated it word for word. It is even worse than many had feared. It is ‘Of the Petrostates, By the Petrostates.” Gore concluded.
OPEC, along with Russia and China, did in fact write the text.
“The fact that the U.N. chose a petro-state, the United Arab Emirates, to host COP28 was an ominous sign to begin with.” Wrote Michael Mann of debunked temperature hockey stick fame. “The UAE’s appointment of a fossil fuel executive, Sultan Al Jaber, to preside as COP28 president made matters worse.”
CNN reports that, “The secretary-general of the oil-producing group OPEC, Haitham Al Ghais, called on members and allies last week to ‘proactively reject’ any language that targeted fossil fuels rather than emissions. The letter, written before the latest draft was posted, noted the previous option for a “fossil fuels phase out” and said it would be ‘unacceptable that politically motivated campaigns put our people’s prosperity and future at risk.’”
The announcement at COP 28 that next year’s climate summit will be held in Azerbaijan, another oil producing state, has team climate up in arms. Next year is Europe’s turn, but Russia vowed to veto any E.U. member nation as host in protest of E.U. support for Ukraine. Azerbaijan is a former member of the Soviet bloc, but not a member of the E.U. or NATO and was acceptable to Moscow.
Soon we will find out how far climate campaigners will be able to reshape the COP 28 outcome in the waning minutes of the summit.
The actual choice will be between a text which gives Russia, China and OPEC clear language enabling them to keep their fossil fuels, or whether they will agree to simply lie about “phasing them out.”
Scientifically the UN Conference of Parties (COP) has abjectly failed 27 times at the one thing it was supposedly set up to do, which was reduce carbon emissions and save the weather, but it’s been a wild success on the Global-Trade-Party-and-Schmooze calendar.
Tonight the UN COP28 “climate” conference is on the ‘Verge of complete failure’ says CNN — because they’ve given up talking about “phasing out fossil fuels” and they’re only trying to reduce fossil fuels now (exactly the same as the last 27 meetings). No doubt tomorrow, headlines will tell us a historic deal, which is barely enough, was somehow clawed from the brink after an all-nighter.
The historic deal will amount to ambiguous subclauses that enable carbon grift and graft wherever carbon grafting and grifting were likely to happen anyway.
28 conferences and nothing to show for it:
It was never about CO2 anyway, was it?
Whatever happens, the conference is a big success as the Planetary Fashion Parade where the virtue-signalers of the world unite to show off their cloaks of carbon-purity. In the background it’s the place where billionaires and bankers bring their yachts and personal planes to meet Presidents and Kings.
Supposedly 100,000 people signed up, and 70,000 “were expected” to attend the Bureaucrat-Trade-Olympiad which used to be a kind of science conference 28 years ago, but is now a large trade convention.
How COP28 has become the new Davos
It costs a lot to stop global storms and floods you know. No wonder the Bankers and Bill Gates, care so much about the climate, and go to a UN convention with lectures on climate sensitivity. It’s like speed-dating for business deals:
…there are trillions of dollars needed to finance or develop projects that serve the energy transition. As World Bank chief Ajay Banga told a panel: “Everything has a lot of zeroes attached to it.”
It’s an all-star cast: ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods, and the bosses of energy companies RWE, ENI and Engie. The global CEOs of PwC and EY. The heads of Brookfield, BlackRock and IFM Investors. The bosses of Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Macquarie. Rubbing shoulders with Stella McCartney and Chelsea Clinton.
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
