world

COP28 clashes over fossil fuel phase-out after OPEC pushback

19 Comments
By Kate Abnett, Valerie Volcovici and Yousef Saba

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


19 Comments
Login to comment

Saudi Arabia and Russia were among several countries insisting that the conference in Dubai focus only on reducing climate pollution - and not on targeting the fossil fuels causing it, according to observers in the negotiations.

They should just stop inviting these drug dealers to this conference.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Saudi Arabia and Russia were among several countries insisting that the conference in Dubai focus only on reducing climate pollution

If Saudi Arabia and Russia or any of their fellow oil states, including democracies where big petrochemical industries have enormous political control, are in fact concerned about pollution, it will be interesting to see what they do about it after the conference. Saudi Arabia stopped selling leaded gasoline not that long ago. And Russia has long shown that very little said by the Kremlin can be trusted, the Saudi rulers are as believable as the Kremlin, or as believable as most western big oil corporations for that matter, but the oil nations and corporations have many misled theirfollowers around the world who trust their corporation's reports on climate change, and distrust the reports and reasearch done by the majority of climate scientists around the world.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

oil nations and corporations have misled many of their followers around the world who trust their corporation's reports on climate change. Recall it was a scientist paid by an oil corporation whose research said this:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Who would want to cut their own income?

Some posters are being naive!

Getting weaned off oil is a technological issue which humans are currently too uncooperative to solve

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais earlier said in comments read out to the summit delegates by an official: "We need realistic approaches to tackle emissions. One that enables economic growth, helps eradicate poverty and increases resilience at the same time."

That's not how that works. First of all, if we eliminate emissions, we can kiss our breathable air goodbye. That's how plants make oxygen, by processing CO2. If we eliminate the CO2, then plants will start dying and if plants start dying, then people will start dying as there's less oxygen to go around.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

First15

That's not how that works. First of all, if we eliminate emissions, we can kiss our breathable air goodbye. That's how plants make oxygen, by processing CO2. If we eliminate the CO2, then plants will start dying and if plants start dying, then people will start dying as there's less oxygen to go around.

No one is saying to eliminate CO2. Not only is it not possible, but an atmosphere with no greenhouse gasses would freeze. The aim is to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere so as to stop increase in average global temperature.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Fascinating.

That's not how that works. First of all, if we eliminate emissions, we can kiss our breathable air goodbye. That's how plants make oxygen, by processing CO2. If we eliminate the CO2, then plants will start dying and if plants start dying, then people will start dying as there's less oxygen to go around.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No one is saying to eliminate CO2.

Yes, they are, or have you not heard about the push for *absolute ***zero** emissions: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/reuters-impact-world-must-target-absolute-zero-emissions-australian-iron-ore-2021-10-04/

The aim is to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere so as to stop increase in average global temperature.

I thought CO2 caused the hole in the ozone layer to increase, which in effect cause global temperatures to cool. So which is it?

In addition, weren't those "global temperature" readings massively incorrect because they kept placing their thermometers in increasingly developed areas, which resulted in the temperature readings "increasing" because they're being effected by things like city lighting and radiation creating warmer environments?

And lastly, why is it a problem that things get a little "warmer"? At the very worst, all that's going to happen is that the planet will revert back to being a huge jungle environment like it was during the age of the dinosaurs, which also had insanely high CO2 levels.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

First15

No one is saying to eliminate CO2.

Yes, they are, or have you not heard about the push for *absolute ***zero** emissions:

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/reuters-impact-world-must-target-absolute-zero-emissions-australian-iron-ore-2021-10-04/

Absolute zero emissions isn't the same as eliminating CO2.

I thought CO2 caused the hole in the ozone layer to increase, which in effect cause global temperatures to cool. So which is it?

No, CO2 didn't cause a hole in the ozone layer. That was chlorofluorocarbons. ANd luckily the world rallied, banned them and the hole is much smaller now.

In addition, weren't those "global temperature" readings massively incorrect because they kept placing their thermometers in increasingly developed areas

No.

And lastly, why is it a problem that things get a little "warmer"? 

It causes more severe storms, more droughts, sea level rise, more heat waves, more wildfires, etc.

It's pretty bad.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Unless countries with huge economies such as the United States, India, and China that emit large amounts of CO2 move away from fossil fuels such as coal and oil, global climate change will not stop at all.

No matter how much developed countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and Italy promote decarbonization, it honestly has little effect on global climate change.

As the economies of China and India continue to grow, and the demand for electricity increases accordingly, even if we shout for decarbonization, people will pretend not to have heard us.

Even if thermal power generation remains the same, Japan is currently developing coal power plants that will emit far less CO2 than before. China, India, and even the United States could import Japan's coal power generation from Japan, but I wonder what will happen.

https://www.jera.co.jp/action/discover/004

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Absolute zero emissions isn't the same as eliminating CO2.

Then could you explain how it's possible to have absolute zero emissions without eliminating CO2?

No, CO2 didn't cause a hole in the ozone layer. That was chlorofluorocarbons. 

Which is methane, propane, and innumerable other substances which are blamed for "rising green house gasses". As I said, which is it?

ANd luckily the world rallied, banned them and the hole is much smaller now.

Please tell me where I'm wrong in understanding this situation: The hole ozone layer was increasing, which was resulting in the Earth "cooling down" to the point of another "ice age". So the governments of the world rallied to ban certain types of gasses (But not really), but in doing so have created ANOTHER crisis that's resulted in the Earth now "heating up". So to solve this NEW crisis, we need to ban the same materials that we already banned for causing the previous problem, but now it's causing the reverse problem so we need to double ban the material because that will solve everything. And it certainly won't cause another crisis in the process of doing so.

Have you ever wondered why people are so skeptical over this?

It causes more severe storms

We have the technology to survive it.

more droughts, sea level rise

How can you have a drought when there's more water everywhere?

more wildfires, 

That's something COMPLETELY different. More "wildfires" are occurring today because of environmental activists lobbied governments to ban the practice of mitigation.

Before man colonized different areas across the globe, the planet took care of that mostly by itself by causing wildfires on a cyclical basis (With such events happening every 3, 5, 10, 50, 100, etc. years). And these happened for the purposes of clearing out and removing all the dead and decaying ecosystems so that they could regrow and start the cycle all over again. California is perhaps the biggest occurrence of this because there are several types of trees in the state that cannot be "fertilized" and grow unless these wildfires occur. When man got involved, people quickly learned about these naturally occurring wildfires and took measures to even help improve the safety of their inevitable occurrence (Mostly because they loved living there and wanted to preserve it's beauty). Fast forward to the 1970's-1990's, environmental activists lobbied about how these mitigation techniques were actually "harming" the environment, so the government and people stopped mitigating the areas and only took measures to prevent "small fires" from occurring and do everything possible to keep these ecosystems "alive". However, unbenounced to these moral busybodies, their result of their actions was that it turned the forests and valleys into tinderboxes just waiting to explode. So the moment some idiot dropped a lit match or cigarette, or someone forgot to "properly" put out a fire, or a transformer on a power pole explodes, or a tree gets struck by lightening, or [Use your imagination], thousands of people lose their homes and hundreds possibly dead.

That's what happens in California. That's what happens in Canada. That's happened in Hawaii. A bunch of religious nuts who don't know the first thing about science, don't know the first thing about history, are telling everyone else how to live their lives and people are getting killed because of it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

First15

Absolute zero emissions isn't the same as eliminating CO2.

Then could you explain how it's possible to have absolute zero emissions without eliminating CO2?

Well, with absolute zero emissions you stop adding new CO2 to the atmosphere. But you don't remove the existing CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, CO2 didn't cause a hole in the ozone layer. That was chlorofluorocarbons. 

Which is methane, propane, and innumerable other substances which are blamed for "rising green house gasses". As I said, which is it?

No it isn't; chlorofluorocarbons are different. Different problem.

Have you ever wondered why people are so skeptical over this?

Yep. But usually because the haven't read the scientific studies or the IPCC reports.

It causes more severe storms

We have the technology to survive it.

Really? Maybe, but they cause massive disruption and financial cost.

more droughts, sea level rise

How can you have a drought when there's more water everywhere?

More water will change the coastline, but droughts will be on land.

more wildfires, 

That's something COMPLETELY different. More "wildfires" are occurring today because of environmental activists lobbied governments to ban the practice of mitigation.

Sure, climate change isn't the only cause. And better mitigation is crucial. But a hotter and drier climate means more wildfires are likely to happen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, with absolute zero emissions you stop adding new CO2 to the atmosphere.

That's an impossibility. Passing gas adds CO2 into the atmosphere. Mixing concrete, which can be done with a bucket of water and a shovel, adds CO2 into the atmosphere. In order to prevent "new CO2" from being created, you're going to have to halt any and all forms of construction, as well as force people never ever consume any sustenance that isn't water. How are you ever going to achieve that?

No it isn't; chlorofluorocarbons are different. Different problem.

If it's a "different gas" and a "different problem", then why is all from the same source? Seems almost like it's a problem that solves itself.

Yep. But usually because the haven't read the scientific studies or the IPCC reports.

Have you ever considered that people have read those scientific studies, have read those IPCC reports, and that's what "radicalized" them against it? There's more enough reports of climate scientists being absolutely disgusted with the scientific community after what was revealed with "ClimateGate" scandal back in 2009.

but they cause massive disruption and financial cost.

It's called life on planet Earth. It sucks, and no one is going to argue with that. However we're never going to be able to stop this planet from trying everything possible to kill us, so the next best thing that we CAN do is at least developer technology and measures that would allow for us to survive as long as we can.

More water will change the coastline, but droughts will be on land.

So, we reshape the rivers and use technology to bring the waters inland. Like people have been doing for thousands of year.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

First15

Well, with absolute zero emissions you stop adding new CO2 to the atmosphere.

That's an impossibility. Passing gas adds CO2 into the atmosphere. Mixing concrete, which can be done with a bucket of water and a shovel, adds CO2 into the atmosphere. In order to prevent "new CO2" from being created, you're going to have to halt any and all forms of construction, as well as force people never ever consume any sustenance that isn't water. How are you ever going to achieve that?

I think it's a stretch goal. It would be difficult to achieve, but not impossible. The idea is for the parts that you can't avoid releasing carbon you sequester carbon: take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

No it isn't; chlorofluorocarbons are different. Different problem.

If it's a "different gas" and a "different problem", then why is all from the same source? Seems almost like it's a problem that solves itself.

It's not from the same source, chlorofluorocarbons are from aerosols and fridges. The ozone problem has mostly been solved by not using those chemicals as much.

Yep. But usually because the haven't read the scientific studies or the IPCC reports.

Have you ever considered that people have read those scientific studies, have read those IPCC reports, and that's what "radicalized" them against it?

No. Unless they couldn't understand them.

There's more enough reports of climate scientists being absolutely disgusted with the scientific community after what was revealed with "ClimateGate" scandal back in 2009.

ClimateGate was a hoax perpetrated by climate deniers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo

but they cause massive disruption and financial cost.

It's called life on planet Earth. It sucks, and no one is going to argue with that. 

Sure, but we should do what we can to mitigate the risks. For example, build buildings that are resistant to earthquakes and the like.

More water will change the coastline, but droughts will be on land.

So, we reshape the rivers and use technology to bring the waters inland. Like people have been doing for thousands of year.

Good luck on using seawater for irrigation. We haven't been doing for this thousands of years for good reason.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think it's a stretch goal. 

This isn't a Kickstarter campaign where you're promising your backers special rewards if they help you go above and beyond your projected budgetary needs, you idiot. What you are proposing is the destruction of civilization for an end goal you damn well know is impossible to achieve.

The idea is for the parts that you can't avoid releasing carbon you sequester carbon: take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

In other words, a "special council" will be making universal declarations over what emissions are allowed to be created, for what purpose they are created, and arbitrarily decided which ones are allowed for the "greater good" and which ones are wasteful and therefore "illegal" to create. I feel like there's a term for that type of system, but the specifics of it escape my mind.

It's not from the same source, chlorofluorocarbons are from aerosols and fridges. 

The chemicals and gasses used in those aerosols and refrigerators came from the same exact oil refineries that produce gasoline, you're dreaded "CO2 emission". IOW, fossil fuels create products that BOTH emit CO2, that heat up the Earth, and "chlorofluorocarbons", that increase the hole in the ozone layer and cool down the Earth. Since that's the reality of the matter, am I mistaken in assuming that this is a problem that solves itself?

ClimateGate was a hoax perpetrated by climate deniers.

Is Judith Curry (The lady who first announced that "hurricane intensity" is tied to "climate change") now considered a "climate denier": https://odysee.com/the-full-judith-curry-interview-climate:c4ea219c2c815932f1ffafe4a7ced04692d44552

Sure, but we should do what we can to mitigate the risks. For example, build buildings that are resistant to earthquakes and the like.

I do absolutely agree with that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

First15Today 10:50 am JST

And lastly, why is it a problem that things get a little "warmer"?

What's the problem with more droughts, starvation, floods, heat strokes, etc. etc.?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What's the problem with more droughts, starvation, floods, heat strokes, etc. etc.?

Where's the evidence showing that's going to be the result? All the current info that current exist shows that warmer climates actually increase quality of life: https://odysee.com/@johnstossel:7/the-full-alex-epstein-the-moral-case-for:f

0 ( +1 / -1 )

First15

I think it's a stretch goal. 

This isn't a Kickstarter campaign where you're promising your backers special rewards

So what's your problem with absolute zero emissions? Is it that it can't be achieved so we shouldn't ever try? Let's assume that it can be achieved and start planning how.

The idea is for the parts that you can't avoid releasing carbon you sequester carbon: take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

In other words, a "special council" will be making universal declarations over what emissions are allowed to be created

No. Reducing carbon can't be done by faking it. It has to actually happen.

ClimateGate was a hoax perpetrated by climate deniers.

Is Judith Curry (The lady who first announced that "hurricane intensity" is tied to "climate change") now considered a "climate denier"

Yup, sure looks like it.

Sure, but we should do what we can to mitigate the risks. For example, build buildings that are resistant to earthquakes and the like.

I do absolutely agree with that.

Right. So you would agree that we should reduce CO2 emissions as a mitigation to our climate warming.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

First15

What's the problem with more droughts, starvation, floods, heat strokes, etc. etc.?

Where's the evidence showing that's going to be the result? All the current info that current exist shows that warmer climates actually increase quality of life

You obviously haven't read an IPCC report have you...? I would suggest more reliable news sources than populist ones. Try to work it out for yourself and not by following tropes and populist social media.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites