238
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world

Climate-vulnerable nations’ hopes that the world was on the cusp of an agreement to rapidly phase out the use of fossil fuels at the COP28 climate summit were shattered when a new draft text emerged from negotiations drastically watering down such language.

Australian Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, speaking on behalf of the Umbrella Group of nations, which includes the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and Canada, told the COP that the group could not sign the agreement as it stood.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 90 points 6 months ago

Maybe not such a great idea to have a literal oil sultan host the event. Bad optics and so on.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Yeah they really didn't think that one through.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Oh they're getting exactly what they planned for don't worry.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 47 points 6 months ago

Maybe next time don't host it in an oil country.

Oops, next time it's already planned to be hosted in an oil country?

[-] joelthelion@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

WHAT? Where is the next one planned to take place?

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 19 points 6 months ago

Azerbaijan because Russia vetoed anything else just because they can

I thought Russia vetoed that too?

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago

The game was rigged from the start.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 33 points 6 months ago

Bunch of BS theater. Look at em acting like theyre doing anything. No country needs the rest of the world to give them permission to address the climate crisis themselves. Get to building renewable energy and taking down fossil fuel companies.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

The reason we don't use renewables is that fossil fuels are much cheaper.

If one country goes alone in developing them, they and their citizens pay more for a very marginal benefit.

This is a collective action problem, individual countries acting by themselves aren't going to solve it.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 8 points 6 months ago

Not processing our waste water through water treatment plants is also cheaper. Our bodies dont care that the toxic water saved us some money, and earth's climate doesnt care about our economy either.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Not processing our waste water leads to very local consequences, which is we process it. Adding to climate change is a global problem, any one country's actions have relatively modest effects. So we don't invest to stop it.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. But it is a serious thing so we should be clear on the causes etc.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

They are not cheaper.

[-] BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

I suspect no significant change will occur until wealthy people from wealthy countries are forced to abandon homes in coastal areas, or some similar worldwide phenomenon occurs.

[-] rockprada@midwest.social 21 points 6 months ago

It all comes down to food. Once we have a collapse of global food supply there will be revolts.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 22 points 6 months ago

It'll be far too late to save global society by then.

[-] Big_Boss_77@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago

If it gets to that point... do we really deserve to be saved?

[-] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

What good has society provided to the natural world? We have an extinction event named after us. We deserve our fates, and the earth and the rest of the galaxy will be better off without the plague that is humans.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago
load more comments (-1 replies)
[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The wealthy will get government bailouts that they'll use to displace people in some place that's currently safe and rich in resources.

[-] 768@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago

Yes, very much so. And essentially the whole of the US eastern seaboard and a lot of the western seaboard (where it's beach and not cliffs). However, many are second and third homes that people can afford to lose, so I don't know if sea rise provides the proper amount of impetus for change. But I do know some people who have or who are planning to sell waterfront properties in anticipation of possibly being stuck with worthless or non-existent property, so maybe. But they are mostly people for whom the loss while not poverty-inducing, would be a major financial hit.

[-] pan_troglodytes@programming.dev -4 points 6 months ago

wealthy cities can build seacoast walls, assuming they're even needed.

[-] BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago
[-] pan_troglodytes@programming.dev -1 points 6 months ago

they have indoor ice skating rinks. pretty sure they'll be fine.

[-] BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Most countries have indoor ice skating rinks. They have a big indoor ski resort.

image

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 15 points 6 months ago

A disease doesn't know or care that it's a disease. If the host is being harmed it's going to naturally fight back. Sorry, E. Coli, you're just not welcome whether or not you've grown accustomed to the host.

[-] naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca 12 points 6 months ago

The short-term impacts of fugitive methane from oil and gas extraction are horrendous and can outweigh the long-term benefits compared to coal. If we can't even reach an agreement on acknowledging methane as an underreported problem that makes natural gas much worse than it's claimed to be, how can we expect to make any progress towards a resolution phasing out the use of fossil fuels?

American energy production from fossil fuels has risen 40% over the past two decades with the rise of natural gas and it's showing no signs of stopping. China, despite owning the majority of the renewables market, has only managed to build up enough renewables manufacturing capacity to outpace energy demand growth this year. India is still stuck with coal for lack of better options. The EU is literally subsidizing tens of cents per kWh to prop up their economy with coal after the loss of cheap Russian gas. The big players are asleep at the wheel.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

Am I reading this right? The two biggest polluters (US & China) came into this with an agreement to a certain approach, yet the final was watered down to nothing?

[-] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Then be left behind while the rest move on to save our species. May history remember the oil barons as nearly the worst members of our species to ever consume oxygen

[-] wieson@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

I think you misunderstood the title. Australia will not sign the death certificate of small islands like Samoa. They will suffer heavily if we don't stop with fossil fuels.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

If anyone thinks any sort of climate talks involving reduction In oil output anywhere would be successful, I've got bad news for you. I've resigned to the idea that the human species will go back to a medieval type society if not extinct.

this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
238 points (98.8% liked)

World News

37363 readers
1553 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS