The Saudi delegation has flatly opposed any language in a deal that would even mention fossil fuels — the oil, gas and coal that, when burned, create emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. Saudi negotiators have also objected to a provision, endorsed by at least 118 countries, aimed at tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030.

  • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is there a legitimate reason why « we » globally care about their opinion ?

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Saudis own entire economies. They aren’t even listed on the world’s richest people because they own the mechanism that those people operate in.

    • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’ll just start funding more terrorist organizations and attacks à la 9/11. The Saudis are no one’s friends and the world would do well to remember that.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They produce a lot of oil, they can easily influence oil prices, and thereby influence elections.

      Piss off the Saudis, they reduce output, prices go up, idiots everywhere vote for the other guy who’s willing to suck their dick.

      Eg. 2022 US midterms they used oil as a weapon against the democrats, losing them the house.

      • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        True but eventually there will be an alternative to oil and that day they can go back to trading camels. There power is relatively new and won’t last. It’s so weird to piss everyone off in the meantime.

        • anlumo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The concept of money is built in a way that once you have a lot of it, it doesn’t go away any more.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        One more reason for renewables so sucking the dicks of dictators can’t help you win elections as easy as that

          • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Iran? What’s the deal with them? They seem rather tame compared to a lot of other shitholes.

            • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Saudi Arabia is western aligned because they oppose Iran - Iran has always been viewed as more dangerous to America… ever since they kicked out the British backed Shah in 1979.

              There’s also oil, but both countries had oil… but one stayed a monarchy while the other became a theocracy and then kind of democracy. Instead of supporting the democratic transition away from a theocracy America, of course, backed the monarchy.

              If that doesn’t gel with your expectations about America and spreading freedom and whatnot bear in mind… Kissinger.

              • anlumo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Monarchies are way easier to control than democracies, so this isn’t surprising.

                You can see that with Russia, it took them an ungodly amount of money and decades of propaganda to take over the Western democracies.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The rules on the talks require consensus, and the president of the talks is an oil executive from another petrostate and likely to interpret a requirement for consensus as a requirement for unanimity