- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/4810640
Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org
Annotated text, via Richard Delevan
You must log in or # to comment.
Really? None of the oil execs in charge of COP28 want reductions in fossil fuel usage? So weird.
I know you want it to be stated outright, which is unlikely to happen. However, section e does state pretty directly:
(e) Reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero by, before, or around 2050 in keeping with the science;
Yes, you can pick on ‘the science’ and what ‘net zero’ means, but unequivocally phasing out all fossil fuels in 27 years is not achievable unless we found ways to completely replace our current infrastructural needs by that time. This includes upscaling biodiesel and ethanol production to run existing machinery that cannot yet run on electric or hydrogen power, including planes, freighters, etc.
27 years is a long time. Full replacement or retrofit is doable in that kind of time.
It is worth being wary of any pledges that list net zero as the end line.
Net zero is actually not good enough right now. It’s almost certainly necessary to get to negative emissions for at least some period of time to undo damage. Which means it’s not a goal of getting to carbon neutral, the goal is to eliminate as many carbon emissions as we can.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that net zero is a very achievable goal even on a fairly short timeline. That all of the promises so many conservatives have about the disastrous effects it would have on the economy to pursue it are complete nonsense, and so we need to just commit and go for it. So now a lot of the biggest deniers and evildoers, are trying to subtly push for net zero being the final goal post instead of just another mile marker. It is a sort of thought-ending cliche, and it’s very clever.
net zero is a very achievable goal
Citation needed.
These are pipe dreams, the same way that the 1.5 pledges were.
Thats the whole point: it doesnt call for the reduction of fossil fuels. The idea behind the draft is that we continue to invest and consume fossil fuels until some magic technology saves us by capturing and storing the CO2.
Considering we’re already past the point where we could have saved the planet even this is pathetic. Had we adopted this in the early 80s when we had a chance, yes. But then, Reagan.
Why have I never heard of COP28 before this month
Ignorance
Maybe you’re allergic to bullshit and so have been avoiding it pathologically.
I concur!
Lazy marketing of a climate conference that honestly seems to have no real legitimacy at the moment, so no real need to cover it unless paid to cover it?
There may not have been much to tell until it actually started, which was one day before the start of this month (modulo time zones, it was held in UTC+04).
It’s an annual thing apparently (except during the height of the pandemic) and this was the 28th time, hence the “28” in the name. Presumably they’ll hold COP29 next year, and now you’ve heard of that one about a year beforehand! 😛
Removed by mod
COPIUM28
