Developing nations blast $300B COP29 climate deal as insufficient
reuters.com
reuters.com
Each time we have the leaders on every country saying that this time for real they are going to stick with the plan and lower their emissions. Yet according to this link: https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/the-climate-cr... The progress on the already agreed targets has been lacking.
It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and having your team tell you that the new deadline 2 days from now will for sure be met this time.
Countries keep agreeing to new targets that are even more ambitious than the previous unmet targets. It's not as if just publishing the new targets will make the old targets much more achievable.
Make it make sense.
What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
I mean the agreement is between the countries and not ruling regimes/parties. I would find it hard to assume that a diplomat will say we didn't agree on anything, this was previous government to be very appealing argument. Although there are details like in the US getting back on their pledges and who can say something. But that's more of power dynamics and not actual argument. Otherwise these countries engaged in decades long agreements with many parties (even international agreements) without problems.
That is my point exactly, most countries have agreed to targets and deadlines that they have not met either through inaction or something else entirely.
So what is the point of the new targets if the old targets have not been met yet?
> What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
How about meeting the previous targets before setting new ones? Otherwise you just loose credibility.
Since you asked:
It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and the team really cares about making a success of it, but the finance department has told the board privately that if the project is a success it would make most of the rest of their incredibly lucrative business obsolete, so now they need to figure out how to make the project fail slowly in a way that makes it seem to the team that they're trying their best so they don't get the blame for it afterwards.
tldr; [thisisfine.gif]
"Mister, we need to protect of the lives of the crew and sustain the mission!"
"Ah, nyet Captain, I am safe down here so far, maybe we replace you instead."
I disagree with you.
The "team" as you put it does not care about making it a success as we have seen in the last decade. Germany closing it's nuclear reactors and replacing them with Russian gas plants, France pushing diesel engines up until the end of the 2010s and marketing them as a safer alternative to other ICE engines, the list goes on and on with governments doing stupid things after stupid things.
Who is the finance department in this case? the corporations? The oil producers? Because that is not very clear to me.
Admittedly it wasn’t a great analogy or particularly clear.
Low TFR countries should continue to shrink. But high TFR countries are likely to get less poor. They are the problem. If people are truly fungible like they say, migrating low consumption people to high consumption states despite local resistance is the worst idea ever. I wish they would focus on these points.
I wish you had defined TFR so we can understand if you are attacking poor countries or defending the riches
Which falls apart looking at the map of highest ghg emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions vs the negative impact caused by climate change and the ability to mitigate https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking .
curtailing migration without massive reduction in the overconsumption by the rich countries amounts to having the poorer nations pay bills (via enduring disasters) for damage they didn't cause, which I find an injustice. Doing that and limiting economic growth and thus limiting the capability of dealing with the disasters would just be cruelty.
If you want to reduce migration without injustice or cruelty, you need to make sure other countries remain livable and thrive, hence the OPs hook.
But instead of doing the work (infrastructure) and making the technology better and cheaper, a strategy of carrots and sticks was employed ($ incentives and taxation) that haven’t progressed the technology.
The reason we burn gas in our cars is because it was better and cheaper than the previous fuels.
Inertia, Investment, (existing) Infrastructure, and greed.
Investment and profit to be made off of it also relate to lobbying, laws, and further investment.
Some related issues for electric vehicles are the increased load on power grid/supply, how Internal Combustion Engines provide (relatively) free heat in cold climates, and that cold snaps require vehicles with batteries to self-heat.
They're issues that have some solutions, but it's not wave a wand at things and they're fixed. The problem also reminds me of connectivity in houses, where by now we should have at least gigabit ports in every room, but increasingly consumers see houses barely suitable for wifi and cell connections.
There are things the market just won't self select despite the good involved for consumers. Maybe if we vote for non-idiots there will eventually be regulation to help.
When a product is better and cheaper, inertia is overcome and consumers switch!
Go look up the historical transitions of fuel sources!
Yeah, the hundreds of billions of dollars that the oil economy spends every year is not what creates this distortion, sure. Let’s just wait for the market forces to fix it.
Finally, the oil lobby is not responsible for the horrendous EU electricity prices which is making it literally impossible for some people to warm their homes in the winter months let alone charge and EV.
I am happy to blame the oil lobby for a lot of things but the politicians have to share this blame as well.
If there is no electricity you are out, if it's snowing too much you are out and so on. I don't want to buy something that stops working when anything isn't optimal.
They certainly work in the snow though, but there is range penalties in the cold. Gas cars stop working when they aren’t in their optimal conditions as well than includes having enough fuel.
I think requiring reliable electric infrastructure for charging cars is a good investment in the future because reliable power is good for more than just cars.
Additionally, much of the fear of running out of electricity has been instilled by the oil and car lobby. The problem is hugely inflated over the actual experience of driving an EV in reality.
And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
True, but i want to still be able to use my car when shit hits the fan, like in a storm or even in a war, there were photos of teslas left out in the cold in ukraine.
While with an ICE car all you need is just a gallon of gas.
> And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
The difference is for EVs they are finicky to use, while ICE vehicles are finicky mechanically, which doesn't seem to be an issue in day to day driving.
People in countries that go the extra mile to keep the environment as clean as possible and that already cleanup after others, are being extorted money to give to a country that's responsible, for instance, for the most plastic being poured into the ocean after China. [1]
This is a total inversion of principles and a reinforcement of negative behavior. These countries should be suffering penalties, not getting rewards.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...
It's for tackling climate change, not pollution.
Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis?
Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?
It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.
Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.
Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them.
I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.
since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?
The money is aimed at getting them "over the hump" in the least polluting manner possible.
It's like... helping up others after you've climbed the wall instead of pulling up the ladder behind you and blaming them for being lower than you.
The system is totally inverted to the level of insanity. We should be rewarding developing nations that are decreasing their pollution levels, not rewarding developing nations that are polluting even more.
TFR is the big thing that is ignored. Look at 50-100 years out. Low TFR stable CO2 countries will solve themselves. One high TFR country that becomes less poor (produces more CO2) dominates future CO2 paths.
Climate change is going to effect every one even if those in developing nations suffer disproportionately. The quicker we transition our energy architecture away from non-renewables the better off everyone is. Those with surplus capital have the power to make this happen faster by helping those without. The alternative is choosing to suffer by delaying this with an us vs them narrative.
And more seriously the argument is that if we on the lottery and our ancestors did the damage before we understood it, then yes, we don't get to keep the benefits from other people and have _them_ foot the bill of avoiding further damage via stifled growth. That social contract doesn't work.
Nevermind that _right now_ per capital emissions and pollution and leads to similar policy implications. It's not just our ancestors overconsuming , it's us
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to...
Maybe is all that could be obtained as things are set up, and I mean mostly about the power structures around this, including the very COPx organization.
Also this target is 11 years away.
Definitely disappointing.