Rich countries have lost enthusiasm for tackling climate crisis, says Cop30 chief
Because “tackling” always does seem to mean ship tonnes and tonnes of money to the poor thieves out there in poor world governments.
Brazil’s André Corrêa do Lago says countries should follow China’s lead on clean energy as conference begins
So that would be keep building coal plants?
That this is the Guardian’s lead story on the main page – yet another jamboree on the same damn subject really isn’t that now, is it?
Kuwait and Australia have made progress on cutting their emissions but emissions from US oil and gas operations have increased by 18%.
But no mention of China and India.
How queer.
If you read the preceding paragraph it becomes even more biased:
“Yet emissions from some of the main signatories have increased, data from the satellite analysis company Kayrros shows, which is likely to further raise global temperatures. Collectively, emissions from six of the biggest signatories – the US, Australia, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Iraq – are now 8.5% above the 2020 level.“
I wonder if something special happened during 2020? Statista tells us that CO2 emissions in the US that year were ~10% lower than in 2019. So being up 8.5% means that they are still lower than 2019 and therefore continuing the downwards trajectory since 2007 when they were almost 20% higher than in 2023 (last year I could find data for in the 2 min I spent on this).
It’s also interesting how they specify “oil and gas”. The US has shifted from coal to natural gas for a long time which has allowed the overall reduction. I assume that is now a bad thing?
This the same Kuwait which plans to increase oil production to 4m barrels a day by 2040, from 2.4m in 2024?
presumably because they measure consumption and not production (which is not necessarily wrong)
I don’t think Kuwait is producing oil for decorative reasons. It’s a bit like Norway, boasting that it has a lot of hydropower, while selling billions worth of oil and gas. I guess it shows the pointlessness of the stats, like those which show Britain has reduced emissions, when it actually exported them.
Right so Kuwait is producing oil to sell it so that it can be consumed in other countries. Which is what I said.
Tim has posted before about the absurdity of doing the opposite, e.g. here (where you should also note that you would seem to agree with Ritchie if you think they should be counted where produced and not where consumed).
FTAOD: I’m very much in the “climate change denier” gamp but we still need to get our arguments correct
Get with the Program Tim.
CO2 is only a pollutant when emitted by evil Western power generators; if it’s India or China it doesn’t count.
Follow China’s lead.
I’m convinced Chinese agents are pushing Nut Zero in the West, to impoverish us and make them wealthy.
Possibly. It is a tricky game, as China is selling us EVs and solar panels at a loss, so it can’t go on for ever. Chairman Pooh no doubt thinks his citizens can suffer longer than ours.
They probably can.
Russia is the more obvious choice. Russia would take a huge hit if Europe started fracking, or went nuclear I have no doubt that anti-nuclear greens get support from Russia, even if they don’t know it. You create a couple of layers of “foundations”.
China still has an edge in terms of labour costs.
I must say that the Brasilians are doing a fine job in Cop hypocrisy: ploughing up the rainforest to make way for summit infrastructure, while demanding money from the West and keeping their tongues up the CCP’s backside throughout.
Do what you’re best at.
Reading that Guardian article, the main thought at the front of my mind was “How much did China pay André Corrêa do Lago to say that?”
To hold China up as a paragon of clean energy virtue you must be either blind or paid an awful lot of money.
The use of the verb tackle is invariably a sign that the speaker has no intention that the thing tackled should be fixed. It is a useful subject for ongoing concern. Infinitely ongoing.
They are going to COP30 to grope climate change.