Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global warming

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by HorizonParty2021 View Post
    I agree that this is basically a band-aide. As I've said in other threads, it is in the least developed countries that it would be easiest to build new green projects, including green housing. What the most developed countries have in abundance is high value real estate, much of which was built many decades ago and is difficult to modernize, in the way.
    I mean, you just bring up another problem. The fund is for dealing with damages caused by climate change. It would be great if the fund would also support poorer countries transitioning to green energy but it doesn't do that. Band-aid is a very fitting description because preventing any "wound" from appearing isn't part of the agenda with this fund. Rather than prevention, it feels like there's more interest in simply accepting that devastation will happen and having money ready to deal with the consequences.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Knightingale View Post
      I mean, you just bring up another problem. The fund is for dealing with damages caused by climate change. It would be great if the fund would also support poorer countries transitioning to green energy but it doesn't do that. Band-aid is a very fitting description because preventing any "wound" from appearing isn't part of the agenda with this fund. Rather than prevention, it feels like there's more interest in simply accepting that devastation will happen and having money ready to deal with the consequences.
      I wasn't saying that the fund is sufficient to build the needed green projects. My original mention of it did not make any claims about it whatsoever. I agreed that it is a band-aide in a single sentence. By saying, "As I've said in other threads", I was referring to an idea (actually not my own) I had expressed in previous discussions - long before this recent news. If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, Jeremy Rifkin explains it in a video uploaded by Vice. It is nearly two hours long and does not have timestamps. I really enjoyed it and have seen it more than once.

      The world as a whole needs to build green projects. Technology research, inter-government cooperation, international trade and private investment are all going to be necessary, because the wealth from which investment comes and the most suitable land are often in different parts of the world.


      Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by HorizonParty2021 View Post

        I wasn't saying that the fund is sufficient to build the needed green projects. My original mention of it did not make any claims about it whatsoever. I agreed that it is a band-aide in a single sentence. By saying, "As I've said in other threads", I was referring to an idea (actually not my own) I had expressed in previous discussions - long before this recent news. If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, Jeremy Rifkin explains it in a video uploaded by Vice. It is nearly two hours long and does not have timestamps. I really enjoyed it and have seen it more than once.

        The world as a whole needs to build green projects. Technology research, inter-government cooperation, international trade and private investment are all going to be necessary, because the wealth from which investment comes and the most suitable land are often in different parts of the world.
        I was just trying to underline an issue. I mean, it's 2022 and still part of the international climate conference are huge fights about whether fossil fuels need to be phased out. Investing in green energy and helping countries around the world do it has been a sensible strategy for decades. But clearly, the international community is very far away from coming anywhere close to doing something like that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Knightingale View Post
          I was just trying to underline an issue. I mean, it's 2022 and still part of the international climate conference are huge fights about whether fossil fuels need to be phased out. Investing in green energy and helping countries around the world do it has been a sensible strategy for decades. But clearly, the international community is very far away from coming anywhere close to doing something like that.
          I think it is a lot of individual self interest and complete lack of courage that allows these heads of state to be bought out by an ecocidal fossil fuel lobby. The super-rich are buying survival bunkers. It is a real growth industry that promises a means to escape the disaster their growth model inflicts on everyone else.


          Thank you for passing time with me in conversation. My Hacks.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by HorizonParty2021 View Post

            I think it is a lot of individual self interest and complete lack of courage that allows these heads of state to be bought out by an ecocidal fossil fuel lobby. The super-rich are buying survival bunkers. It is a real growth industry that promises a means to escape the disaster their growth model inflicts on everyone else.
            I can't imagine why they think that's an escape when they can be entombed in those very same bunkers like the nuclear waste they are. What's to stop hordes of angry people they've condemned to a broken, barely-livable world from walling them in there with sheets of concrete, or dynamiting the local landscape to either get in there and take them out or collapse the whole thing down on them and seal them in forever? With the spacefaring technology to flee the world non-existent, there's really nowhere for them to run or hide, they're just wasting funds they could have used to actually address the problem.

            Comment


            • #21
              Because you can't be that kind of rich and think like a normal person. Even being born into that kind of money screws with people's heads. Humans are not meant to handle this kind of economic gap. History is replete with examples of what happens when the rich get too rich and the poor get too poor, and yet the rich keep trying to get too rich and keep doing everything they can to keep the poor down.

              To become this kind of rich, you have to flourish in an atmosphere where you need to be constantly financially sociopathic with a primary concern of quarterly bottom lines, with annual bottom lines a somewhat visible second order priority, and anything beyond that is too distant to see... while also building corporate institution that can aggregate your efforts over extended periods of time.

              Survival bunkers are basically the epitome of this mindset: build something enduring, but never have plans for how to run it that account for anything longer than a year.

              History tells us, repeatedly, that there are two results of insane socioeconomic disparity + looming natural disaster (esp. ones that build up over time frequently brought on by how being rich and powerful screws with human brains):

              The poor rise up and fix the problem (rarely via politics and minimally violent action, usually through massive revolutions), and start with relieving the rich of all the resources they're not using to fix things. Everyone suffers for a generation or two. Sometimes it fails anyway, sometimes society survives.

              The rich subdue the poor, and that society collapses because it grows less and less resilient to each disaster.

              The big problem right now, is that society is big. Humanity is so interconnected that the kinds of collapses of civilizations we've seen in the past run the risk of taking everyone down.

              Comment


              • #22
                Another horrible thing about COP27: From the article ‘Explosion’ in number of fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop27 climate summit:

                There are more than 600 fossil fuel lobbyists at the Cop27 climate conference, a rise of more than 25% from last year and outnumbering any one frontline community affected by the climate crisis.

                There are 636 lobbyists from the oil and gas industries registered to attend the UN event in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. At Glasgow, the figure was 503, which outnumbered the delegation of any single country. This year the only country with a larger delegation is the United Arab Emirates, hosts of Cop28 next year, which has 1,070 registered delegates, up from 176 last year.

                At Cop27, “the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists is greater than frontline countries and communities. Delegations from African countries and Indigenous communities are dwarfed by representatives of corporate interests”, said the group Kick Big Polluters out, which campaigns against the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the climate negotiations.

                The data on lobbyists, compiled by the organisations Corporate Accountability, Global Witness and Corporate Europe Observatory, shows the growing influence of oil and gas interests at the climate talks. While many environmental groups hoping to encourage the transition away from fossil fuels say it can be beneficial to bring private interests to the negotiating table, these benefits risk being outweighed by the sheer size of the delegations and suspicions that lobbyists attend the talks to slow progress rather than discuss limiting their own industries.
                And this problem will only be worse for COP28 because, you read that right, the host for COP28 will be the United Arab Emirates and the conference will be held specifically in Dubai. That means the host for COP28 will be a country completely opposed to phasing out fossil fuel (for obvious reasons).

                Comment


                • #23
                  If giving fossil fuel interests a seat at the table made climate policies better, we wouldn't have a climate crisis on our hands as it is. Their access to the table has delayed major technological advances in cleaner living by at least a century already; not even taking account for how much else they're slowing down now.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                    If giving fossil fuel interests a seat at the table made climate policies better, we wouldn't have a climate crisis on our hands as it is. Their access to the table has delayed major technological advances in cleaner living by at least a century already; not even taking account for how much else they're slowing down now.
                    Of course, the irony is that back in 2021 one of the "victories" of COP26 was supposed to be that COP had decided to stop getting money from oil firms. Not only do we now know that this didn't really make a difference in how many oil lobbyists would still be there to "mingle", but the oil firms have found a cheat-code so-to speak: Some countries' national delegates for COP27 were actual oil-lobbyists. And this means that the oil-lobbyists weren't just there at the conference... When those heated debates went on behind closed doors about what sort of agreements and resolutions should be proclaimed, this new arrangement allowed oil-lobbyists to be in that room listening to what every nation had to say and adding the opinions of the oil-firms they represented to the discussions.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      COP is ultimately a function of the UN. While I think the UN has value to the world, it's horribly constructed to actually facilitate positive change in the world. The UN does what it was designed to do: pump out band-aids. COP can produce a lot of good policies, but as it has no enforcement mechanism, because the UN is designed to have no way to hold it's members accountable if they go against UN rules, it's pretty words that change little. Countries that take climate change seriously and have the resources to do it are generally doing more than what comes out of COP/etc. A lot of countries that can't afford to do anything are stuck because nobody is willing to invest the real capital necessary to help them skip over dirty fuels and straight into green energy while they're developing a modern infrastructure in the first place, and then the petrochemical heavy economies continue to try to extract every last bit of fossil fuels to make a profit off of before any serious efforts to switch to other energy sources gain traction.

                      Despite the fact that we know (and the UN itself has published plenty of reports on the matter) that climate change is a major risk to global stability and security, we'll never make "keeping to your promises to combat climate change" a prerequisite to have a vote on the UN Security Council. But that rule will never make it through the UN, not matter how good of an idea it would be to threaten the US, Russia, and China's vetos on the Security Council if they don't reduce their fossil fuel production.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Even the wealthier nations... Looking back on what the agreements in Kyoto and Paris did... It was close to nothing. All these promises and if you look at CO2 emissions in that time-period, they just kept rising and rising. No preparations, no strategies, at best half-measures or purely performative actions for the press.

                        But of course, there's no such thing as an international order that could enforce something like measures. We can all thank the US for that.

                        Besides... The US is one of the big opponents when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels. After all, the US is a big fossil fuel provider itself. So, in a way the US is probably glad there's no international order that would force them to turn off their oil-fields in Texas or fracking in Arizona.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It complicated by the fact that most fossil fuel heavy economies are exporters. China, for example, gets to claim their numbers and plans are working because domestic fossil fuel consumption is going in the right direction, but that's just shifting the problem because they're exporting huge amounts of relatively cheap-by-market-standards coal to central Asia and Africa under the guise of helping other nations develop. Every ton of CO2/etc. that China isn't directly emitting, is being emitted and then some by countries China is sending coal too. The US isn't any different (and Russia and Iran aren't even trying to pretend to care).

                          The climate doesn't care about lines on a map, or the nationality of the people burning the fuels, but all these accords, agreements, etc. act like we can fix things by only thinking about what happens within borders.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                            The big problem right now, is that society is big. Humanity is so interconnected that the kinds of collapses of civilizations we've seen in the past run the risk of taking everyone down.
                            What we know about the Bronze Age Collapse comes to mind.


                            Kelly R.S. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                            The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                            Feminine pronouns, please.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              An article I recently read that I found really interesting, it's called "The Wall Street Consensus at COP27" from Daniela Gabor:

                              At COP26, US Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry sanguinely declared the need to “derisk the investment, and create the capacity to have bankable deals. That’s doable for water, it’s doable for electricity, it’s doable for transportation.” Derisking is financial speak for the public sector—be it through official development aid, multilateral resources or national fiscal resources—accepting to take some risks from private financiers in order to persuade them to invest, public efforts variously described as “mobilizing private finance”or “blended finance.” In response, the UN Special Envoy for Climate and head of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) Mark Carney announced GFANZ’s intentions to work in partnership with governments and multilateral development institutions to mobilize its $130 trillion for green purposes.

                              At this year’s COP27 in Egypt, Carney was less triumphant. On the contrary, he defensively explained why the GFANZ financiers had dropped the partnership with UN Race to Zero, intended to police their green pledges and reduce pervasive greenwashing. No longer flanked by top financiers like BlackRock’s Larry Fink (who reportedly stayed away to avoid further incensing the US Republican party), and amid several reports denouncing the systematic failure of the GFANZ-Global North mobilization drive, Carney cut a lonely figure.

                              Indeed, Global North countries have consistently underdelivered on long-standing commitments to mobilize $100 billion climate finance annually, the bare minimum estimate of green financing needs for Global South countries. For 2020, the OECD estimated a $16 billion gap in public and private finance mobilized, far more optimistic than Oxfam’s estimates at one-third of that (around $24 billion).

                              Based on these numbers, and the event’s proceedings, it is tempting to conclude that the Wall Street Consensus—the global political agreement and ideological rationalization that decarbonization must be finance-led, with the state derisking private investments into green assets—has lost momentum from its heyday at COP26.

                              There is, however, a more compelling account of recent developments: the “roll-back” stage of the Wall Street Consensus, when carbon financiers organized strategically to roll-back the state’s newfound willingness to regulate dirty credit, has given way into a to “roll-out” stage, in which the state and supranational organizations scale up monetary, fiscal, and regulatory derisking architectures for green asset classes.

                              Global inflationary pressures have since reinforced the political appeal of derisking. Derisking provides a compelling status-quo political message: in the new age of geopolitical tensions, energy competition, higher interest rates, and massive global debt pressures, decarbonization is possible without massive public investment. All it takes is tinkering with risk/return profiles to make projects investable, that is, transferring some risks from private to public balance sheets.

                              The overarching policy question at COP27 has thus become “how do we scale up derisking to make decarbonization investable for BlackRock?”.

                              Even the better reported battles over numbers at COP27—for instance on loss and damage—hide the derisking devil in the details and language of “mobilization.” How will these funds be spent? How much of the public grants or loans from the Global North will be deployed for derisking private investments in the Global South? Ultimately, derisking is a tool against the very things that would make the green transition just: adequately funded public services, affordable access to renewable energy, decent housing, and thriving green manufacturing sectors in middle and low income countries. It may well be that derisking partnerships can be reimagined to give the state space for disciplining rather than simply subsidizing private finance, but so far, there is little effort in that direction.
                              It's a very long article, so I recommend reading it in full but it's an interesting perspective on what the private-led/Wall-Street models for green transition look like. And that article made it clearer why the US was so dead-set against governments giving any money to the Loss And Damage Fund. Not only does it avoid more "interference" from states through regulations and direct financial control but it also helps preserve the same sort of short-term profit-driven shareholder-economy-mindsets. How just and thorough will a green transition really be, though, if it's organized by profit-driven private interests?

                              And the French energy company TotalEnergies shows how fickle these private interests are. On their website, they proudly say:

                              TotalEnergies set its target of a 40% reduction in net emissions (Scope 1+2) from its operated facilities between 2015 and 2030 with an eye to the European Union’s objectives for 2030 and the objectives of countries with a net zero by 2050 pledge as part of the Paris Agreement.

                              To qualify the level of this ambition, the Company called on two independent third parties known for their expertise in energy and decarbonization to analyze the greenhouse gas emissions reduction objectives for 2030 of countries committed to net zero by 2050 as of COP26 in Glasgow: Carbone 4, a consultancy specialized in low-carbon strategy in France and the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University in the United States.
                              But you gotta wonder how they'll meet those targets now that they've announced a new project working together with Saudi Arabia's Aramco to invest 11 billion dollars into a new oil complex.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The way I think of it, is from a Huron-glaciation event; 2 billion years ago, photosynthesis evolved and micro-organisms began pumping out massive amounts of oxygen, which, broke down the methane, a greenhouse-gas and replaced the CO2, reducing the greenhouse-gasses in the atmosphere and due to the younger, less bright Sun, a global-glaciation that lasted hundreds of millions of year occurred; not once, but over and over again from banded-iron formations in the rocks.

                                All organisms grow and pollute their environment; humans are no exception, though, we'd like to think we are.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X