COP26

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
bagpuss
Dorkwood
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: COP26

Post by bagpuss » Wed Nov 03, 2021 9:53 am

Yeah, OK, maybe the accessibility was a small distraction but it really was an important one and I don't think it was wrong to discuss it. Anyway, on to the main business...


While I am, of course, generally hugely sceptical that any of the agreements will come even somewhere close to being met, am I alone in being just a teeny bit more hopeful than in the past, because they seem to be doing more than just making agreements and pledging money?

There seems to be more thought around the interconnectedness of our behaviour, and other ways beyond just throwing government money at the problem - like getting financial institutions to stop investing in projects involving deforestation, and major countries also making commitments on trading products that contribute to deforestation.

It does seem like not much more than baby steps at a time when we need giant leaps but it does seem that the thinking is at least going in the right direction.

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:46 pm
The weird thing is that this methane thing focuses on inspecting pipelines rather than cows. Agriculture is an incredibly powerful lobby, no doubt in part because of the strong cultural power of both food and landscapes.

eta link https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... 30-percent
Ah, I thought I must have just missed something when I heard that reported on the radio yesterday but perhaps not. It seems that this initiative is being led by Joe Biden so I suspect the hugely powerful US farming lobby would be the reason for the lack of focus on cows.

In fact, that's another huge worry around all this - the US is massively important if any of these initiatives are going to come even close to success and we have Donald Trump waiting in the wings to come and chuck all the agreements out of the door in less than 4 years' time. If any part of Biden's commitments upset US voters who wouldn't already have been voting for Trump, which is highly likely, then I fear that Trump will ride in on a huge wave of MAGA...A and we're all f.cked.

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: COP26

Post by JQH » Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:20 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 7:07 pm
Thanks for those. I don't have the expertise to know whether something that looks good is a genuine breakthrough or just something put together by a PR agency. Hearing it from people who know what they are talking about is why I like this place.
Likewise.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: COP26

Post by Fishnut » Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:44 am

This is a first-hand account of the conference from one of the delegates, a 16 year old climate activist called Alexandria Villaseñor. She describes an incredibly poorly organised conference that is geared towards the rich while excluding the poor (one reply notes that there's a stand promoting formula one cars but nothing about bikes). She ends with these tweets:
Now I can hear some of you already in the comments saying "but this is just the logistics of the event! it's not the negotiations" and I have to point out that this is the environment that the #COP26 negotiations is swimming in...

An exclusionary, racist, ableist, classist environment directly informs the decision making process that is placed in it! The negotiating space that we create, as a planet, is one of the most important aspects of these talks and can ultimately set it up for failure or success.
I hope I'm wrong to be pessimistic, I really do. I hope that positive things come out of COP26. We need them to if we have any hope of protecting our future. But all I've seen so far is the same old promises (the deforestation pledge has been made twice before, and deforestation has actually increased significantly [PDF] since the 2014 one). If this COP is going to be successful it needs to be different from the others. No more pledges, no more promises made with fingers crossed behind backs. We need actual concrete plans describing how targets are to be met and penalties for those who don't.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: COP26

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:35 am

Yes, the pledges made here should only be viewed as the starting point - pressure needs to be sustained to ensure countries actually come up with plans afterwards, and that they actually enact those plans.

It's worth noting that basically nobody has yet got a plan to meet the pledge made in Paris in 2015:
Image
https://climateactiontracker.org/press/ ... tandstill/

One of the big challenges is getting particular mechanisms agreed to by everybody - both mechanisms to meet the targets, and mechanisms to punish those who fall short.

Given the relatively small carbon budget left (<500 Gt for 1.5°C, with global emissions around 40Gt/year and rising) pricing it as a scarce commodity would seem the simplest option that doesn't involve uprooting the entire global economy.

Normal people are going to need to exert more pressure on governments than industry lobbyists do, somehow - a part of the process that seems about as badly organised as the formal political talks. The point of these pledges isn't that they magically solve the problem on their own: the point is creating a weapon to use against governments.
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

bagpuss
Dorkwood
Posts: 1101
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: COP26

Post by bagpuss » Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:39 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:35 am
Yes, the pledges made here should only be viewed as the starting point - pressure needs to be sustained to ensure countries actually come up with plans afterwards, and that they actually enact those plans.

It's worth noting that basically nobody has yet got a plan to meet the pledge made in Paris in 2015:
Image
https://climateactiontracker.org/press/ ... tandstill/

One of the big challenges is getting particular mechanisms agreed to by everybody - both mechanisms to meet the targets, and mechanisms to punish those who fall short.

Given the relatively small carbon budget left (<500 Gt for 1.5°C, with global emissions around 40Gt/year and rising) pricing it as a scarce commodity would seem the simplest option that doesn't involve uprooting the entire global economy.

Normal people are going to need to exert more pressure on governments than industry lobbyists do, somehow - a part of the process that seems about as badly organised as the formal political talks. The point of these pledges isn't that they magically solve the problem on their own: the point is creating a weapon to use against governments.
That's really interesting, thanks BoaF.

I'm rather surprised at some of the countries that are on the Highly Insufficient List - at least as compared to USA being merely Insufficient.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: COP26

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:26 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:44 am
This is a first-hand account of the conference from one of the delegates, a 16 year old climate activist called Alexandria Villaseñor. She describes an incredibly poorly organised conference that is geared towards the rich while excluding the poor (one reply notes that there's a stand promoting formula one cars but nothing about bikes). She ends with these tweets:
Now I can hear some of you already in the comments saying "but this is just the logistics of the event! it's not the negotiations" and I have to point out that this is the environment that the #COP26 negotiations is swimming in...

An exclusionary, racist, ableist, classist environment directly informs the decision making process that is placed in it! The negotiating space that we create, as a planet, is one of the most important aspects of these talks and can ultimately set it up for failure or success.
To take one aspect mentioned in the tweets, in general the exclusion of civil society organzations from the places where negotiations are being carried out is a long-running problem within the UN. The issue is that authoritarian governments, and some democracies, are often hostile or suspicious of NGOs and make their exclusion from the important parts of the negotiations a condition for attending the negotiations. That exclusion can be partly ameliorated by other governments including civil society representatives in their delegations.

Though I don't exactly how it has worked in Glasgow.

This is a much more important issue than the injustice suffered by some activists, as the blanket exclusion of civil society affects what voices are heard during the negotiations.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: COP26

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:47 pm

This looks like another valuable step in the right direction:

COP26: Financial firms that control 40% of global assets to align with 1.5C global warming limit
On "finance day" at COP26, Mr Sunak will laud the "historic" climate commitment from global firms that control $130tr (£95tr) of financial assets.

The chancellor will also reveal that the UK is to force all financial institutions and listed companies in the UK to publish plans on how they will transition to net zero from 2023.

The Treasury says the commitments will help to create a "huge pool of cash that could fund our net zero transition", including the move away from coal and the shift to electric cars.
In terms of efficacy, the devil will be in the details of the rule book that's yet to be written. Following the Shell case, I hope it's made explicit that Scope 3 emissions are included (e.g., if you finance oil extraction you're responsible for the emissions from burning that oil, not just digging it up and refining it).

But this is something that activists have been calling for for a long time, and it's great to see a major economy like the UK demanding climate commitments from its financial sector. It's a huge chunk of private finance that will be less able to undermine action on the climate, and it helps to reduce the relative risk and increase profitability of sustainable investments.
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: COP26

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:52 pm

The big thing to watch for today is whether rich countries finally sort out the $100bn/year they promised in Paris but haven't delivered yet. It'll be a real sticking point for the rest of the negotiations, as poor countries are reluctant to divert money into reducing their own relatively low emissions without support from history's greatest per-capita emitters (who are mostly the present's greatest per-capita emitters too).

The UK taking its climate finance out of the existing aid budget when it was supposed to be new money isn't a good look.
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7469
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: COP26

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:55 pm

National pledges now put us on a trajectory <2°C for the first time since Paris. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... w-2c-india

Not good enough, and the pledges still need to be followed up with policies, and those policies with actions, but at least a lot of people are saying the right thing. India now has a net-zero target date (of, um, 2070 lol) which is a big step too.
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

IvanV
Snowbonk
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: COP26

Post by IvanV » Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:10 pm

That diagram is hilarious. If UK is in "almost sufficient", then "almost" stretches quite a long way below "sufficient". Someone probably designed that so that it stretched just far enough to get the UK into it. And as St Greta pointed out, quite fairly, the consumption measure of a country's CO2 output is a much more accurate and useful measure, and the UK is doing a lot worse by that better measure.

Nigeria is almost sufficient. Only because it is so incompetent at supplying energy to its people, and is going to carry on being so incompetent, that Nigerians are prevented from using very much energy, and will continue to be so prevented. Various other countries in that category are either like that, too. Though some are just lucky to have such huge hydro plants they don't have to try very hard. And, entertainingly, Norway, despite having such huge hydro plants, is in the next box down because it also has huge fossil-fuel-using heavy industry, like aluminium smelting, which makes use of that electricity.

IvanV
Snowbonk
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: COP26

Post by IvanV » Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:29 pm

I happened to spot a link on youtube to Neil Oliver saying what he thinks about COP on GBN. I couldn't believe Neil Oliver has anything to do with GBN, but apparently he is now a presenter for them. I couldn't resist clicking to hear what he has to say. (Yes I found it because I occasionally browse through some denialist stuff to see what clever denialists are saying.)

It's really quite clever advocacy. He criticises, quite justifiably, the politicians for their "do what I say and not what I do" hypocrisy, in failing to reduce their own carbon emissions nor do any of the reductions they are calling from us except in the most token of ways, and the absurd things COP itself has done. There are costs to avoiding climate change, but it is the ordinary citizen who must make all the sacrifices, while the ruling class continue in their comfort and style. To the extent that he comments on climate issues at all, which is very little, he appears to take a mainstream position. Thus he paints COP not as a serious attempt to address the climate, but as an attempt by politicians to increase their control over us. A very clever way to undermine it.

In case you want to watch too Runs ca 7 mins.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1062
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: COP26

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:35 am

The whole climate action situation reminds me of Brexit - lots of people agreeing on one specific thing and then totally disagreeing on everything surrounding it.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3025
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COP26

Post by discovolante » Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:44 pm

I'm just on my way back from the Glasgow march and it does seem BOAF is right that this is a mainstream issue now. As we were getting closer to the city centre nearly all the people out doing their shopping or whatever seemed happy and supportive of the march rather than cheesed off that it was stopping them from crossing the road. And what more do you need than that eh.

I feel a bit frustrated that I haven't been able to participate much in this, and quite disappointed in myself really. I think if I hadn't felt so rubbish the last fee weeks I might have got a bit more stuck in but hey :? there's still plenty to do after I suppose.

I did like the brass neck of the people standing behind the blue-bibbed police liaison officers, carrying placards with down-pointing arrows and the words 'DON'T TALK TO THEM'.
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: COP26

Post by Fishnut » Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:37 pm

The draft climate agreement is out and, as predicted, it's toothless.

The Conversation has a good piece on it.
[The draft] merely “urges” countries to strengthen their NDCs, proposing a meeting of ministers next year and a leaders’ summit in 2023. But “urges” is UN-speak for: “You may do this if you wish to, but you don’t have to if you don’t.” That is not enough to force countries to get onto a 1.5℃-compatible path. The text must require them to do so.

On finance, the text is even weaker. There is no mention of the US$500 billion demand, although it does call for adaptation funding to be doubled. There is no mention of using the special drawing rights (a kind of global money supply) which the IMF has recently issued for climate-compatible development. And there is insufficient recognition that the most vulnerable countries need much better access to the funds available.
While this is only a draft, and can still be changed,
...the lack of balance means that it is the least developed countries which will have to do the most work to change it. In Paris the French presidency worked the other way round. They drafted an ambitious text and dared the biggest emitters to oppose it.
It seems that even my pessimistic prediction wasn't pessimistic enough. I thought there'd be a lot of meaningless promises but this draft doesn't even give promises, just suggestions. All that time and money spent organising this conference, and for what?
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: COP26

Post by Fishnut » Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:33 pm

This is an interesting piece on the distaste governments have for adaptation to climate change and disaster preparedness.
there are more political rewards for devoting attention and resources to disaster relief, rather than disaster preparedness. This means politicians have little incentive to introduce large-scale investment in climate change adaptation.
It reminded me of a book that I must remember to finish. It's called Dull Disasters (PDF available at the link) and is all about how disasters can be mitigated by good planning, but explains why even though the returns on investment are significantly greater for disaster preparedness compared to disaster relief, the politics are such that relief always wins. Despite that depressing summary, it's actually a potentially hopeful book as it offers lessons and summary advice at the end of each chapter that could be easily implemented if the will existed.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: COP26

Post by Fishnut » Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:51 pm

Good summary of the COP26 agreement.

TL:DR:
1) there is progress on cutting emissions, but nowhere near enough.
2) there could be new targets next year, rather than the 'traditional' 5 years that COP has previously had between their setting.
3) coal is to be "phased down", which despite the weak language is actually an improvement on previous meetings. Apparently this is the first time the declaration has mentioned fossil fuels.
4) rich countries are still ignoring their responsibilities - they vetoed the creation of a new “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility” despite its huge popularity among other countries.
5) carbon offsets are still allowed.
6) we need to keep pushing governments to take climate change seriously.

The article ends by highlighting the new Cambo oil field, located to the west of Shetland, that is trying to get a licence to extract an estimated 800 million barrels of oil.
If approved by the Oil and Gas Authority, drilling at Cambo could start as early as 2022. And the field is expected to produce oil and gas for approximately 25 years.
It may be that there are sensible reasons for opening this oil field, even as our planet edges ever closer to becoming uninhabitable, but it really does seem to add to the sense that we're not really serious about adapting to a post-fossil fuel world.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3025
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COP26

Post by discovolante » Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:51 pm
Good summary of the COP26 agreement.

TL:DR:
1) there is progress on cutting emissions, but nowhere near enough.
2) there could be new targets next year, rather than the 'traditional' 5 years that COP has previously had between their setting.
3) coal is to be "phased down", which despite the weak language is actually an improvement on previous meetings. Apparently this is the first time the declaration has mentioned fossil fuels.
4) rich countries are still ignoring their responsibilities - they vetoed the creation of a new “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility” despite its huge popularity among other countries.
5) carbon offsets are still allowed.
6) we need to keep pushing governments to take climate change seriously.

The article ends by highlighting the new Cambo oil field, located to the west of Shetland, that is trying to get a licence to extract an estimated 800 million barrels of oil.
If approved by the Oil and Gas Authority, drilling at Cambo could start as early as 2022. And the field is expected to produce oil and gas for approximately 25 years.
It may be that there are sensible reasons for opening this oil field, even as our planet edges ever closer to becoming uninhabitable, but it really does seem to add to the sense that we're not really serious about adapting to a post-fossil fuel world.
Yesterday I had a good chat with a friend of a friend I've met a couple of times now, who is over from Chile starting a PhD on societal/political stuff to do with renewables, comparing Chile and Scotland. Anyway in terms of climate change it was a mixed bag but overall we agreed we can't afford not to be optimistic. And a big part of the difficulty is acknowledging that there are going to be unpleasant trade offs e.g the extent of copper mines in chile, for electrification. His view of COP, which I'm inclined to agree with, is that it's just one part of the overall picture, even though obviously it is very worrying when expectations aren't met. But I'm inclined to think that without the COPs we wouldn't have even made this much progress, or rather the countries that dug their heels in and insisted on 1.5 degrees (for example) wouldn't. At Copenhagen it was only agreed that they would 'consider' 1.5 degrees, and it took another six years, but they got there. And although there isn't time to wait for this kind of slow progress, at least that happened.

So yeah point 6, it needs to be made politically desirable to cut emissions. And there will be backlash where the changes negatively impact people e.g. potential loss of employment. Unions, where they exist for affected sectors, need to be clever about this too. I mentioned in another thread that it seems easy to be cynical about 'mainstream' protests etc after Brexit but I do think this is a different ball game.
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: COP26

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:58 am

discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
Yesterday I had a good chat with a friend of a friend I've met a couple of times now, who is over from Chile starting a PhD on societal/political stuff to do with renewables, comparing Chile and Scotland. Anyway in terms of climate change it was a mixed bag but overall we agreed we can't afford not to be optimistic.
I agree with the last point. Politically there is a big downside to pessimism. If people think that they world is heading for disaster anyway then its easy for them to decide not to make personal changes which would be futile anyway.
discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
And a big part of the difficulty is acknowledging that there are going to be unpleasant trade offs e.g the extent of copper mines in chile, for electrification. His view of COP, which I'm inclined to agree with, is that it's just one part of the overall picture, even though obviously it is very worrying when expectations aren't met.
I agree as well.
discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
But I'm inclined to think that without the COPs we wouldn't have even made this much progress, or rather the countries that dug their heels in and insisted on 1.5 degrees (for example) wouldn't. At Copenhagen it was only agreed that they would 'consider' 1.5 degrees, and it took another six years, but they got there. And although there isn't time to wait for this kind of slow progress, at least that happened.
As far as I remember the 'business as usual' projection in the first IPCC report was just over 4 degrees warming by 2100. If we can achieve 1.5 - 2 degrees by then that is a major achievement. Of course two degrees warming will have very serious negative effects. But they're still a lot less bad then 4 degrees.
discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
So yeah point 6, it needs to be made politically desirable to cut emissions. And there will be backlash where the changes negatively impact people e.g. potential loss of employment. Unions, where they exist for affected sectors, need to be clever about this too. I mentioned in another thread that it seems easy to be cynical about 'mainstream' protests etc after Brexit but I do think this is a different ball game.
Yes, the tradeoffs are where it gets tricky.

But as mentioned in this thread, lots can be done by targeting the greenhouse gasses produced through consumption by the richest people in society. The political problem being that they are best placed to block regulations.

Though some industries are going to have to be reduced significantly, like fossil fueled air travel.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3025
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COP26

Post by discovolante » Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:16 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:58 am
discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
Yesterday I had a good chat with a friend of a friend I've met a couple of times now, who is over from Chile starting a PhD on societal/political stuff to do with renewables, comparing Chile and Scotland. Anyway in terms of climate change it was a mixed bag but overall we agreed we can't afford not to be optimistic.
I agree with the last point. Politically there is a big downside to pessimism. If people think that they world is heading for disaster anyway then its easy for them to decide not to make personal changes which would be futile anyway.
discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
And a big part of the difficulty is acknowledging that there are going to be unpleasant trade offs e.g the extent of copper mines in chile, for electrification. His view of COP, which I'm inclined to agree with, is that it's just one part of the overall picture, even though obviously it is very worrying when expectations aren't met.
I agree as well.
discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
But I'm inclined to think that without the COPs we wouldn't have even made this much progress, or rather the countries that dug their heels in and insisted on 1.5 degrees (for example) wouldn't. At Copenhagen it was only agreed that they would 'consider' 1.5 degrees, and it took another six years, but they got there. And although there isn't time to wait for this kind of slow progress, at least that happened.
As far as I remember the 'business as usual' projection in the first IPCC report was just over 4 degrees warming by 2100. If we can achieve 1.5 - 2 degrees by then that is a major achievement. Of course two degrees warming will have very serious negative effects. But they're still a lot less bad then 4 degrees.
discovolante wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:19 pm
So yeah point 6, it needs to be made politically desirable to cut emissions. And there will be backlash where the changes negatively impact people e.g. potential loss of employment. Unions, where they exist for affected sectors, need to be clever about this too. I mentioned in another thread that it seems easy to be cynical about 'mainstream' protests etc after Brexit but I do think this is a different ball game.
Yes, the tradeoffs are where it gets tricky.

But as mentioned in this thread, lots can be done by targeting the greenhouse gasses produced through consumption by the richest people in society. The political problem being that they are best placed to block regulations.

Though some industries are going to have to be reduced significantly, like fossil fueled air travel.
Wouldn't disagree with any of that. Air travel definitely. Would be good to reduce the consumption of as many cars rather than just swapping them all to electric. Although for now that may be achieved by electrics still often being too expensive for people on low incomes (I know they're getting cheaper but still). Other types of consumption may be more difficult e.g. fashion, phones, other general consumables...

Eta: lol and dare I say it, household insulation...
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3025
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COP26

Post by discovolante » Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:32 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:51 pm
Good summary of the COP26 agreement.

TL:DR:
1) there is progress on cutting emissions, but nowhere near enough.
2) there could be new targets next year, rather than the 'traditional' 5 years that COP has previously had between their setting.
3) coal is to be "phased down", which despite the weak language is actually an improvement on previous meetings. Apparently this is the first time the declaration has mentioned fossil fuels.
4) rich countries are still ignoring their responsibilities - they vetoed the creation of a new “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility” despite its huge popularity among other countries.
5) carbon offsets are still allowed.
6) we need to keep pushing governments to take climate change seriously.

The article ends by highlighting the new Cambo oil field, located to the west of Shetland, that is trying to get a licence to extract an estimated 800 million barrels of oil.
If approved by the Oil and Gas Authority, drilling at Cambo could start as early as 2022. And the field is expected to produce oil and gas for approximately 25 years.
It may be that there are sensible reasons for opening this oil field, even as our planet edges ever closer to becoming uninhabitable, but it really does seem to add to the sense that we're not really serious about adapting to a post-fossil fuel world.
BTW Nicola Sturgeon has now openly opposed Cambo, finally, so there's that.
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: COP26

Post by Fishnut » Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:41 pm

discovolante wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:32 pm
BTW Nicola Sturgeon has now openly opposed Cambo, finally, so there's that.
Good.

I do recognise that it's not as straightforward as saying that if we stop oil production then everything will be great. We're so reliant on it for so many things and those in favour of the oil field are right that there will be a transition period. And it could be argued that at least by having the oil production within the UK we can have high environmental standards on the field and there's a shorter distance that it needs to be sent. So I'm not entirely dancing for joy at this announcement. I can't help but worry that's it's going to result in us just outsourcing our oil and gas production to countries with lower environmental standards. But at the same time, maybe cutting off our own production is going to be what it takes to end our addiction. I don't know. It's complicated and I don't know what the best answer is in the long term.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3025
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: COP26

Post by discovolante » Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:49 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:41 pm
discovolante wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:32 pm
BTW Nicola Sturgeon has now openly opposed Cambo, finally, so there's that.
Good.

I do recognise that it's not as straightforward as saying that if we stop oil production then everything will be great. We're so reliant on it for so many things and those in favour of the oil field are right that there will be a transition period. And it could be argued that at least by having the oil production within the UK we can have high environmental standards on the field and there's a shorter distance that it needs to be sent. So I'm not entirely dancing for joy at this announcement. I can't help but worry that's it's going to result in us just outsourcing our oil and gas production to countries with lower environmental standards. But at the same time, maybe cutting off our own production is going to be what it takes to end our addiction. I don't know. It's complicated and I don't know what the best answer is in the long term.
Seems like the same kind of opportunity as Shell moving their headquarters to the UK :P
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: COP26

Post by plodder » Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:02 am

We need to start stopping, even if we don’t quite know how. Hope that makes sense!

User avatar
Martin_B
Dorkwood
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: COP26

Post by Martin_B » Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:28 am

Fishnut wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:41 pm
discovolante wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:32 pm
BTW Nicola Sturgeon has now openly opposed Cambo, finally, so there's that.
Good.

I do recognise that it's not as straightforward as saying that if we stop oil production then everything will be great. We're so reliant on it for so many things and those in favour of the oil field are right that there will be a transition period. And it could be argued that at least by having the oil production within the UK we can have high environmental standards on the field and there's a shorter distance that it needs to be sent. So I'm not entirely dancing for joy at this announcement. I can't help but worry that's it's going to result in us just outsourcing our oil and gas production to countries with lower environmental standards. But at the same time, maybe cutting off our own production is going to be what it takes to end our addiction. I don't know. It's complicated and I don't know what the best answer is in the long term.
We certainly need to stop oil production for burning for energy (and I work in the sector!). But there are many things which we still need oil (or other fossil fuels) for, such as plastics, lubrication oils, etc, which are a lot less harmful to the planet. We *could* use plant-based alternatives for some of that, but then you run into the issue with clearing old-growth rainforests for palm oil production.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2364
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: COP26

Post by plodder » Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:08 pm

Agreed, oil is far too useful to just burn it.

Post Reply