While more than 100 countries called to phase out fossil fuels, the delegations in Dubai received a watered-down text about reducing "consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner." Activists fear that potential objections from fossil fuel countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have watered down the text.
Even if there is just a tiny bit of hope, I'm in. Also, the Marshall Islands negotiator says it all with, "We will not go silently to our watery graves." Still fighting. Thank you for what you do so eloquently.
"It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences [...]". Well, I sure hope so.
How about they take the next year and actually figure out that they could make way more money investing in greener solutions. Money - that's all that matters to them anyway. What gets to me is that they can just make completely unfounded claims like that their "people's prosperity and future [are] at risk" by politically motivated campaigns. Well, maybe their own. In that case it would be a fair point. Then there's "are taking climate change seriously" - that one made me laugh.
Yes to all you said. Thank you for your summary.
I have a question regarding the consensus: why do we need one? Wouldn't it make more sense to work with a majority system (like 2/3) to get things done in this case? This might be very basic, but I don't get it.
It’s not always the case in diplomacy. You can for instance work with a smaller group of countries (EU, OPEC, any likeminded coalition on a theme or region). You can also start an alternative track with a likeminded group, like the Ottawa process or the ICC. UNFCCC chose for consensus because it makes sense to have all nations on board. If you would only work with likeminded such as Denmark or the Marshall Islands, you miss the big polluters. About 85% of emissions comes from only 20 countries. Ideally, they would make a deal, but unfortunately (and not surprisingly) these 20 include many that hit the brake on any progress.
Thank you for that explanation. Makes more sense now.
My mind is very Swiss. I had a vision of those likeminded countries (i.e. those who actually want to DO something) making the rules and the rest of them have to follow them, whether they want to or not. Like a global democracy.
It’s late and now I am completely confused. I seem to get that “phase out” was eliminated from the final text but I do not see a link to the 21 pages of summary? Can you provide please? I will check again. Thank you. 😘
I haven’t added it and I think by now there will already be another draft. In the last days of negotiations it’s complicated to follow each text change from far away. Even for journalists at the COP it’s hard to keep track on all that’s happening now.
Sad!😔
Sad, too, that a decision was made to allow a ME #FossilFuel country host and control this extremely important #COP28.
Especially the choice to meet next year again in a country that bases its economy on fossil fuels
Who makes these decisions? It’s clearly opposed to the purpose and goals of climate and science. It’s an insult!
Even if there is just a tiny bit of hope, I'm in. Also, the Marshall Islands negotiator says it all with, "We will not go silently to our watery graves." Still fighting. Thank you for what you do so eloquently.
Thank you Rena 😊
"It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences [...]". Well, I sure hope so.
How about they take the next year and actually figure out that they could make way more money investing in greener solutions. Money - that's all that matters to them anyway. What gets to me is that they can just make completely unfounded claims like that their "people's prosperity and future [are] at risk" by politically motivated campaigns. Well, maybe their own. In that case it would be a fair point. Then there's "are taking climate change seriously" - that one made me laugh.
Yes to all you said. Thank you for your summary.
I have a question regarding the consensus: why do we need one? Wouldn't it make more sense to work with a majority system (like 2/3) to get things done in this case? This might be very basic, but I don't get it.
It’s not always the case in diplomacy. You can for instance work with a smaller group of countries (EU, OPEC, any likeminded coalition on a theme or region). You can also start an alternative track with a likeminded group, like the Ottawa process or the ICC. UNFCCC chose for consensus because it makes sense to have all nations on board. If you would only work with likeminded such as Denmark or the Marshall Islands, you miss the big polluters. About 85% of emissions comes from only 20 countries. Ideally, they would make a deal, but unfortunately (and not surprisingly) these 20 include many that hit the brake on any progress.
Thank you for that explanation. Makes more sense now.
My mind is very Swiss. I had a vision of those likeminded countries (i.e. those who actually want to DO something) making the rules and the rest of them have to follow them, whether they want to or not. Like a global democracy.
It’s late and now I am completely confused. I seem to get that “phase out” was eliminated from the final text but I do not see a link to the 21 pages of summary? Can you provide please? I will check again. Thank you. 😘
I haven’t added it and I think by now there will already be another draft. In the last days of negotiations it’s complicated to follow each text change from far away. Even for journalists at the COP it’s hard to keep track on all that’s happening now.
Thank you; I will check again. 😘
An unexpected development at COP28 finale and some cautious optimism. Celebrating with coffee! #phaseout
You can buy Alex a coffee too ⬇️
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/alexverbeek/c/7760416