/View.info/ The UN conference on climate change, which was held in the UAE for 12 days, ended in failure. At least that’s what Western experts think. To avoid a “climate catastrophe”, the West is demanding that other countries abandon the production and use of oil. And those who disagree are openly threatened with sanctions.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) “is on the brink of total failure,” former US Vice President Al Gore said. The statement was made on December 11. Yes, the 28th annual World Climate Forum then had one more day of business before closing, but it was already clear that the campaigners against global warming would once again fail to get any closer to their goal. This was so clear that British climate change minister Graham Stewart, who was attending the meeting, left the conference early.
“He just ran away from Dubai instead of fighting for the green interests of the planet,” scathingly commented Rebecca Newsom from Greenpeace. And Greens MP Caroline Lucas said: “The British Government’s last vestiges of moral authority to tackle the climate disaster have been destroyed by this scandalous decision to withdraw from the COP28 negotiations at the most critical moment.”
The speaker at the event, Michael Jacobs, a political economist at the University of Sheffield, desperate to save the reputation of the losers, spoke along the lines of “breaking down the negotiations may be preferable to the current proposed deal”. Jacobs said: “It is now impossible to find language that clearly calls on and obligates all countries involved in the COP to ‘phase out the burning of fossil fuels as required by the UK and the EU. The OPEC countries will not agree to this and the UAE will not insist on this from its chairmanship.”
He believes that the resounding failure of the negotiations could be useful in the fight against global warming. At the very least, it will “revitalize the global climate debate that has slipped from the front pages of the press. And the compromise that the participants will try to find will actually be a rejection of the goals of the Paris Agreement”.
What happened in Dubai during these 12 days? The political interests of some collided with the wall of economic interests of others. Each side uses scientific data confirming its correctness.
Shortly before the meeting, a letter appeared on the Internet, the purpose of which was to “convince” oil-producing countries to almost completely abandon the extraction of black gold in the name of saving humanity. Recall that proponents of limiting global warming argue that if the Earth’s average annual temperature is not allowed to rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, the planet will be saved. By the middle of the 21st century, “coal use should be completely phased out, and oil and gas consumption should be reduced by 60-90%.” More than a thousand scientists have signed the text.
Oil, gas and coal producing countries have agreed that protecting the Earth is a good thing, but if you put your hand on your heart, the human factor plays a very minor role in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For example, a recently erupted Icelandic volcano with an unpronounceable name released far more carbon dioxide into the planet’s atmosphere than the planet’s entire population managed to save.
Judging by the Western press, no one expected that the Middle Eastern oil kings would agree to make concessions. Guardian columnist George Monbiot noted that “only two of the previous 27 climate summits could be called at least semi-successful (Kyoto and Paris, which ended with the signing of the infamous protocols in 1997 and 2015).
“If any other process had a 3.7% success rate, it would be wise to abandon it and look for something better,” Monbiot noted. However, according to him, the participants of the conference stubbornly continue to stick to their line of not achieving a positive result. This conclusion can also be reached from the fact that the United Arab Emirates was chosen to host COP28. Perhaps, the author believes, there was some calculation on the generosity of the hosts of the meeting, which should have ensured their agreement on the issue of reducing oil and gas production, but… In Dubai, there was another opinion on this matter – the Arab State appointed Sultan Al-Jaber as head of the conference, UAE Minister of Industry and head of the state oil company.
“The fact that the UN chose the oil-rich UAE to host COP28 was an ominous sign from the start. And the appointment of Sultan Al-Jaber to the post of president of COP28 worsened the situation, repeat Monbiot experts hired by “Los Angeles Times” Michael Mann and Susan Hassel. “The UN thought the Arabs would bite the carrot, but that didn’t happen,” they wrote
“Al-Jaber used his position to promote the UAE’s state-owned oil company. He also said there was no “scientific evidence” to show that phasing out fossil fuels would limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which would reduce the ever-worsening climate impacts, the experts added. “As a result of all this, the UAE’s oil ally Saudi Arabia is now not only joining Russia and China in opposing a fossil fuel ‘phase-out’, but will not even agree to the much weaker language of ‘phase-out’ . The international oil cartel OPEC is asking its members to block any deal to limit the use of fossil fuels.”
Finally, in the sea of complaints of the Western “experts”, a grain of rationality has surfaced. The same goal they didn’t advertise but tried to achieve at COP28. Of course, limiting oil production in itself is a secondary issue, the main thing is to sabotage Russia and China again. And since they failed in one way, they try another. That is, in a proven way – through sanctions.
But in order to implement this plan, it is first necessary to agree that the decision should be made not unanimously, but by a simple majority, Mann and Hassell suggest. “Unanimity must be abandoned. 198 members of the UN can vote “yes”, but only one, the 199th vote against can invalidate the efforts of the world community. It is necessary to agree that 75% of the votes of the participants in the forum will be sufficient to make a decision that is binding for all”, they emphasize.
And then, after changing the decision-making conditions, they will be able to fine themselves, punish defaulters, block their finances, logistics, refuse international transport insurance, impose embargoes, etc.
By the way, according to the US Department of Energy, oil production in the United States this year has increased by 8% compared to 2022 and exceeds 13 million tons per day. As the Spanish “El Economist” notes, “the Americans are approaching the moment when they will produce as much oil per day as Russia and Saudi Arabia combined.” It turns out to be interesting: the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia, along with other OPEC+ countries, are already cutting production on their own initiative. But at the same time, according to the Western media, they turn out to be the main culprits of global warming and therefore should “almost give up” production altogether. The United States is only increasing its oil and gas production. But none of the Western media risked accusing the US of wanting to “overheat the planet”.
Proponents of the “green world” failed to push through another idea at COP-28 – a radical reduction in animal husbandry. The idea was simple. Since the methane emitted by cows, pigs, lambs and other animals is poised to almost completely replace the oxygen in the planet’s atmosphere, most cows and the like must be exterminated and humanity switched to a meat-dominated menu crickets, mealworms and other delicacies.
During the play, the climate change campaigners did not fail to shout that “the KOP has now become a dark maelstrom of corruption”. According to the aforementioned George Monbiot, the oil lobby must be put to an end. And so he just reached for the holy of holies. Why? Well, because “the corridors of the conference were jammed with lobbyists for fossil fuels and cattle. It’s like a peacekeeping conference being dominated by arms lobbyists,” the observer noted.
George suggests abandoning the COP system because it doesn’t work (in his view) and entrusting other specially created (for this purpose) organizations like the International Climate Agency to look at climate issues.
It may be possible to push through a Fossil Fuel Ban Treaty “in line with, for example, the 1997 Landmine Ban Treaty and the 2008 Treaty Banning Cluster Munitions.” Just in case, it might be recalled the British observer that both the treaties he mentioned have not been signed by all the countries that are members of the United Nations, and of course the non-signatories are reluctant to implement these pacts. So where are the sanctions against these countries?
The next, 29th climate change conference will be held in Baku. “The UN is just making a mockery of humanity,” exclaim Mann and Hassell. “Azerbaijan is an oil country. And how can such an appointment be considered, if not as support for those for whom fossil fuels are the basis of the economy”, they add. To the detriment of everyone else, of course.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#West #launched #idea #ban #Russian #oil
