{"id":291228,"date":"2023-12-14T10:10:22","date_gmt":"2023-12-14T09:10:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=291228"},"modified":"2023-12-14T10:10:25","modified_gmt":"2023-12-14T09:10:25","slug":"cop28-achieves-nothing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=291228","title":{"rendered":"COP28 Achieves Nothing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Paul Homewood<\/p>\n\n\n\n

COP28 has finished with the usual backslapping, tears and claims of a historic, planet saving, landmark deal.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As usual though, when you dive into the detail of the agreement, you find that it is mostly smoke and mirrors:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

https:\/\/news.sky.com\/story\/cop28-agreement-latest-standing-ovation-after-world-first-agreement-but-activist-left-confused-why-people-are-happy-13029276<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main so-called achievement is the mention of the need to move away from fossil fuels, the first time it has ever been included in a Final Agreement. As one Professor points out, it has only taken 28 COPs, rather like the Ents in the Lord of the Rings, who took three hours to say hello to each other!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But just as in Glasgow at COP26 with coal, there was a total refusal from many countries to endorse the term \u201cPhase-Out\u201d, or even \u201cPhase-Down\u201d. Instead the Agreement states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTransitioning away from fossil fuels in our energy systems, beginning in this decade, in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is, to all intents and purposes, a meaningless fudge. The get out clause, in a just, orderly and equitable manner<\/em>, will allow China , India and the rest of the 24 strong Like-Minded grouping of developing countries (LDMC),<\/a> who vetoed the phase out of coal at COP26, to carry on using as much fossil fuel as they like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the term \u201ctransitioning\u201d is weaker than \u201cphase-down\u201d. China, for example, could argue it is already transitioning away, because it is increasing the share of renewables. It is of course also increasing its fossil fuel consumption in absolute terms if not share!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Agreement is also notable for making no mention of any financial package. It says nothing about how much money must be provided to developing countries, how it should be funded or distributed. This is a bitter blow to poorer countries, who are only interested in cash.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rest of the Agreement seems to be full of loopholes as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n