COP28 Leader Slammed after claim against fossil fuel phaseout
"There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phaseout of fossil fuel is what's going to achieve 1.5C."
In his remarks revealed earlier this week by The Guardian, Al Jaber not only attempted to discredit the idea that preserving a livable climate requires phasing out fossil fuels—he attempted to paint the idea as extremist.
He said he expected a "sober and mature conversation," not an "alarmist" one, when former Ireland president Mary Robinson asked him during a panel discussion whether he would support a global effort to phase out fossil fuels. He appeared offended she even asked.
Al Jaber has attempted to walk back these comments amid uproar this week, claiming he believes "the phase down and the phaseout of fossil fuel is inevitable." Even U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry has shrugged off the comments, saying they probably "came out the wrong way."
🙄
|
How a Fossil Fuel Treaty Could Support the Paris Agreement
Inside Climate News is among the websites I subscribe to in my RSS feed. And largely I love their coverage. This headline got my attention, worrying that the fossil fuel lobbyists had gotten to them. But I ended up enjoying this article and getting a better insight into what could be useful and helpful. Will it ultimately be used for good? I honestly doubt it, but it raised an excellent point regarding that we're sort of going into this backwards by trying to lessen demand which puts no cap on production.
From the intro:
What we’re seeing here at COP28 is that fossil fuels have finally been dragged center stage, in part because of the fossil fuel treaty campaign around the world for the last three years raising awareness about the fact that we are not aligning the production of fossil fuels with Paris goals. Right now we are on track to produce 110 percent more oil, gas, and coal between now and 2030 than we can ever burn if we want to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We need new agreements between countries on who gets to produce what fossil fuels and how much, and for how long. We need a plan that’s based on equity and fairness to align production with a global carbon budget. And we’re going to need new financial mechanisms and cooperation to support countries in, first of all, stopping the expansion of fossil fuels, and then secondly, winding down the production of fossil fuels.
There are so many countries today that are expanding the production of fossil fuels just to feed their debt. So some of the areas that are being looked at under a fossil fuel treaty include debt relief or tax agreements and trade agreements in order to make stopping the expansion and production and winding down production viable for many countries around the world.
From the first actual Question and Answer of the article after the intro:
There’s something intuitive about the notion that we should be producing less fossil fuel. But I’ve also heard well reasoned arguments that targeting supply specifically will either be ineffective, because other countries will simply increase production to meet demand, or that if it is effective and begins to crimp supply, that it would lead to energy price spikes and volatility that would undermine political support and potentially hurt developing nations the most. What’s your response to these critiques?
Trying to phase out fossil fuels by designing policy that is only to reduce demand is like trying to cut with one half of the scissors. We need to cut both supply and demand because what we build today will be what we use tomorrow. So we’ve had 30 years of climate policy and negotiations, designed just to reduce demand. And it’s not working. It’s not working fast enough to keep us safe.
|
How a Fossil Fuel Treaty Could Support the Paris Agreement
Inside Climate News is among the websites I subscribe to in my RSS feed. And largely I love their coverage. This headline got my attention, worrying that the fossil fuel lobbyists had gotten to them. But I ended up enjoying this article and getting a better insight into what could be useful and helpful. Will it ultimately be used for good? I honestly doubt it, but it raised an excellent point regarding that we're sort of going into this backwards by trying to lessen demand which puts no cap on production.
From the intro:
What we’re seeing here at COP28 is that fossil fuels have finally been dragged center stage, in part because of the fossil fuel treaty campaign around the world for the last three years raising awareness about the fact that we are not aligning the production of fossil fuels with Paris goals. Right now we are on track to produce 110 percent more oil, gas, and coal between now and 2030 than we can ever burn if we want to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We need new agreements between countries on who gets to produce what fossil fuels and how much, and for how long. We need a plan that’s based on equity and fairness to align production with a global carbon budget. And we’re going to need new financial mechanisms and cooperation to support countries in, first of all, stopping the expansion of fossil fuels, and then secondly, winding down the production of fossil fuels.
There are so many countries today that are expanding the production of fossil fuels just to feed their debt. So some of the areas that are being looked at under a fossil fuel treaty include debt relief or tax agreements and trade agreements in order to make stopping the expansion and production and winding down production viable for many countries around the world.
From the first actual Question and Answer of the article after the intro:
There’s something intuitive about the notion that we should be producing less fossil fuel. But I’ve also heard well reasoned arguments that targeting supply specifically will either be ineffective, because other countries will simply increase production to meet demand, or that if it is effective and begins to crimp supply, that it would lead to energy price spikes and volatility that would undermine political support and potentially hurt developing nations the most. What’s your response to these critiques?
Trying to phase out fossil fuels by designing policy that is only to reduce demand is like trying to cut with one half of the scissors. We need to cut both supply and demand because what we build today will be what we use tomorrow. So we’ve had 30 years of climate policy and negotiations, designed just to reduce demand. And it’s not working. It’s not working fast enough to keep us safe.
|
"Biden-Harris Administration Announces $3.5 Billion for Largest Ever Investment in America’s Electric Grid, Deploying More Clean Energy, Lowering Costs, and Creating Union Jobs"
|
Small modular nuclear reactor design approved
I will be curious to see how often this is adopted. This isn't a design for people in their backyards, but it is a smaller design for actual power plant designs, etc.
I did find the tidbit that this is the seventh approved nuclear reactor design in the US. That number is simultaneously too large and too small in my mind.
|
"In Lebanon, Solar Power Is Booming. Why?"
In recent years, amid soaring inflation, unemployment, and poverty rates, Lebanese have faced devastating electricity shortages. But as I settled in, I began to notice something I'd never seen before in the city: Solar panels were popping up everywhere. From the rooftops and verandas of residential buildings to commercial establishments, people were now sourcing their own power to light up their homes and businesses.
|
Germany & France set to counter the US Green funding in recent bill
A reminder that global politics is not simple as even our efforts to further green energy as a US jobs effort.
German Economy Minister Robert Habeck and his French counterpart, Bruno Le Maire, suggested "targeted subsidies and tax-credits" for industrial sectors such as wind and solar power generation, heat pump manufacturing and hydrogen production.
At the same time, they urged the EU's executive commission to negotiate with Washington for European manufacturers to get the same exemptions the U.S. grants to Mexico and Canada, which are free-trade partners.
Many of the ideas coming from the EU's two biggest economies echo proposals by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who wrote to European leaders last week saying the bloc should adjust its rules on state aid to achieve the "unprecedented transformation" from fossil fuels to green power.
|
E-Bike?
No serious plans, but I have begun wondering if an E-bike might make sense for a future option when commuting to work. I used to bike to the office for a few years and enjoyed it, though I live further away now it might be an option to consider still.
|
A deep look at the new inflation reduction act, why its divisive among climate experts, and why its historic
Related, here is a piece in The Atlantic by Robinson Meyer - "The Best Evidence Yet That the Climate Bill Will Work"
The three new estimates were conducted by Energy Innovation; Rhodium Group, an energy-research firm in New York; and the REPEAT Project, a university-associated team led by Jesse Jenkins, a Princeton engineering professor. The studies represent a new spin on an old approach. Normally, when Congress considers a major piece of legislation, outside economists pore over its details, feeding them into computer models to estimate how each provision might affect GDP, inflation, and the federal budget deficit. Instead, the three groups looked at the bill’s climate effects, sketching what the bill could mean for carbon emissions, clean-energy deployment, and energy costs.
[...]
The Manchin-Schumer bill wouldn’t get all the way to Biden’s 2030 goal, Jenkins told me. But it would get close enough that states, cities, companies, and the Environmental Protection Agency could get the country over the finish line.
|
"Inside Clean Energy: Some EVs Now Pay for Themselves in a Year"
I had really really wanted to make my current "new" car an EV. I really did. But I couldn't find an EV option which I was comfortable inside and which fit our budget. But I am committing here, finances allowing, regardless of size - our next car will be electric. Granted, based on our current purchasing frequency, that is ten years down the road. We'll see.
Most of us think of gasoline prices in terms of dollars per gallon, not dollars per barrel. Luckily, when Molchanov did his analysis he used numbers even English majors could understand. A gallon of gas cost $3.10 in 2021, according to the Energy Information Administration. That same gallon costs a lot more this year, and Molchanov doesn’t expect things to get better. He expects the average cost for 2022 to be about $4.50 per gallon. But while gas prices have jumped about 45 percent, Molchanov expects electricity costs to increase in 2022 by just 6 percent, from 13.7 to 14.5 cents per kilowatt hour. It suddenly got a lot cheaper to charge a battery than fill up a gas tank.
|
