Nations' COP 26 Editing Efforts: A Punch List Of Magical Thinking, Intransigence And Stupidity

[hatrack]

EDIT

Last time the nations met, in Madrid in 2019, progress was scuppered by a wall of resistance with President Trump perched on top. The hope was that with Trump gone, and a US administration in place that recognises the need for action, such blockages could be overcome. This remains the aim in the run-up to the conference opening in Glasgow next weekend. Given the warnings from scientists, who are unequivocal about the dangers, there is no rational alternative than to persist with the attempt at global climate governance that the Cop represents. As the British Treasury acknowledged in a review published this week, the cost of inaction will be higher than the cost of action.

But there is no denying the scale of the challenge, which is colossal. The leaked documents show that Saudi Arabia, Japan and Australia continue to oppose the IPCC’s recommendations on the phasing-out of fossil fuels. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whose members include Iraq and Nigeria, also made submissions aimed at watering down these sections. Brazil and Argentina, meanwhile, argued strongly against evidence that meat consumption must be reduced if the world is to have a chance of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C or even 2C. A submission from Argentina even claimed that meat-based diets could contribute to reducing emissions, which flies in the face of evidence about the big contribution to global heating made by livestock, and particularly cattle.

The IPCC process is robust and science-based. The serious concerns raised by the leaks are not because observers think that the panel’s next report is likely to be substantially altered. The worry is more that the positions being taken by governments on crucial questions – such as Australia’s objection to closing down coal-fired power plants – reveal a deeply alarming unwillingness by politicians to do what scientists say is needed.

This reluctance, which at times seems more akin to magical thinking than policymaking, is also in evidence in the UK. This week’s publication of a net zero strategy was a big step forward, but huge gaps remain. Some of these are down to missing details. The Climate Change Committee that advises the government has promised to provide some analysis. Other missing pieces are explicitly ideological. Ministers not only declined to include behaviour change in the strategy, but removed a paper discussing the topic from the government website. When challenged on the decision to ignore advice on meat eating and aviation, the response was that there are “no plans whatsoever to dictate consumer behaviour”.

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/22/the-guardian-view-on-climate-secrets-leaked-documents-reveal-rising-stakes

[NNadir]

2. There certainly is a lot of magical thinking with respect to climate change.

Last edited Sun Oct 24, 2021, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Nobody decent likes Boris Johnson, but that said, his climate policy is significantly better than Germany's, although no one is talking about that.

The German dangerous natural gas loincloth for "wind and solar will save the world" has had some holes burned in it by smoldering coal cinders.

Of these three countries, which will have the most dependence on the generation of coal waste this winter, including but not limited to carbon dioxide, Germany, Britain or France?