Another Climate-Change Summit crashes and burns. Why?

[James Brown]

I read a Letter to an Editor for a local newspaper who wrote that he doesn't mind if the oceans warm up because, and I quote, "I prefer the taste of warm-water fish."

 

[Ford]

Everyone who really cares about climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions is agreeing that the current Climate-Change summit in Dubai is a disaster, total failure to produce any needed change.


Why can't any progress be made? What stands in the way?

People

And, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles. So, your answer is the correct one. It's just about all of us who are the problem. Even those of us who support changes aren't doing enough, to promote or initiate change. To quote a memorable line from the movie "Ferris Bueller" " I weep for the Future".

No, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles, but putting the onus on individuals for not recycling or not driving more fuel efficient cars is off base as well.

I make it a point to drive in "Eco mode" to and from work, do my laundry on weekends or during "off peak" hours, and do other things to be more efficient, but as an individual my power to change or even support change together with other individuals is dwarfed by the power of the fossil fuel industry and governments that subsidize them. People would like change, but people aren't going to make much progress in the face of the quarterly stock price needs of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Me taking my recycling out to the curb tomorrow is a relative drop in the ocean.

 

[rousseau]

Everyone who really cares about climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions is agreeing that the current Climate-Change summit in Dubai is a disaster, total failure to produce any needed change.


Why can't any progress be made? What stands in the way?

People

And, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles. So, your answer is the correct one. It's just about all of us who are the problem. Even those of us who support changes aren't doing enough, to promote or initiate change. To quote a memorable line from the movie "Ferris Bueller" " I weep for the Future".

No, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles, but putting the onus on individuals for not recycling or not driving more fuel efficient cars is off base as well.

I make it a point to drive in "Eco mode" to and from work, do my laundry on weekends or during "off peak" hours, and do other things to be more efficient, but as an individual my power to change or even support change together with other individuals is dwarfed by the power of the fossil fuel industry and governments that subsidize them. People would like change, but people aren't going to make much progress in the face of the quarterly stock price needs of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Me taking my recycling out to the curb tomorrow is a relative drop in the ocean.

This take gets repeated, but I don't think it's quite right either. Realistically, what are oil companies supposed to do? Who is the individual within these companies that's going to convince them to do .. what exactly? Are executives supposed to just shutter the company? How would that work? And this is setting aside how tied the industry is into the day-to-day functioning of the global economy.

The problem is that some people want change, but not enough of them, so governments can't really act.

 

[Ford]

Everyone who really cares about climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions is agreeing that the current Climate-Change summit in Dubai is a disaster, total failure to produce any needed change.


Why can't any progress be made? What stands in the way?

People

And, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles. So, your answer is the correct one. It's just about all of us who are the problem. Even those of us who support changes aren't doing enough, to promote or initiate change. To quote a memorable line from the movie "Ferris Bueller" " I weep for the Future".

No, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles, but putting the onus on individuals for not recycling or not driving more fuel efficient cars is off base as well.

I make it a point to drive in "Eco mode" to and from work, do my laundry on weekends or during "off peak" hours, and do other things to be more efficient, but as an individual my power to change or even support change together with other individuals is dwarfed by the power of the fossil fuel industry and governments that subsidize them. People would like change, but people aren't going to make much progress in the face of the quarterly stock price needs of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Me taking my recycling out to the curb tomorrow is a relative drop in the ocean.

This take gets repeated, but I don't think it's quite right either. Realistically, what are oil companies supposed to do?

Make a little less profit. They don't have to shut down immediately, or even in the near term. Yet for some reason, an executive at such a company that said "instead of making 20 billion in profit this year, what if we cut back on emissions and made only 15 billion?" would be thrown out the window. Anything less than maximum profit for the year or even the quarter is unacceptable. The fate of the climate 20 or 30 or 50 years down the road doesn't concern people who are thinking "we need another 5% in the 4th quarter or we're not serving our shareholders."

 

[rousseau]

Everyone who really cares about climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions is agreeing that the current Climate-Change summit in Dubai is a disaster, total failure to produce any needed change.


Why can't any progress be made? What stands in the way?

People

And, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles. So, your answer is the correct one. It's just about all of us who are the problem. Even those of us who support changes aren't doing enough, to promote or initiate change. To quote a memorable line from the movie "Ferris Bueller" " I weep for the Future".

No, people don't like change, especially when it comes to their lifestyles, but putting the onus on individuals for not recycling or not driving more fuel efficient cars is off base as well.

I make it a point to drive in "Eco mode" to and from work, do my laundry on weekends or during "off peak" hours, and do other things to be more efficient, but as an individual my power to change or even support change together with other individuals is dwarfed by the power of the fossil fuel industry and governments that subsidize them. People would like change, but people aren't going to make much progress in the face of the quarterly stock price needs of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. Me taking my recycling out to the curb tomorrow is a relative drop in the ocean.

This take gets repeated, but I don't think it's quite right either. Realistically, what are oil companies supposed to do?

Make a little less profit. They don't have to shut down immediately, or even in the near term. Yet for some reason, an executive at such a company that said "instead of making 20 billion in profit this year, what if we cut back on emissions and made only 15 billion?" would be thrown out the window. Anything less than maximum profit for the year or even the quarter is unacceptable. The fate of the climate 20 or 30 or 50 years down the road doesn't concern people who are thinking "we need another 5% in the 4th quarter or we're not serving our shareholders."

Sure, but it's a lot easier to sit on a forum and say that this should be done, a lot harder to be the person in the room trying to convince others to take .. five billion .. off the table. This is social dynamics, not ethics.

This is why the oil industry, and every industry, needs policy to coerce it's behavior, and why they expend so much effort trying to avoid policy. But governments are borderline incompetent / malevolent at worst, and at their very best at the whims of millions of selfish people.

We can keep pointing our finger at the oil industry, but until governments get the support they need to actually enact regulations, nothing's going to happen. It physically can't.

 

[thebeave]

The liberals believe in supporting a transition to move from reliance on fossil fuels. The conservatives have fought that transition every step of the way since Reagan took solar panels off the White House. The best thing for the environment and atmosphere was the oil embargo as that forced America to embrace more fuel efficient cars. But even with that, the Republicans fought even the hamhocked CAFE standards every step of the way.

So no, this isn't a both sides thing. The Democrats in DC realized that a switch flip change to alternative power wasn't feasible for a first world economy, and they aimed at transitioning. A rather pragmatic approach. Meanwhile, the right-wing wanted to save a few bucks, and now those savings are coming at the expense of insurance companies who are making more and more payouts for flood related insurance and other severe weather events.

The biggest problem is the nuclear, as it is the only real way forward. Not burning coal helps a lot, but natural gas isn't a perfect solution. We have to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere today, not 30 years from now. But no one wants nuclear in America, at least, not in their backyard. So the transition to electric cars isn't going to help all too much as we trade a good of emissions for a bit less.

There is some clarification needed here. First off, the solar panels that were put on the White House by Carter were solar hot water heating panels, not photovoltaic panels as some people seem to think. Though maybe you were aware of that...its not clear. At any rate, solar water heating panels would barely make a dent in decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels. They would be pretty useless during winter months. Secondly, they were removed from the White House roof when there was some resurfacing of the roof required in 1986, and they were not reinstalled back on. There is some question as to the reason for that, but it's not obvious it was done to give the middle finger to Jimmy Carter or renewable energy.

White House Solar Panels

And yes, nuclear power is the way forward. Reagan was a big proponent of that. Its the Democrats who have been (and still are to a large degree) fighting its implementation. Here's an interesting Opinion piece from the NY Times back in 1981:

NUCLEAR REAGANOMICS

Nuclear power is the only major program the Reagan Administration has completely spared during its campaign to reduce Federal spending. And yesterday the President made clear his intention to bail out the ailing nuclear power industry. No energy program less deserves such favoritism.

Growing public opposition, faltering Wall Street support, and mounting evidence that other energy sources will better promote the national welfare make nuclear power unworthy of Presidential rescue efforts.

The special place that nuclear power occupies in President Reagan's heart was made abundantly clear during the first round of budget cuts this spring. Nuclear development was the only program - besides the military, of course - to receive a major funding increase for fiscal 1982.

While cutting $40 billion primarily from such social programs as public housing and food stamps, President Reagan raised the budget for nuclear energy 36 percent, to $1.6 billion. Meanwhile, funding was sharply reduced in every other Department of Energy program. Money for solar energy was slashed 67 percent, support for conservation 75 percent.

Yes, he cut conservation severely (which was dumb) and solar energy (which was not as viable then as it is now, but still should have been adequately funded for R&D at the very least).

In his major policy statement released yesterday , Mr. Reagan endorsed ''streamlining the licensing process'' - a euphemism for slashing safety regulations so that nuclear plants can be built faster and more cheaply. He also pledged indirect subsidies for reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium, and directed Secretary Edwards to ''proceed swiftly'' to build a nuclear waste repository, despite widespread public doubt that a safe disposal method has been found.

All this Mr. Reagan is doing for an energy source that, beyond its much-discussed health, envi ronmental and proliferation hazards, is aneconomic weak ling. Nuclear power provides just 3 percent of total United States energy. ''Energy Future,'' the study by Harvard Business Scho ol's Energy Project, concluded: ''There is simply no reasonable po ssibility for 'massive contributions' from nuclear powerfor at least the rest of the 20th century. Nuclear power offers no solution to t he problem of America's growing dependence on imported oil.''

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Which countries are the worst offenders?
(emitting too much carbon)


This is a ranking of countries (partial listing) measuring carbon emissions per capita. The units are tons/capita. Most of the poor countries are omitted.

A reasonable premise should be that lower emissions per capita reflects better performance by that country -- whatever it may be that they're doing right.

It's debatable whether the number can be excusably higher for poor countries (because they can't afford to phase out carbon), or if rich countries are entitled to burn more carbon because they at least pay for their extra carbon emissions (in higher energy price/tax) and it's OK to do more damage if you also pay the price for it (as an "externalities" cost).

Most poor countries are omitted from the list here, but some are included if they fall very high or low in the list. Countries at the top should be considered among the worst offenders which need to change their practices, i.e., reduce their carbon consumption. If there's GUILT somewhere, it's not the production but the consumption which is to blame -- "If there were no demand, there'd be no supply."

India, Indonesia, Sweden, and Switzerland, near the bottom, are among the better performers. Poor countries excluded from this list fall mostly near the bottom.

Along with several oil-producing countries, Canada and the U.S. and Australia are too high on the list.

CO2 Emissions per Capita - Worldometer

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions per Capita for each Country in the world

www.worldometers.info

tons/capita -- country
_____________________________

38.14 -- Qatar
25.07 -- Kuwait
24.33 -- United Arab Emirates
23.80 -- Trinidad & Tobago
19.97 -- Oman
18.72 -- Canada
17.39 -- Luxembourg
17.35 -- Bahrain
17.15 -- Australia
17.02 -- Estonia
15.47 -- Saudi Arabia
15.32 -- United States
11.77 -- South Korea
11.73 -- Taiwan
11.69 -- Iceland
11.12 -- Bahamas
10.62 -- Czech Republic
10.14 -- Bermuda
09.76 -- Japan
09.54 -- Netherlands
09.42 -- Germany
09.31 -- Finland
08.47 -- Singapore
08.45 -- Malaysia
08.44 -- Austria
08.37 -- Belgium
08.30 -- Norway
08.29 -- Ireland
08.24 -- New Caledonia
07.99 -- Israel
07.44 -- China
07.14 -- Martinique
07.13 -- New Zealand
06.92 -- South Africa
06.78 -- Slovakia
06.66 -- Denmark
06.33 -- Hong Kong
06.31 -- Greece
05.96 -- Italy
05.74 -- Cyprus
05.72 -- Venezuela
05.60 -- United Kingdom
05.42 -- Spain
05.20 -- Hungary
05.18 -- France
04.96 -- Macao
04.85 -- Portugal
04.74 -- Switzerland
04.60 -- Argentina
04.49 -- Chile
04.49 -- Sweden
03.84 -- Thailand
03.63 -- Mexico
03.03 -- Belize
02.68 -- Cuba
02.44 -- Ecuador
02.02 -- Indonesia
01.91 -- Uruguay
01.89 -- India
01.68 -- Costa Rica
00.03 -- Greenland


The source for the above, https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ , ranks the countries not according to emissions per capita but according to total emissions by each country, so that China is at the top of the list, emitting the most carbon, which means very little because its population is so much larger. So the above emissions per capita ranking is more useful for seeing which countries are more to blame for the excess carbon emissions.

 

[TSwizzle]

Jeezus, this obsession with “carbon” needs to stop.

 

[barbos]

Which countries are the worst offenders?
(emitting too much carbon)


This is a ranking of countries (partial listing) measuring carbon emissions per capita. The units are tons/capita. Most of the poor countries are omitted.

A reasonable premise should be that lower emissions per capita reflects better performance by that country -- whatever it may be that they're doing right.

It's debatable whether the number can be excusably higher for poor countries (because they can't afford to phase out carbon), or if rich countries are entitled to burn more carbon because they at least pay for their extra carbon emissions (in higher energy price/tax) and it's OK to do more damage if you also pay the price for it (as an "externalities" cost).

Most poor countries are omitted from the list here, but some are included if they fall very high or low in the list. Countries at the top should be considered among the worst offenders which need to change their practices, i.e., reduce their carbon consumption. If there's GUILT somewhere, it's not the production but the consumption which is to blame -- "If there were no demand, there'd be no supply."

India, Indonesia, Sweden, and Switzerland, near the bottom, are among the better performers. Poor countries excluded from this list fall mostly near the bottom.

Along with several oil-producing countries, Canada and the U.S. and Australia are too high on the list.

CO2 Emissions per Capita - Worldometer

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions per Capita for each Country in the world

www.worldometers.info

tons/capita -- country
_____________________________

38.14 -- Qatar
25.07 -- Kuwait
24.33 -- United Arab Emirates
23.80 -- Trinidad & Tobago
19.97 -- Oman
18.72 -- Canada
17.39 -- Luxembourg
17.35 -- Bahrain
17.15 -- Australia
17.02 -- Estonia
15.47 -- Saudi Arabia
15.32 -- United States
11.77 -- South Korea
11.73 -- Taiwan
11.69 -- Iceland
11.12 -- Bahamas
10.62 -- Czech Republic
10.14 -- Bermuda
09.76 -- Japan
09.54 -- Netherlands
09.42 -- Germany
09.31 -- Finland
08.47 -- Singapore
08.45 -- Malaysia
08.44 -- Austria
08.37 -- Belgium
08.30 -- Norway
08.29 -- Ireland
08.24 -- New Caledonia
07.99 -- Israel
07.44 -- China
07.14 -- Martinique
07.13 -- New Zealand
06.92 -- South Africa
06.78 -- Slovakia
06.66 -- Denmark
06.33 -- Hong Kong
06.31 -- Greece
05.96 -- Italy
05.74 -- Cyprus
05.72 -- Venezuela
05.60 -- United Kingdom
05.42 -- Spain
05.20 -- Hungary
05.18 -- France
04.96 -- Macao
04.85 -- Portugal
04.74 -- Switzerland
04.60 -- Argentina
04.49 -- Chile
04.49 -- Sweden
03.84 -- Thailand
03.63 -- Mexico
03.03 -- Belize
02.68 -- Cuba
02.44 -- Ecuador
02.02 -- Indonesia
01.91 -- Uruguay
01.89 -- India
01.68 -- Costa Rica
00.03 -- Greenland


The source for the above, https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ , ranks the countries not according to emissions per capita but according to total emissions by each country, so that China is at the top of the list, emitting the most carbon, which means very little because its population is so much larger. So the above emissions per capita ranking is more useful for seeing which countries are more to blame for the excess carbon emissions.

Why did you exclude Russia? and Kazakhstan?

 

[JohnG]

My thinking is that there are a few factors at play:

1) A great deal of people out there don't understand the problem, and don't support any serious changes to their lifestyle. {snip}

Al Gore, John Kerry, Greta "Scoldilocks" Thunberg, Gavin Newsom and Teh Gruaniad do understand "the problem"? "The problem" is that the aforementioned have been prattling on about the coming climate apocalypse for decades now and it has yet to manifest. So most people realize that "the problem" is male bovine excrement.

2) Global infrastructure is too reliant on fossil fuels, and there's no quick or easy way out of it.

And as the president of Cop 28 Al Jaber said, there is no science out there that doing away with "fossil fuels" would achieve the arbitrary 1.5c temperature increase maximum etc. So it is completely unnecessary (and totally unrealistic) to get out of "fossil fuels" by arbitrary deadlines.


It really is a religion.


It's a catastrophic 62f in Santa Monica today.

Declaring your local weather forecast is a dead give-away you have no idea what you are talking about

 

[barbos]

2) Global infrastructure is too reliant on fossil fuels, and there's no quick or easy way out of it.

3) Organizational dynamics. The fossil fuel industry is literally incapable of deconstructing itself, the only way to phase it out is to end the world's reliance on fossil fuels.

Organizations are dumb, they are not designed to think long term.
There are easy ways to fix large part of the problem, but it would be less profitable for greedy bastards.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Countries ranked according to CO2 emissions per capita
Revised list -- still most poor and/or small countries excluded

tons/capita -- country
_____________________________

38.14 -- Qatar
25.07 -- Kuwait
24.33 -- United Arab Emirates
23.80 -- Trinidad & Tobago
19.97 -- Oman
18.72 -- Canada
17.39 -- Luxembourg
17.35 -- Bahrain
17.15 -- Australia
17.02 -- Estonia
15.47 -- Saudi Arabia
15.32 -- United States
13.51 -- Turkmenistan
12.83 -- Kazakhstan
11.77 -- South Korea
11.73 -- Taiwan
11.69 -- Iceland
11.45 -- Russia
11.12 -- Bahamas
10.62 -- Czech Republic
10.14 -- Bermuda
09.76 -- Japan
09.54 -- Netherlands
09.42 -- Germany
09.31 -- Finland
08.47 -- Singapore
08.45 -- Malaysia
08.44 -- Austria
08.37 -- Belgium
08.30 -- Norway
08.29 -- Ireland
08.24 -- New Caledonia
07.99 -- Israel
07.71 -- Iran
07.70 -- Poland
07.44 -- China
07.14 -- Martinique
07.13 -- New Zealand
06.92 -- South Africa
06.78 -- Slovakia
06.66 -- Denmark
06.33 -- Hong Kong
06.31 -- Greece
05.96 -- Italy
05.74 -- Cyprus
05.72 -- Venezuela
05.60 -- United Kingdom
05.42 -- Spain
05.20 -- Hungary
05.20 -- Ukraine
05.18 -- France
04.96 -- Macao
04.85 -- Portugal
04.74 -- Switzerland
04.66 -- Lithuania
04.60 -- Argentina
04.54 -- Turkey
04.49 -- Chile
04.49 -- Sweden
04.20 -- Iraq
03.98 -- Romania
03.87 -- Algeria
03.84 -- Thailand
03.63 -- Mexico
03.48 -- Uzbekistan
03.24 -- Thailand
03.03 -- Belize
02.68 -- Cuba
02.44 -- Ecuador
02.24 -- Brazil
02.21 -- Vietnam
02.20 -- Egypt
02.02 -- Indonesia
01.91 -- Uruguay
01.89 -- India
01.85 -- Peru
01.68 -- Costa Rica
01.63 -- Colombia
01.21 -- Philippines
00.83 -- Pakistan
00.47 -- Bangladesh
00.44 -- Nigeria
00.03 -- Greenland



(There are probably a few errors/omissions in the above.)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

2) Global infrastructure is too reliant on fossil fuels, and there's no quick or easy way out of it.

3) Organizational dynamics. The fossil fuel industry is literally incapable of deconstructing itself, the only way to phase it out is to end the world's reliance on fossil fuels.

Organizations are dumb, they are not designed to think long term.
There are easy ways to fix large part of the problem, but it would be less profitable for greedy bastards.

New technology will be the solution, with future greedy capitalists making a profit investing in the new technology.

There will be a lot of unnecessary damage done in the meantime because any near-time solution is politically unpopular. But science eventually will save us (again), rather than politics or democracy.

Probably 100 years (200?) will be required, and 50-100 million lives lost who might have been saved by better politics (better than the Reds or Blues).

 

[barbos]

New technology will be the solution,

You underestimate power of old technologies.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

New technology will be the solution,

You underestimate power of old technologies.

Fusion power will most likely be the solution.

 

[barbos]

New technology will be the solution,

You underestimate power of old technologies.

Fusion power will most likely be the solution.

In that case we are all doomed

 

[TSwizzle]

New technology will be the solution, with future greedy capitalists making a profit investing in the new technology.

Solution to a non issue. But greedy capitalists are making plenty profit now, selling dead end technologies like windmills and EVs with huge subsidies from tax payers.

 

[bilby]

New technology will be the solution

That "New technology" was developed in the 1950s, (and is the reason why France has roughly half the per capita emissions of Germany, despite their having very similar economies).

We don't need anything new; We just need to implement what we already have.

 

[James Brown]

Jeezus, this obsession with “carbon” needs to stop.

Why is that?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Jeezus, this obsession with “carbon” needs to stop.

Why is that?

Presumably, if the alarmists are wrong about the apocalypse which hasn’t arrived yet then surely all of climate science must be wrong, too.