Developing nations blast $300B COP29 climate deal as insufficient(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Developing nations blast $300B COP29 climate deal as insufficient
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/wealthy-countries-back-raising-cop29-climate-deal-300-billion-sources-say-2024-11-23/
60 comments
[deleted]
There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon, though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/
What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
> though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/
I mean the agreement is between the countries and not ruling regimes/parties. I would find it hard to assume that a diplomat will say we didn't agree on anything, this was previous government to be very appealing argument. Although there are details like in the US getting back on their pledges and who can say something. But that's more of power dynamics and not actual argument. Otherwise these countries engaged in decades long agreements with many parties (even international agreements) without problems.
I mean the agreement is between the countries and not ruling regimes/parties. I would find it hard to assume that a diplomat will say we didn't agree on anything, this was previous government to be very appealing argument. Although there are details like in the US getting back on their pledges and who can say something. But that's more of power dynamics and not actual argument. Otherwise these countries engaged in decades long agreements with many parties (even international agreements) without problems.
> There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon
That is my point exactly, most countries have agreed to targets and deadlines that they have not met either through inaction or something else entirely.
So what is the point of the new targets if the old targets have not been met yet?
> What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
How about meeting the previous targets before setting new ones? Otherwise you just loose credibility.
That is my point exactly, most countries have agreed to targets and deadlines that they have not met either through inaction or something else entirely.
So what is the point of the new targets if the old targets have not been met yet?
> What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
How about meeting the previous targets before setting new ones? Otherwise you just loose credibility.
They go there to make fossil fuel deals, environmental protection is just the fake messaging for the proletariat.
The alternatives is planning for the max disaster- and that means ordering and storing coffins in bulk. We could get a pretty good deal if we order NOW.
I am sorry I am not sure I understand what you mean by your comment.
> Make it make sense.
Since you asked:
It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and the team really cares about making a success of it, but the finance department has told the board privately that if the project is a success it would make most of the rest of their incredibly lucrative business obsolete, so now they need to figure out how to make the project fail slowly in a way that makes it seem to the team that they're trying their best so they don't get the blame for it afterwards.
tldr; [thisisfine.gif]
Since you asked:
It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and the team really cares about making a success of it, but the finance department has told the board privately that if the project is a success it would make most of the rest of their incredibly lucrative business obsolete, so now they need to figure out how to make the project fail slowly in a way that makes it seem to the team that they're trying their best so they don't get the blame for it afterwards.
tldr; [thisisfine.gif]
> It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and the team really cares about making a success of it, but the finance department has told the board privately that if the project is a success it would make most of the rest of their incredibly lucrative business obsolete, so now they need to figure out how to make the project fail slowly in a way that makes it seem to the team that they're trying their best so they don't get the blame for it afterwards.
I disagree with you.
The "team" as you put it does not care about making it a success as we have seen in the last decade. Germany closing it's nuclear reactors and replacing them with Russian gas plants, France pushing diesel engines up until the end of the 2010s and marketing them as a safer alternative to other ICE engines, the list goes on and on with governments doing stupid things after stupid things.
Who is the finance department in this case? the corporations? The oil producers? Because that is not very clear to me.
I disagree with you.
The "team" as you put it does not care about making it a success as we have seen in the last decade. Germany closing it's nuclear reactors and replacing them with Russian gas plants, France pushing diesel engines up until the end of the 2010s and marketing them as a safer alternative to other ICE engines, the list goes on and on with governments doing stupid things after stupid things.
Who is the finance department in this case? the corporations? The oil producers? Because that is not very clear to me.
The analogy I was going for was that the team is the public, the finance department is the corporations and state-owned fossil fuel companies, and the board are the governments involved in the COP.
Admittedly it wasn’t a great analogy or particularly clear.
Admittedly it wasn’t a great analogy or particularly clear.
To put it in Roddenberrian terms (where the Federation Finance Department was never discussed), it's as though the heroic Captain of the Enterprise is ordering the Chief Engineer to replace the propulsion system because its emissions are fouling the Life Support System with toxins.
"Mister, we need to protect of the lives of the crew and sustain the mission!"
"Ah, nyet Captain, I am safe down here so far, maybe we replace you instead."
"Mister, we need to protect of the lives of the crew and sustain the mission!"
"Ah, nyet Captain, I am safe down here so far, maybe we replace you instead."
This whole charade is so ill conceived. Honestly, the top 20 developed nations are literally THE problem. It's a demand side problem not a supply side one. We need to stop buying container loads of virtually disposable electronics from China every week, stop driving to the shops, stop running energy intensive appliances, you get the drift. Of course if people actually did this it would tank our developed economies.
If there was a better and cheaper option to replace fossil fuels for transportation and energy, the transition would naturally happen. Why would anyone buy a gas car if electric was better and cheaper in every way? Maybe a few petrolhead enthusiasts but everyone would switch if it was cheaper and better and the infrastructure was in place.
But instead of doing the work (infrastructure) and making the technology better and cheaper, a strategy of carrots and sticks was employed ($ incentives and taxation) that haven’t progressed the technology.
The reason we burn gas in our cars is because it was better and cheaper than the previous fuels.
But instead of doing the work (infrastructure) and making the technology better and cheaper, a strategy of carrots and sticks was employed ($ incentives and taxation) that haven’t progressed the technology.
The reason we burn gas in our cars is because it was better and cheaper than the previous fuels.
IMO: as an answer to your question of why:
Inertia, Investment, (existing) Infrastructure, and greed.
Investment and profit to be made off of it also relate to lobbying, laws, and further investment.
Some related issues for electric vehicles are the increased load on power grid/supply, how Internal Combustion Engines provide (relatively) free heat in cold climates, and that cold snaps require vehicles with batteries to self-heat.
They're issues that have some solutions, but it's not wave a wand at things and they're fixed. The problem also reminds me of connectivity in houses, where by now we should have at least gigabit ports in every room, but increasingly consumers see houses barely suitable for wifi and cell connections.
There are things the market just won't self select despite the good involved for consumers. Maybe if we vote for non-idiots there will eventually be regulation to help.
Inertia, Investment, (existing) Infrastructure, and greed.
Investment and profit to be made off of it also relate to lobbying, laws, and further investment.
Some related issues for electric vehicles are the increased load on power grid/supply, how Internal Combustion Engines provide (relatively) free heat in cold climates, and that cold snaps require vehicles with batteries to self-heat.
They're issues that have some solutions, but it's not wave a wand at things and they're fixed. The problem also reminds me of connectivity in houses, where by now we should have at least gigabit ports in every room, but increasingly consumers see houses barely suitable for wifi and cell connections.
There are things the market just won't self select despite the good involved for consumers. Maybe if we vote for non-idiots there will eventually be regulation to help.
Why is it so hard to admit or understand that the transition hasn’t happened yet at critical mass scale because the technology is more expensive and not equal or better than ICE for consumers?
When a product is better and cheaper, inertia is overcome and consumers switch!
Go look up the historical transitions of fuel sources!
When a product is better and cheaper, inertia is overcome and consumers switch!
Go look up the historical transitions of fuel sources!
This only works if all externalities (e.g. global costs of greenhouse gas production, pollution,...) are correctly priced in.
By that logic also, everyone would by expensive razors and cheap razor blades because they would see that it costs less in the long term than cheap razors and expensive blades.
Maybe because it's not that simple? A new technology and a new infrastructure will be more expensive initially, until it reaches a critical mass. So, to reach that critical mass you need early adopters who take the hit, and to help sweeten the hit, you give them money under the form of incentives to buy the new EV or create the charging infrastructure. That's one of the main duties of a welfare state.
Personally for me a big thing is how finicky EVs are.
If there is no electricity you are out, if it's snowing too much you are out and so on. I don't want to buy something that stops working when anything isn't optimal.
If there is no electricity you are out, if it's snowing too much you are out and so on. I don't want to buy something that stops working when anything isn't optimal.
ICE vehicles can be finicky as well (but the technology has matured over a century) but yes, they aren’t quite totally better in every way.
They certainly work in the snow though, but there is range penalties in the cold. Gas cars stop working when they aren’t in their optimal conditions as well than includes having enough fuel.
I think requiring reliable electric infrastructure for charging cars is a good investment in the future because reliable power is good for more than just cars.
They certainly work in the snow though, but there is range penalties in the cold. Gas cars stop working when they aren’t in their optimal conditions as well than includes having enough fuel.
I think requiring reliable electric infrastructure for charging cars is a good investment in the future because reliable power is good for more than just cars.
That is way too polarised. In a world just introducing ICE cars, gas stations once where rare too—without those, you’d be short of luck as well. Give it a bit of time, and you’ll have a reliable charging grid.
Additionally, much of the fear of running out of electricity has been instilled by the oil and car lobby. The problem is hugely inflated over the actual experience of driving an EV in reality.
And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
Additionally, much of the fear of running out of electricity has been instilled by the oil and car lobby. The problem is hugely inflated over the actual experience of driving an EV in reality.
And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
> Additionally, much of the fear of running out of electricity has been instilled by the oil and car lobby. The problem is hugely inflated over the actual experience of driving an EV in reality.
True, but i want to still be able to use my car when shit hits the fan, like in a storm or even in a war, there were photos of teslas left out in the cold in ukraine.
While with an ICE car all you need is just a gallon of gas.
> And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
The difference is for EVs they are finicky to use, while ICE vehicles are finicky mechanically, which doesn't seem to be an issue in day to day driving.
True, but i want to still be able to use my car when shit hits the fan, like in a storm or even in a war, there were photos of teslas left out in the cold in ukraine.
While with an ICE car all you need is just a gallon of gas.
> And in terms of finickiness, there are SO many ways an ICE can break, so many replacement parts, maintenance requirements, and complexity compared to an electric engine. You’re just used to those in ICEs.
The difference is for EVs they are finicky to use, while ICE vehicles are finicky mechanically, which doesn't seem to be an issue in day to day driving.
the simple solutions from clueless people are always very entertaining. They got all the fixes for the world’s problems, if only these damn politicians did their work!1!1
Yeah, the hundreds of billions of dollars that the oil economy spends every year is not what creates this distortion, sure. Let’s just wait for the market forces to fix it.
Yeah, the hundreds of billions of dollars that the oil economy spends every year is not what creates this distortion, sure. Let’s just wait for the market forces to fix it.
The oil lobby did not force Germany to close it's nuclear reactors and start importing Russian gas instead to power their whole country. The oil producers did not lobby the EU to add a 25% tariff on EVs from China.
Finally, the oil lobby is not responsible for the horrendous EU electricity prices which is making it literally impossible for some people to warm their homes in the winter months let alone charge and EV.
I am happy to blame the oil lobby for a lot of things but the politicians have to share this blame as well.
Finally, the oil lobby is not responsible for the horrendous EU electricity prices which is making it literally impossible for some people to warm their homes in the winter months let alone charge and EV.
I am happy to blame the oil lobby for a lot of things but the politicians have to share this blame as well.
You mean you don't believe in the power of "they should just..."? ;)
I wish they (COP crowd) would talk about TFR and do rollouts under worst case scenario.
Low TFR countries should continue to shrink. But high TFR countries are likely to get less poor. They are the problem. If people are truly fungible like they say, migrating low consumption people to high consumption states despite local resistance is the worst idea ever. I wish they would focus on these points.
Low TFR countries should continue to shrink. But high TFR countries are likely to get less poor. They are the problem. If people are truly fungible like they say, migrating low consumption people to high consumption states despite local resistance is the worst idea ever. I wish they would focus on these points.
> I wish they (COP crowd) would talk about TFR and do rollouts under worst case scenario.
I wish you had defined TFR so we can understand if you are attacking poor countries or defending the riches
I wish you had defined TFR so we can understand if you are attacking poor countries or defending the riches
TFR is total fertility rate. GP is saying "the problem is not the overconsumption in the rich countries with low TFR, it's the poor countries with high TFR getting richer and consuming more and people migrating to countries where they consume more".
Which falls apart looking at the map of highest ghg emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions vs the negative impact caused by climate change and the ability to mitigate https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking .
curtailing migration without massive reduction in the overconsumption by the rich countries amounts to having the poorer nations pay bills (via enduring disasters) for damage they didn't cause, which I find an injustice. Doing that and limiting economic growth and thus limiting the capability of dealing with the disasters would just be cruelty.
If you want to reduce migration without injustice or cruelty, you need to make sure other countries remain livable and thrive, hence the OPs hook.
Which falls apart looking at the map of highest ghg emissions https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions vs the negative impact caused by climate change and the ability to mitigate https://gain-new.crc.nd.edu/ranking .
curtailing migration without massive reduction in the overconsumption by the rich countries amounts to having the poorer nations pay bills (via enduring disasters) for damage they didn't cause, which I find an injustice. Doing that and limiting economic growth and thus limiting the capability of dealing with the disasters would just be cruelty.
If you want to reduce migration without injustice or cruelty, you need to make sure other countries remain livable and thrive, hence the OPs hook.
By the tone I could imagine GP was being xenophobic, thanks for clarifying. Checking his comments history is nauseating. HN has such a specific kind of troll that makes one lose hope for humanity a bit.
I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money.
People in countries that go the extra mile to keep the environment as clean as possible and that already cleanup after others, are being extorted money to give to a country that's responsible, for instance, for the most plastic being poured into the ocean after China. [1]
This is a total inversion of principles and a reinforcement of negative behavior. These countries should be suffering penalties, not getting rewards.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...
People in countries that go the extra mile to keep the environment as clean as possible and that already cleanup after others, are being extorted money to give to a country that's responsible, for instance, for the most plastic being poured into the ocean after China. [1]
This is a total inversion of principles and a reinforcement of negative behavior. These countries should be suffering penalties, not getting rewards.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...
> I find it baffling that, for instance, India, one the most polluted and polluting country in the planet on several metrics, is one of the recipient of the money.
It's for tackling climate change, not pollution.
It's for tackling climate change, not pollution.
Considering that the average person in these so called developed countries pollute and consume far more than the average person in India and China, I don't see your point.
Well, one of the points is trying to figure out how that constantly used "per capita" argument ever solves environmental problems.
Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis?
Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?
Exactly why should we reward India when it comes to pollution just because they have a lot of people? What does that do for the environment and for solving the climate crisis?
Should the West start doing their part when it comes to save the environment by having a lot more children?
So what do you want India to do? Have de-population programs? Split into 1000 smaller countries so that each country is well below the average developed country in raw environmental impact?
It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.
It's more fair to use a per capita metric rather than per country. Not only does the average person in developed countries consume far more, they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China. So they're just outsourcing their environmental impact.
> they also use much more goods manufactured from places like India and China
since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?
since the argument seems to be that rich countries are using China and India to produce the co2, could these two countries simply stop making the tat that we import from them? If that will tank their economy, then wouldn't us stopping the imports of tat also tank their economy?
It will tank their economies, which is why we’re paying them, basically,
what will happen is that we'll pay them and they will simply sell their labour to whoever else will buy it and still burn up the same resources/cause pollution/realease co2. It's like when we pay poachers not to kill elephants - they take the money and still sell the tusks.
The very first thing to do, is to not take money from people on developed countries to give to India. A wealth transfer should only go to developing countries that are improving their environmental impact, never to countries like India that are constantly doing worst.
Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
Then, to look at CO2 emissions per land area. Which should be the fairest way of measuring the countries that are actually doing good, instead of rewarding high birthrates that only make the environmental problem worst.
...by what theory of justice is CO2 per land area just? You didn't will your birthplace.
I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.
I replied to the high birthrate fallacy/dogwhistle in another comment in this thread.
By the justice of keeping the planet from going above what its natural resources can replenish. Which, is actually the all excuse being given to take money from some people to give to other: saving the planet.
Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them.
I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.
Also, they didn't will the number of relatives they have, and yet, here you are arguing that they should be entitled to the same material wealth as an individual that has a lot less of those than them.
I could even be pressed to give part of my material wealth (and of my 1.53 children) if the others were actually improving their carbon footprint, but at this point I'm just being extorted of my money to give them so that they can emit even more CO2. It's maddening, and it has absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.
This sounds like someone standing on a sinking ship asking why everyone onboard needs to be given their share of available tools to help plug the leaks, when those tools could be used to create surplus for those having tools.
The entire point is that developed nations went through their phase of intense pollution, came out the other side, and are now rich because of that history. Developing nations can't afford the luxury of clean industries, because they can barely afford the dirty ones!
The money is aimed at getting them "over the hump" in the least polluting manner possible.
It's like... helping up others after you've climbed the wall instead of pulling up the ladder behind you and blaming them for being lower than you.
The money is aimed at getting them "over the hump" in the least polluting manner possible.
It's like... helping up others after you've climbed the wall instead of pulling up the ladder behind you and blaming them for being lower than you.
Every 1$ that's extorted from the citizens of developed nations to give to most of the developing nations (India one of them), is going to build the single most productive industry regardless of how dirty it is. Giving money to these nations, only increases the pollution even more.
The system is totally inverted to the level of insanity. We should be rewarding developing nations that are decreasing their pollution levels, not rewarding developing nations that are polluting even more.
The system is totally inverted to the level of insanity. We should be rewarding developing nations that are decreasing their pollution levels, not rewarding developing nations that are polluting even more.
Nobody is "rewarding" polluting countries. The idea is to give poor nations money so that they can build clean energy infrastructure, as well as handle the damage already caused by climate change, for which the developed countries have much responsibility.
It seems like they are. Look at how migration works too. For some reason, moving humans from low CO2 regimes to high CO2 regimes is seen as "good" or "human rights" but also everyone must cut CO2. It's incoherent actions all around.
TFR is the big thing that is ignored. Look at 50-100 years out. Low TFR stable CO2 countries will solve themselves. One high TFR country that becomes less poor (produces more CO2) dominates future CO2 paths.
TFR is the big thing that is ignored. Look at 50-100 years out. Low TFR stable CO2 countries will solve themselves. One high TFR country that becomes less poor (produces more CO2) dominates future CO2 paths.
Why is it baffling at all? Indians can’t spend as much money as say someone in the US. Shouldn’t the money go where it’s the most beneficial?
Those who benefited from the carbon emissions at the cost of others on a per capita basis need to take accountability of funneling the accrued capital to those who are suffering because of it.
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
If the argument is that we should now pay up for our ancestors not having the foresight to understand that industrializing during the 19th and early 20th century was going to have a negative impact on the environment, then I also expect other people to pay up for their ancestors during the 19th, early 20th, and even late 20th century not understanding that having a lot of children would have a negative impact on the environment.
I don't know why the lens you view this through is retributional, us vs them, or about taxing success of developed nations or rewarding people of a particular geography. Population growth is not an independent variable, it depends on availability of arable land, resources, education, urbanization, regulating structures/incidents. All human populations tend to have similar trends based on the above. Just because someone draws a line on the map around a lot of arable land doesn't mean it is overpopulated.
Climate change is going to effect every one even if those in developing nations suffer disproportionately. The quicker we transition our energy architecture away from non-renewables the better off everyone is. Those with surplus capital have the power to make this happen faster by helping those without. The alternative is choosing to suffer by delaying this with an us vs them narrative.
Climate change is going to effect every one even if those in developing nations suffer disproportionately. The quicker we transition our energy architecture away from non-renewables the better off everyone is. Those with surplus capital have the power to make this happen faster by helping those without. The alternative is choosing to suffer by delaying this with an us vs them narrative.
...are you attacking the babyboomers parents?
And more seriously the argument is that if we on the lottery and our ancestors did the damage before we understood it, then yes, we don't get to keep the benefits from other people and have _them_ foot the bill of avoiding further damage via stifled growth. That social contract doesn't work.
Nevermind that _right now_ per capital emissions and pollution and leads to similar policy implications. It's not just our ancestors overconsuming , it's us
And more seriously the argument is that if we on the lottery and our ancestors did the damage before we understood it, then yes, we don't get to keep the benefits from other people and have _them_ foot the bill of avoiding further damage via stifled growth. That social contract doesn't work.
Nevermind that _right now_ per capital emissions and pollution and leads to similar policy implications. It's not just our ancestors overconsuming , it's us
The Indian government is doing a lot, and there have been serious reductions in pollution. They have also pivoted massively into renewable energy and have some of the biggest solar farms in the world which is more directly applicable to climate change. There are nine new nuclear reactors currently slated to be completed by 2027. It’s just such a large country with so many people without basic civic sense that it’s going to take a long time to make changes. On the bright side, it’s a very community based system as opposed to an individualistic one like the West so when those changes are eventually picked up, the cultural adherence is going to be very high.
That there were sixty-five private jets parked in Baku says much about how seriously this is being taken.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to...
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/15/did-people-have-to...
Less than half the US military budget
"You can keep beating me but you should pay the first hospital bill". A short term mitigation but a long/middle term death sentence. That is what they were pursuing for.
Maybe is all that could be obtained as things are set up, and I mean mostly about the power structures around this, including the very COPx organization.
Maybe is all that could be obtained as things are set up, and I mean mostly about the power structures around this, including the very COPx organization.
" $300 billion annually by 2035" to me 300 sounds pretty good. But that's a long time
200 countries pledged $300 billion per year in total - not very much since climate change disasters are already costing tens of billions a year and many human lives in the US alone.
Also this target is 11 years away.
Definitely disappointing.
Also this target is 11 years away.
Definitely disappointing.
Ah yes punishment for inventing the sail.
Each time we have the leaders on every country saying that this time for real they are going to stick with the plan and lower their emissions. Yet according to this link: https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/the-climate-cr... The progress on the already agreed targets has been lacking.
It's like having a meeting about a project whose deadline was 3 weeks ago and having your team tell you that the new deadline 2 days from now will for sure be met this time.
Countries keep agreeing to new targets that are even more ambitious than the previous unmet targets. It's not as if just publishing the new targets will make the old targets much more achievable.
Make it make sense.