AllTheirSubsidies
'RUsVille
There will still likely be changes, but the 'second draft' of the Cop26 manifesto was released today and some of the changes from the first draft have some folks, especially activists that are pushing for significant global change, upset.
.
Writing in the Energy Mix, which clearly has an activist bent, Mitchell Beer summarized things thusly:
A little too strident for you?
Fossil fuel subsidies got a new lease on life, vulnerable countries saw only limited progress on climate finance, and the push for faster, deeper carbon cuts was still being slow-walked in the latest draft decision documents published by COP 26 President Alok Sharma at 7:13 AM GMT today....
A little too strident for you?
Well how about we have a look at the following from Alexandra Ellerbuck in the Washington Post:
Gosh.
...The draft keeps in place a call for phasing out coal power and fossil fuel subsidies. It's the first direct reference to the need to phase out fossil fuels in such an agreement in decades, and some environmentalists had worried it might be cut due to lobbying from Saudi Arabia and other fossil fuel producers. But the devil is in the details, and critics have noted that a few additional words may weaken the text and provide wiggle room for fossil fuel backers: The draft now says countries should stop burning “unabated” coal and halt “insufficient” fossil fuel subsidies...
Gosh.
Now just who might have pushed for the watering down that led to the insertion of 'insufficient' in front of 'subsidies'?
Well, perhaps it was the largest contingent of 'delegates' who were, most definitely not acolytes of a young Scandinavian woman named Greta.
Matt McGrath had that story for the BBC News earlier in the week:
Imagine that!
There are more delegates at COP26 associated with the fossil fuel industry than from any single country, analysis shared with the BBC shows.
Campaigners led by Global Witness assessed the participant list published by the UN at the start of this meeting.
They found that 503 people with links to fossil fuel interests had been accredited for the climate summit.
These delegates are said to lobby for oil and gas industries, and campaigners say they should be banned...
Imagine that!
.
2 comments:
omg, they had the nerve to show their faces at the event. Guess that is what they get paid for. if there is going to be another one of these fests, it ought to be for government officials and registered enviornmental groups or NGOs doing enviornmental work, not oil companies or gas companies or any corporations, period.
How can we move forward if the "enemy" is present at a conference looking for solutions. Its like inviting armament corporations to a peace festival or gun manufacturers to an anti gun conference. Whoever decided to let these oil/gas, etc corporate representatives attend ought to be fired. If it is the organization itself who invited them, then disband the organization, its not doing much good anyhow. Nothing really has changed since these conferences have started, well things changed, but not for the better. They all go to have a nice vacation, get away from the kids, live in a nice hotel and party. Its a waste of tax payers' money.
there is this teenage girl talking about the environment and our future but the politicians and corporations really don't want to listen to her. they're afraid of her and hopes she goes away. She is going to be around for a long time, Ms. Greta Thunberg has some great ideas and its about time her advise was adopted and not that of corporations.
turned on the iphone this morning and there was the usual news. One article from the National Post was of interest. It dealt with corruption and the environment. The writer went on to list countries who embezzled the money which was meant for enviornmetal improvements, how much, who did it, etc. In her opinion enviornmental issues would be difficult to deal with if the world didn't deal with corruption first. /she does have a point. If an international organization sends money to a country to deal with a specific problem but 30% of the funds go into the politicians' pockets that is not a good thing. Which brought me back to my thoughts on climate change and dealing with it, its all about money and that isn't about to change until we change out the corporate people who attend these gatherings and change the politicians and accountability is implemented
Another wealthy country could send money to perhaps India or Pakistan to remediate something, but both countries spend billions on nuclear weapons and their military leaving their people to die from pollution. Does that make sense? Not to me.
We in the west, there is corruption, its just a tad different. We have lobbyists who gift, flatter, entertain politicians to see it their way.
Post a Comment