Brendan O’Neill: COP28 and the scourge of eco-imperialism
By Paul Homewood
From Spiked:
It feels like at COP28 the delusions of Western greens finally crashed against the shores of reality. The luxuriant doom-mongering of privileged eco-warriors who insist the world will end if we don’t phase out fossil fuels was confronted by a truth no reasonable person can deny: that fossil fuels remain vital to human life. In the gleaming oasis of Dubai it became clear that oil, gas and even coal are not going away anytime soon, however much the Gretas of the West might want them to. Why? Because – brace yourselves – India, China, Brazil and other nations are not prepared to sacrifice their economic health at the altar of our deranged anti-modernism.
On the surface, COP28 was like every other UN climate-change conference of recent years. There was the usual hypocrisy. Kings and sultans flew in on private jets to wag a collective finger at the rest of us for our eco-sins. There was the foot-stomping of pampered greens who think the final agreement didn’t go far enough. ‘This text is bullshit’, they chanted, outside the conference venue. (How did they get to the Arabian desert? Not by bicycle.) And yet those who looked harder, beyond the decadence, will have glimpsed one of the key clashes of our time – a global conflict of interests that is likely to shape humanity’s future. That’s the clash between Western ideologues who are exhausted with the modern world and developing nations who want in on the modern world. Between our misanthropic turn against the Industrial Revolution and their longing for such revolutions.
Most of the coverage is focusing on the final agreement. Some say it’s radical. This is ‘the first time’, says an excitable BBC, that a COP has ‘taken explicit aim at the use of fossil fuels’. Others say it’s disappointing because it only talks about ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels… in a just, orderly and equitable manner’. That’s a far cry from the ‘phaseout of fossil fuels’ eco-activists wanted to see. The absence of a promise to phase out such fuels is a ‘tragedy for the planet’, wails the Guardian, next to a photo of green activists blubbing outside the conference venue.
Yet it pays to look at why the idea of a ‘phaseout’ was, well, phased out. It’s because winding down fossil-fuel use would be suicidal for the developing world. It’s all very well for Westerners whose Industrial Revolutions took place 150 years ago to dry heave at the sight of coal-fired power stations, but for billions of people such stations are the difference between life and death, light and dark, food and no food. In admirably restrained language, African diplomats said at COP that ‘the idea of a fossil-fuel phaseout [is] unworkable’. A Bolivian official, speaking on behalf of a bloc that includes India, China and other large developing nations, went further: we cannot accept the targeting of ‘any sources of energy’, he said (my italics). ‘Any phaseout or phasedown… is unacceptable to us.’
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s bad enough watching green gesturing western governments being played for the fools they are. What’s worse is looking with horror at the damage the climate catastrophists will inflict if their wishes come to pass. Any world leader with a modicum of sense will give COP 29 a wide berth. I would encourage the developing nations, who will soon leave the UK and other western economies far behind, to give it a miss.
The only reason for them to go is to say no to any potential agreement that damages their progress, more power to their elbow.
They will attend as long as there is the possibility of them getting some cash.
“We must all do something, and when we say ‘we’, we mean you.”
Those that have been appointed to leadership positions in the ‘Developed’ Nations cease to speak on their behalf of their populations, and have morphed into ‘Independent’ World Leaders, independent from their own country. The UK have produced a few already!
They expect everyone to comply with their pronouncements, even if we know them to be based on a corrupt agenda. That’s just part of our punishment, being subjected to a dialectic political war, where some Truth, Mixed with ‘Untruths’, creates an ‘Even More Truthful Truth’.
🙂
It’s why we find the Green Agenda so annoying.
“Well, if you insist on suicide, can I have your golf clubs?”
The Third World vultures went to COP28 hoping for an estate sale of the West. In spite of all the BS Western press talk, the West isn’t yet close enough to suicide to give their stuff away.
Maybe at COP29. The odds are the West still won’t croak, but the stakes are too high not to go. King Charles probably believes they loved him at COP28, but they were all staring at him with envy in their hearts, with the thought in their heads, “When are you going to give your stuff away?” The speech suggested the king desired to give your stuff away, which will get them all back next year.
I’m afraid King Charles in meddling in politics and he should not be doing so in his new position as King. Can anyone imagine his Mother giving a speech at a COP meeting? No, of course not because she knew that would be unacceptable meddling with Britain’s constitution. It’s a great pity that she didn’t instill this lesson in her son.
You cannot instill a lesson in someone without a brain.
If CO2 emissions really are the root of the Climate Change ’emergency’ one would have thought a plan to phase out fossil fuels would have been agreed at COP1 yet here we are 28 years on and emissions rising not falling at all.
If emissions really were a problem, Obama and al Gore would not have purchased beach-front properties. Nor would they have a carbon footprint 100x larger than mine, and jet everywhere on private jets.
They know that Climate is the new Marxism.
Marxism tried class divisions for decades, but American and European workers were too well-fed for divisions and revolution. So now they choose to divide us by rayce, LGBeeT, and Climate. And they are having much more success this time around.
Ralph
PostBrexit,
it has taken along time but at last it seems some are beginning to realise that there is no point in a plan to ‘phase out fossil fuels’ unless there is a means to so do. The stumbling block is that there is not the means. Checkmate.
I have done my own article COP28 and how the targets will not be met. Feel free to run it if you like.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/cop28-not-much-cop
Surely, the elites/rulers of the developed countries are only PRETENDING they expect anything in the short term from the developing countries? And the audience for the pretence is the sheeple of the developed countries, who will continue to think it is a world-wide crusade.
I do not think the mad greens are entirely cynical in all this. I think they actually believe the developed countries will love being ‘net zero’, and the developing countries will ‘join the party.’
I am reminded of Rich Little doing a comedy sketch. He impersonated John Wayne, giving a pep talk to soldiers he was sending on a suicide mission; and closing with, “Waal, I would love to come with you…but I can’t seem to shake off this damned cold!”
I expect Australia will comply with all the green agenda and destroy more of our coal-fired power stations as Australia always seeks approval to be part of the big world. Meanwhile selling coal to China. Idiots.
I still have cognitive dissonance about why the developing world would want coal power when solar power is cheaper?
Why is no-one asking this question ?
Them dumbass backward natives want power at night.
GC you are replying to a chatbot.
https://github.com/kzbkzb
Even if I am a chatbot (which to the best of my knowledge I am not), you still have to address my points for the audience.
Colonialist AI?
Do chatbots do sarcasm?
“Do chatbots do sarcasm?” Sounds like the title of latest Philip K Dick book!
On a slightly more serious (off topic) note, doesn’t this demonstrate how elections could be/can/were “influenced”. Following a recent reply of yours I looked up the last US election…46% postal (mail out) votes. WTF was all that about?
Cheating in the guise of protecting people from Covid.
The USPS mailed out 135 million ballots. Democrats knew damn well there would be mass cheating. A feature, not a bug. It’s how Biden, whose rallies were attended by more press people than voters, got 81 million votes. It was outrageous. Yet the pussy Republicans were cowered into not making a peep about it, some saying it was “the fairest election evah!”
Batteries are supposed to be getting cheaper and cheaper as well as the solar panels.
Another thing, most of these developing nations are nearer the equator than us, so have much less variation in sunshine hours between summer and winter. This makes the job of storing enough energy for the night time less problematic than it is for us.
Well, for a start, solar power doesn’t work during the night. Who’d have thought it? It also doesn’t work very well on cloudy days.
Developing countries need despatchable (that is always on) power, just like we do, to keep their grids stable. You can only get that from fossil fuel and nuclear power stations I have my doubts about whether it is advisable to encourage certain developing countries to embrace nuclear power, so fossil fuels it is, I’m afraid.
Because solar is NOT cheaper, and they know it.
They are fudging the costs by not adding in the cost of stored backup, and not adding in the cost of replacement after 25 years (a nuclear plant will last 50 years, not 25). Plus these solar panels are being made with (Chinese) coal power – if they were made from renewable power, they would be twice as expensive.
When you add in all these extra costs, solar is 4x more expensive than they are claiming. They cannot claim a price, when relying on gas power as the backup for a lack of solar. Add in the FULL cost of the complete system, including storage.
Ralph
Hi! Mr Bot. Does your programming know that solar does not work at night? Does it know that if you supply battery back-up for solar the grifters in that country will sell the batteries? And the copper cabling? Does your programming know anything about life at all?
Reply meant fir kzbkzb
When chapman billies leave the street,
And drouthy neebors neebors meet,
As market-days are wearing late,
And folk begin to tak the gate;
While we sit bousin, at the nappy,
And gettin fou and unco happy,
We think na on the lang Scots miles,
The mosses, waters, slaps, and stiles,
That lie between us and our hame,
Whare sits our sulky, sullen dame,
Gathering her brows like gathering storm,
Nursing her wrath to keep it warm.
Does anyone know how I can get rid of the notifications on the rights side (on an iPad)?
They appeared last week, and I cannot get rid of them (they cover up much of the text).
R
Others say it’s disappointing because it only talks about ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels… in a just, orderly and equitable manner’.
Michael Mann said: “It’s like promising your doctor that you will ‘transition away from donuts’ after being diagnosed with diabetes.”
Justin Rowlatt actually asked for comments to his email address so I sent him the following, on 30 November Funnily enough, no reply yet, though I did try to assure him that it was in a spirit of genuine enquiry!
Hello, Justin,
Thanks for the articles and reports on this topic. Many of us have limited understanding of it but are expected to discuss the subject with children or grandchildren, who are very interested and often concerned due to the focus on this in schools and the media generally.
Taking a quick look round it seems that all the main media streams, plus governments, are totally on board with the idea that human-caused CO2 emissions are the principal cause of atmospheric heating, and that the end result of this will be a catastrophic change in the planet’s climate to the detriment of the vast majority of the world’s population and the ecosphere generally.
However, it also appears that the drive towards “Net Zero” or its equivalent will itself be severely damaging to humanity, and that this is almost inevitable, whereas the climate changes might have far less impact than is forecast by many of the models used.
In addition, there seems to be a growing body of opinion by figures with scientific credibility who have a broader perspective than those employed solely in this specific field that much of the warming is due to natural and cyclical causes and might even be largely beneficial, in line with earlier periods of history when temperatures were higher.
Is there any chance that an informed debate might take place, perhaps as a series on BBC, bringing together all these views so that your audiences can make up their own minds rather than just accepting what seems to be the “received wisdom”?
If nothing else, if the science truly is settled beyond reasonable doubt and the impact will be significantly negative it would give the opportunity to prove that to the general population and to motivate a greater determination to play our parts in doing something sensible about it, for young and old alike.
Many thanks