10 ms·

COP26 agrees new global climate deal

41 points by blacktulip 5y ago

blacktulip 5y ago
The language that has been agreed on for coal and fossil fuel subsidies has been "further watered down as the result of an untransparent process". >The Indian delegate has just called for a change to the wording of the draft climate agreement. >He asks for the line to call for the "phase-down" not the "phase-out" of unabated coal power. >This would be a major change to the text. >The line around coal and fossil fuels is seen as unprecedented language in a COP agreement.
syshum 5y ago
None of these agreements are worth the paper they are printed on The only realistic solution from global warming will not come from government action, or attempting to force nations into economic untenable positions that have the effect of lowering living standards for their populations. The only realistic solution is via technological innovation where by coal, oil, etc are made obsolete by natural market forces, not artificial tax schemes, fines, or other such agreements. People that continue down the path that making these fuels more expensive by artificial government actions will continue to be disappointed in the results, as people need to heat their home, move goods, etc and they will always want do to that by the cheapest means, injecting government policies that simply increase prices of those basic needs of society to make alternatives more attractive will never ever be popular with the majority citizens of any nation which is why nations look to water down the language. This is a PR event with no substance, like most international agreements.
- framecowbird 5y ago
  I have three counter points. First, my concern with technical innovation is that it will simply be exploited for increased output. If the process for making widgets is made twice as efficient, people will make twice the widgets and pollute just as much. Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market forces: governments are already skewing these forces with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop doing that. Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and support this development so that it can happen as quickly as possible. Free markets are not some efficient force that just always magically do the right thing when left to their own devices. They are marred by countless modes of failure. The underlying social and political issues are almost intractable, but they cannot be ignored just because it's too difficult. I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of this.
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market forces: governments are already skewing these forces with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop doing that. 100% agree, my entire post is about government inaction... My ideal government does nothing ;) that that applies to both sides of this, they should neither subsidize nor fine technologies. It should be up purely to market forces. >>Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and support this development so that it can happen as quickly as possible This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. >I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of this. All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right?
    - gefhfff 5y ago
      In Germany the government went out of the way when it came to digital technology Look where we ended up
    - xg15 5y ago
      > All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right? Except all the actual scientists are agreeing with GP. The "tech will save us" mantra seems to come mostly from business types and libertarian pundits, not from the people actually working on those technologies.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. You probably know this, but without government intervention we'd still have leaded petrol, and renewables wouldn't have been as developed without the massive subsidies.
- varelse 5y ago
  But at this point you don't actually need to subsidize solar with respect to coal you just have to discontinue all coal and oil subsidies and the free market does this organically. There are places where nuclear makes more sense but now that solar has dropped in price by 10x it is incredibly competitive. Can't we just let the free market work this out?
  - have_faith 5y ago
    What are the consequences to the poor of removing these subsidies in the short term? It reminds me of Chesterton’s fence. It doesn’t feel like a problem of markets, it seems like a problem of will from people in power. What’s the guarantee that the free market will move in a favourable direction with regards to the environment?
    - varelse 5y ago
      Because people are cheap and they don't like spending money and as soon as coal and oil are expensive they'll stop using it just like when you tell them they're fired if they don't get vaccinated most of them get vaccinated but please more downvotes because you want the world to work differently even though it doesn't. And by people I mean the 0.1 percenters who provide electricity and love those dividends they got off the backs of the rest of us not upgrading their systems and then whined about bankruptcy the minute anyone tried to hold them accountable. We're talking the same people who now want to put a tax on going off grid and installing solar because reasons and racism and s___ https://calcoastnews.com/2021/11/pge-claims-home-solar-is-racist-wants-to-gut-program/ https://calcoastnews.com/2021/11/pge-claims-home-solar-is-ra... I mean if coal is such a great solution why isn't it competitive and why do you hate free markets? Starting to think you might actually hate freedom and America. What could be more freedom(tm) than an open level playing field competition for our future?
      - syshum 5y ago
        >>Because people are cheap and they don't like spending money and as soon as coal and oil are expensive they'll stop using it just like when you tell them they're fired if they don't get vaccinated most of them get vaccinated While true, it does not make these actions ethical. Using threats of violence( and yes the mandates are threats of violence) to obtain a result you desire is unethical no matter how much you believe that action to be necessary. Once you use coercion via state violence to get your way you have lost all moral and ethical authority. >>And by people I mean the 0.1 percenters The problem here is the comment you were replying to asked about the poor, who if their heat bill goes up by 20% will have to choose between food and heat, will have to tell their kids "no Christmas for you this year" etc. You seemly have no concern for these people. To be clear, I am on your side when it comes to ending subsidies, though all subsidies including though on "green" energy as well I just do not think your argumentation is valid or going to win the hearts and minds of anyone
yesbut 5y ago
Binding?
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Not unless the Westphalian model is deconstructed.
  - jkepler 5y ago
    By Westphalion model, do you mean the sovereigty of nation states?
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      Yes
wiz21c 5y ago
OK, I'm the president of a huge country. 50% of its population tells me it wants me to leave fossil fuel. I write down my plan in a COP26 agreement. That plan is everything but leaving the fossil fuel. I sleep well at night because I absolutely don't represent my citizen's choice (cynical scenario) OR I know something they don't know which allows me to sleep well... (hopeful scenario)
- ahelwer 5y ago
  Not very mysterious. The reason you were elected was due to an intensely-expensive PR and media campaign. This requires a lot of money. A potential source of this money is a small group of people who financially benefit from the country's use of fossil fuels, and who are wealthy enough to never be affected by climate change. So you either comport your policies with their desires or your opponents do, and get elected instead.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    > A potential source of this money is a small group of people who financially benefit from the country's use of fossil fuels, and who are wealthy enough to never be affected by climate change. They are not wealthy enough to never be affected by climate change, no one is. What I believe is happening is that these people are high on power. They may realize that their course is self-destructive, but they don't know how to avert it, and asking them to abandon their power is antithetical to who they are.
    - ahelwer 5y ago
      If you can live anywhere in the world at negligible cost to yourself with little change to your standard of living then you will not be affected by climate change. The earth will not be uninhabitable; just large swathes of it. The rich will never be affected by climate change. They are not in the same boat.
      - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
        Somehow I suspect large swatches of the earth becoming uninhabitable could have an impact on the global economy.
gefhfff 5y ago
Depressing Frustrating I don't know what to say
MaxGanzII 5y ago
The Paris agreement has not been kept to. This agreement will not be kept to. What will happen is climate change will continue, perhaps accelerating a bit more slowly than it would otherwise have done, becoming more and more destructive and harmful, until the situation is so up-front right-now deadly serious that action is finally taken, by which time action will not matter, because of the huge lag between cutting emissions and reduction in the rate of climate change. What will be needed at that point is geo-engineering, on a global scale. The technology for this does not exist, it will need to be invented, and then cost-reduced, and then deployed on a global scale on a point-blank timescale - like going from zero to manufacturing every single car in the world in five or ten years. I have no hope this will actually work, and it's madness for civilization as we know it, and to avoid the deaths of billions, to depend upon it.
- ahevia 5y ago
  I agree with you except the last part. We are certainly on track to experience the worse case scenario and have to fallback on geoengineering. However there is work we can do to start testing geoengineering in the field today. Some countries like the UAE already work on cloud seeding pilot projects & the cooling effects/mechanics of volcanos are still being understood. I am hopeful that the generation of leaders who will be in power by then will have what it takes to deploy even a fraction of a geoengineering solution. What the solar geoengineering field needs today is funding for research & modeling methods
- WithinReason 5y ago
  How will billions die from climate change?
  - roenxi 5y ago
    How will we avoid billions dying even if we avoid climate change? The future is almost never rosy on a global scale. Peak oil & a lack of available cheap energy continues to be the #1 threat for massive death and destruction. Climate change is distracting people from the actual problem which is energy security.
  - 5y ago
s5300 5y ago
Dear HN: What should those of us who are completely powerless in this do? I am a fairly empathetic person, and the fact that over a billion people are likely to die from wet bulb or whatever else, purely in the name of money, greed, & systematic buffoonery has me pretty mentally fucked up already. Would it be in my best interest to find some sort of drugs that completely turn off my empathy for the next two decades? Because the other options I can think of aren't very compatible with life. The outcome at this point is essentially inevitable, the U.S. seems pretty incapable of rolling out the amount of nuclear we'll need to divert a global catastrophe.
- jstgord 5y ago
  late reply .. here in Australia, party politics means a tiny minority of coal/gas enthusiast incumbents get sway over the general populations desires [ admittedly many of whom are apathetic, but not a majority I think ] This works both ways - if we can replace a few climate skeptics with climate action independent candidates then that might move the needle on government intransigence. Strangely, the uptake of solar panels has been great down-under .. yet the uptake of electric vehicles has been appalling, with state governments even imposing a road tax on sales. The real problem here is the government _subsidizes_ coal and gas, and we are even approving new gas fields for exploitation. It is hard to maintain empathy and hope and still be a realist .. but I hope you will stay motivated and take what action you can. We may be able to use tech in creative ways to circumvent government inaction - For example : instead of waiting for the government to roll out a carbon price or carbon tax .. everyday people may invest in a green-energy crypto token asset which is used to raise funds for clean energy projects ? side note : Ive been actively DIS-couraging smart people in Australia to talk about nuclear, here - the problem here is it would take 15 years to even do the paperwork, and we have shown very little competence in rolling out high tech engineering projects [ NBN broadband failure as one example, submarines another ] .. so I think unless you have nuclear in place or in development already, there just isn't time. Meanwhile we could and should be building as many solar plants as possible, in parallel, essentially without such major regulation needed. Dont let the bastards wear you down, keep doing all the things .. every ton of carbon we keep in the ground is a win that buys our kids time - so thankyou.
- 5y ago
belval 5y ago
A lot of comments seem to take the cynical route of pointing out that this is not enough or that the promises won't be kept. This is all true of course but misses why summits like the COP26 are held at all. Elected officials need broad support from their base to enact policies that can have a hit on quality of life. Fighting climate changes with the solutions that we have right now requires actual sacrifices from the people, and that is never good news for elected officials because their constituent ultimately value their comfort much more than possible future gains or sea level in third world countries. Now when they hold a summit, they get some needed spotlight on the issue and get to have everyone in the media stress out how important that fight is. This translates into a stronger support for environmental policies at the local level which turns it into a key issue for voters. Once that's achieved the line moves for everyone and it's easier to push far reaching changes. On forums such as HN where the majority is center-left (at least on environmental issues), achieved higher-education and probably younger than the median American it's easy to lose sight on the fact that climate change is still not seen as an absolute truth for a significant chunk of the world[1]. Summits such as the COP26 helps raise more awareness and hopefully we'll have enough support before it's really too late. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/ft_19-04-18_climatechangeglobal_since2013concerns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-h...
nomendos 5y ago
Is China signed and committed ?

41 points by blacktulip 5y ago

The language that has been agreed on for coal and fossil fuel subsidies has been "further watered down as the result of an untransparent process". >The Indian delegate has just called for a change to the wording of the draft climate agreement. >He asks for the line to call for the "phase-down" not the "phase-out" of unabated coal power. >This would be a major change to the text. >The line around coal and fossil fuels is seen as unprecedented language in a COP agreement.

syshum 5y ago

None of these agreements are worth the paper they are printed on The only realistic solution from global warming will not come from government action, or attempting to force nations into economic untenable positions that have the effect of lowering living standards for their populations. The only realistic solution is via technological innovation where by coal, oil, etc are made obsolete by natural market forces, not artificial tax schemes, fines, or other such agreements. People that continue down the path that making these fuels more expensive by artificial government actions will continue to be disappointed in the results, as people need to heat their home, move goods, etc and they will always want do to that by the cheapest means, injecting government policies that simply increase prices of those basic needs of society to make alternatives more attractive will never ever be popular with the majority citizens of any nation which is why nations look to water down the language. This is a PR event with no substance, like most international agreements.

framecowbird 5y ago
I have three counter points. First, my concern with technical innovation is that it will simply be exploited for increased output. If the process for making widgets is made twice as efficient, people will make twice the widgets and pollute just as much. Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market forces: governments are already skewing these forces with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop doing that. Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and support this development so that it can happen as quickly as possible. Free markets are not some efficient force that just always magically do the right thing when left to their own devices. They are marred by countless modes of failure. The underlying social and political issues are almost intractable, but they cannot be ignored just because it's too difficult. I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of this.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market forces: governments are already skewing these forces with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop doing that. 100% agree, my entire post is about government inaction... My ideal government does nothing ;) that that applies to both sides of this, they should neither subsidize nor fine technologies. It should be up purely to market forces. >>Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and support this development so that it can happen as quickly as possible This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. >I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of this. All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right?
  - gefhfff 5y ago
    In Germany the government went out of the way when it came to digital technology Look where we ended up
  - xg15 5y ago
    > All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the one time we should ignore history right? Except all the actual scientists are agreeing with GP. The "tech will save us" mantra seems to come mostly from business types and libertarian pundits, not from the people actually working on those technologies.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors, including energy production, that once the government gets out of the way real progress begins. You probably know this, but without government intervention we'd still have leaded petrol, and renewables wouldn't have been as developed without the massive subsidies.
varelse 5y ago
But at this point you don't actually need to subsidize solar with respect to coal you just have to discontinue all coal and oil subsidies and the free market does this organically. There are places where nuclear makes more sense but now that solar has dropped in price by 10x it is incredibly competitive. Can't we just let the free market work this out?
- have_faith 5y ago
  What are the consequences to the poor of removing these subsidies in the short term? It reminds me of Chesterton’s fence. It doesn’t feel like a problem of markets, it seems like a problem of will from people in power. What’s the guarantee that the free market will move in a favourable direction with regards to the environment?
  - varelse 5y ago
    Because people are cheap and they don't like spending money and as soon as coal and oil are expensive they'll stop using it just like when you tell them they're fired if they don't get vaccinated most of them get vaccinated but please more downvotes because you want the world to work differently even though it doesn't. And by people I mean the 0.1 percenters who provide electricity and love those dividends they got off the backs of the rest of us not upgrading their systems and then whined about bankruptcy the minute anyone tried to hold them accountable. We're talking the same people who now want to put a tax on going off grid and installing solar because reasons and racism and s___ https://calcoastnews.com/2021/11/pge-claims-home-solar-is-racist-wants-to-gut-program/ https://calcoastnews.com/2021/11/pge-claims-home-solar-is-ra... I mean if coal is such a great solution why isn't it competitive and why do you hate free markets? Starting to think you might actually hate freedom and America. What could be more freedom(tm) than an open level playing field competition for our future?
    - syshum 5y ago
      >>Because people are cheap and they don't like spending money and as soon as coal and oil are expensive they'll stop using it just like when you tell them they're fired if they don't get vaccinated most of them get vaccinated While true, it does not make these actions ethical. Using threats of violence( and yes the mandates are threats of violence) to obtain a result you desire is unethical no matter how much you believe that action to be necessary. Once you use coercion via state violence to get your way you have lost all moral and ethical authority. >>And by people I mean the 0.1 percenters The problem here is the comment you were replying to asked about the poor, who if their heat bill goes up by 20% will have to choose between food and heat, will have to tell their kids "no Christmas for you this year" etc. You seemly have no concern for these people. To be clear, I am on your side when it comes to ending subsidies, though all subsidies including though on "green" energy as well I just do not think your argumentation is valid or going to win the hearts and minds of anyone

yesbut 5y ago

Binding?

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Not unless the Westphalian model is deconstructed.
- jkepler 5y ago
  By Westphalion model, do you mean the sovereigty of nation states?
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    Yes

wiz21c 5y ago

OK, I'm the president of a huge country. 50% of its population tells me it wants me to leave fossil fuel. I write down my plan in a COP26 agreement. That plan is everything but leaving the fossil fuel. I sleep well at night because I absolutely don't represent my citizen's choice (cynical scenario) OR I know something they don't know which allows me to sleep well... (hopeful scenario)

ahelwer 5y ago
Not very mysterious. The reason you were elected was due to an intensely-expensive PR and media campaign. This requires a lot of money. A potential source of this money is a small group of people who financially benefit from the country's use of fossil fuels, and who are wealthy enough to never be affected by climate change. So you either comport your policies with their desires or your opponents do, and get elected instead.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > A potential source of this money is a small group of people who financially benefit from the country's use of fossil fuels, and who are wealthy enough to never be affected by climate change. They are not wealthy enough to never be affected by climate change, no one is. What I believe is happening is that these people are high on power. They may realize that their course is self-destructive, but they don't know how to avert it, and asking them to abandon their power is antithetical to who they are.
  - ahelwer 5y ago
    If you can live anywhere in the world at negligible cost to yourself with little change to your standard of living then you will not be affected by climate change. The earth will not be uninhabitable; just large swathes of it. The rich will never be affected by climate change. They are not in the same boat.
    - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
      Somehow I suspect large swatches of the earth becoming uninhabitable could have an impact on the global economy.

gefhfff 5y ago

Depressing Frustrating I don't know what to say

MaxGanzII 5y ago

The Paris agreement has not been kept to. This agreement will not be kept to. What will happen is climate change will continue, perhaps accelerating a bit more slowly than it would otherwise have done, becoming more and more destructive and harmful, until the situation is so up-front right-now deadly serious that action is finally taken, by which time action will not matter, because of the huge lag between cutting emissions and reduction in the rate of climate change. What will be needed at that point is geo-engineering, on a global scale. The technology for this does not exist, it will need to be invented, and then cost-reduced, and then deployed on a global scale on a point-blank timescale - like going from zero to manufacturing every single car in the world in five or ten years. I have no hope this will actually work, and it's madness for civilization as we know it, and to avoid the deaths of billions, to depend upon it.

ahevia 5y ago
I agree with you except the last part. We are certainly on track to experience the worse case scenario and have to fallback on geoengineering. However there is work we can do to start testing geoengineering in the field today. Some countries like the UAE already work on cloud seeding pilot projects & the cooling effects/mechanics of volcanos are still being understood. I am hopeful that the generation of leaders who will be in power by then will have what it takes to deploy even a fraction of a geoengineering solution. What the solar geoengineering field needs today is funding for research & modeling methods
WithinReason 5y ago
How will billions die from climate change?
- roenxi 5y ago
  How will we avoid billions dying even if we avoid climate change? The future is almost never rosy on a global scale. Peak oil & a lack of available cheap energy continues to be the #1 threat for massive death and destruction. Climate change is distracting people from the actual problem which is energy security.
- 5y ago

s5300 5y ago

Dear HN: What should those of us who are completely powerless in this do? I am a fairly empathetic person, and the fact that over a billion people are likely to die from wet bulb or whatever else, purely in the name of money, greed, & systematic buffoonery has me pretty mentally fucked up already. Would it be in my best interest to find some sort of drugs that completely turn off my empathy for the next two decades? Because the other options I can think of aren't very compatible with life. The outcome at this point is essentially inevitable, the U.S. seems pretty incapable of rolling out the amount of nuclear we'll need to divert a global catastrophe.

jstgord 5y ago
late reply .. here in Australia, party politics means a tiny minority of coal/gas enthusiast incumbents get sway over the general populations desires [ admittedly many of whom are apathetic, but not a majority I think ] This works both ways - if we can replace a few climate skeptics with climate action independent candidates then that might move the needle on government intransigence. Strangely, the uptake of solar panels has been great down-under .. yet the uptake of electric vehicles has been appalling, with state governments even imposing a road tax on sales. The real problem here is the government _subsidizes_ coal and gas, and we are even approving new gas fields for exploitation. It is hard to maintain empathy and hope and still be a realist .. but I hope you will stay motivated and take what action you can. We may be able to use tech in creative ways to circumvent government inaction - For example : instead of waiting for the government to roll out a carbon price or carbon tax .. everyday people may invest in a green-energy crypto token asset which is used to raise funds for clean energy projects ? side note : Ive been actively DIS-couraging smart people in Australia to talk about nuclear, here - the problem here is it would take 15 years to even do the paperwork, and we have shown very little competence in rolling out high tech engineering projects [ NBN broadband failure as one example, submarines another ] .. so I think unless you have nuclear in place or in development already, there just isn't time. Meanwhile we could and should be building as many solar plants as possible, in parallel, essentially without such major regulation needed. Dont let the bastards wear you down, keep doing all the things .. every ton of carbon we keep in the ground is a win that buys our kids time - so thankyou.
5y ago

belval 5y ago

A lot of comments seem to take the cynical route of pointing out that this is not enough or that the promises won't be kept. This is all true of course but misses why summits like the COP26 are held at all. Elected officials need broad support from their base to enact policies that can have a hit on quality of life. Fighting climate changes with the solutions that we have right now requires actual sacrifices from the people, and that is never good news for elected officials because their constituent ultimately value their comfort much more than possible future gains or sea level in third world countries. Now when they hold a summit, they get some needed spotlight on the issue and get to have everyone in the media stress out how important that fight is. This translates into a stronger support for environmental policies at the local level which turns it into a key issue for voters. Once that's achieved the line moves for everyone and it's easier to push far reaching changes. On forums such as HN where the majority is center-left (at least on environmental issues), achieved higher-education and probably younger than the median American it's easy to lose sight on the fact that climate change is still not seen as an absolute truth for a significant chunk of the world[1]. Summits such as the COP26 helps raise more awareness and hopefully we'll have enough support before it's really too late. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/ft_19-04-18_climatechangeglobal_since2013concerns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-h...

nomendos 5y ago

Is China signed and committed ?