COP28 host UAE to massively ramp up oil production, BBC learns
1 Like
Oddly, I’m beginning to think that this outburst of denial may prove to be a good thing.
As I write the article is less than two hours old & there’s already a massive amount of reaction that underlines how wrong he & his cohort of fossil fuel pushers are.
Holding this COP in this place may have produced better awareness of the depth of the problems than publicity from elsewhere might have done.*
- *Glass half full…
What would one expect from a rich Emirati except an Inshallah plan 
COP28: Record number of fossil fuel delegates at climate talks
The science compels: phase out fossil fuels’: Mary Robinson responds after Cop28 row
Damian Carrington
Mary Robinson has made her first comment since the row over the Cop28 president’s controversial and ill-tempered response to her questions on the need for a fossil fuel phase out, revealed by the Guardian.
Robinson, chair of the Elders and a former president of the Republic of Ireland, has taken a diplomatic approach, as perhaps befits a former UN climate change envoy. She does not name Sultan Al Jaber, who had told her a fossil fuel phase-out could mean “going back into caves”.
“A successful Cop28 is not about a single individual or nation, but the collective will and concerted efforts of all countries in these negotiations,” Robinson posted on X. “The science compels: phase out fossil fuels rapidly, accelerate renewable energy adoption, and radically scaled up finance.”
Al Jaber was forced to fiercely defend his respect for climate science on Monday, having told Robinson on 21 November that there was “no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C”, a view strongly rejected by many scientists.
Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, remained unimpressed:
“It’s clear that the comments by Al Jaber were a moment where the mask slipped and all his warm words about being a climate champion were revealed as greenwashing. When someone shows you what they are, we should believe them. He showed that when pushed, he lashed out with the climate denial lines proposed by the fossil fuel industry for years.”
“This Cop will be remembered for one thing: whether or not we get a fossil fuel phase-out date agreed or whether we don’t,” Adow said. “Actions speak louder than words and if we don’t get that phase out date, this Cop will be remembered as the one that was overseen by an oil baron.”
The former US vice president Al Gore was also outspoken, telling the New York Times:
“From the moment this absurd masquerade began, it was only a matter of time before [Al Jaber’s] preposterous disguise no longer concealed the reality of the most brazen conflict of interest in the history of climate negotiations. Obviously, the world needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible.”
Al Jaber is also CEO of the UAE’s state oil company. Gore said Al Jaber “has been preparing one of the most aggressive expansions of fossil fuel production, timed to begin as soon as he bangs the final gavel to conclude Cop28”.
The US climate envoy John Kerry, who is still involved in the Cop28 negotiations and has previously supported Al Jaber, remained diplomatic. He told Politico that Al Jaber’s “no science” comment may require “clarification”. Kerry said: “Maybe it came out the wrong way. Look, he’s gotta decide how he wants to phrase it, but the bottom line is this Cop needs to be committed to phasing out all unabated fossil fuel.” More than 100 countries are calling for that commitment.
It’s going to be the same as always, vague promises that they will all agree with, pat themselves on the back and then water down or put back dates like they always do, CopOut29/30/31 anyone 
1 Like
Fossil fuels: Can humanity really kick its addiction?
Stop moaning about COP28, start moaning about COP29.
1 Like
TTTP
(They’re Taking The P)
TTTTP
(They’re Totally Taking The P)
1 Like
I do wonder what planet these people are on.
It’s obviously not the same as the rest of us
1 Like
Does anyone feel like its pointless cutting back on our energy footprint and just keep burning petrol and diesel and coal?
Because thats probably exactly what they are aiming for.
History may answer that, if there’s anyone left to read it.
My view is that we must all at least try to solve the problem. The worst outcome would be that it’s a wasted effort & we’ve already rendered the future environment uninhabitable. Anything that mitigates that is a worth trying.
P.S. CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage) & the mass use of hydrogen as a fuel do not count as mitigating measures. Both of those distractions are being pedalled at COP28 by dishonest lobbyists.
It depends on how the hydrogen is produced, you never know it might be like all these touted new batteries for EV’s that are going to make them so eco friendly, they might find a way to make hydrogen in the bulk needed in a eco friendly way 
I don’t see why people keep on writing it off as a solution to part of the problem.
1 Like
Its because you have to use so much more energy to produce it so may as well use that in the batteries. If its used via a catalyst to produce electricity much the same and more valuable metals/minerals to go in the catalyst and if its burnt as a fuel replacement it still produces NoX and water vapour which is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
Like you keep on telling us 
battery technology has moved on significantly, hydrogen production has and will develop new technology for production and dealing with Nox and what about usage in fuel cells , but don’t let that get in the road of any bias
Electricity production isn’t without it’s problems which gets conveniently ignored by some on here with regards to type of production and the rise in the number of coal and gas power stations
1 Like
Yep as needs must new ways of doing things emerge. Just basing it on where we are now.
Where we are now and at this rate where we will be in 10 years is crap , so do we base new battery development and actual production in the now as well
I’ve never written it off, but it’s use is limited by…
A. The means of production - see @Corona’s input above.
B. The difficulty of using it safely in a mass market; you can’t just use existing gas mains, transport, & storage facilities due to the tiny atomic size of hydrogen i.e. it gets through seals & materials very easily.