RE:RE:RE:Fossil fuel delegates at Climate ConferenceDespite UN rhetoric, COP 27, and noble statements, the plain fact is that national energy security will always take priority over carbon initiatives. Hunger and freezing to death seem to be good motivators. It IS about supply and demand. We will fight wars over it as demand exceeds supply. This policy was clearly laid out in China's congress last month, as well as the increased use of coal power in Europe and other emission sensitive countries to meet supply shortfalls in the face of critical demand. However, in the west, radical anti fossil fuel narrative is allowed where the hand superglued 'Woke' are allowed to shout their opinions and destroy infrastructure at will without being permanently locked up for treason as enemies of the state. Actions by the antis to limit exploration and production, are destroying the bridges needed to get to a less carbon intensive world. It results in using more coal, higher prices, and a costlier longer changeover.
Until the water runs dark yellow, most national themes will continue to be 'This is my section of the swimming pool, and I can pee in it if I want to.'
Donwaan wrote: Did you boys miss this sentence? The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), however, has issued stark warnings against developing any new fossil fuel infrastructure in order to limit warming to 2C or 1.5C and avoid catastrophic effects, including more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought and devastating floods. It isn't about supply and demand, it's about avoiding the forementioned catastrophic effects of a warming planet. Katrina, Fiona, Sandy, Ft. McMurray, Slave Lake, Australia fires and floods, Pakistan floods, heat domes; these are what are happening now with current fossil fuel infrastructure. Adding more is making a dire situation even worse. It isn't that complicated but it does require the openness and willingness to allow changes to take place.