TUHO: Al Gore
COP28 is now on the verge of complete failure. The world desperately needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but this obsequious draft reads as if OPEC dictated it word for word. It is even worse than many had feared. It is “Of the Petrostates, By the Petrostates and For the Petrostates.” It is deeply offensive to all who have taken this process seriously. There are 24 hours left to show whose side the world is on: the side that wants to protect humanity’s future by kickstarting the orderly phase out of fossil fuels or the side of the petrostates and the leaders of the oil and gas companies that are fueling the historic climate catastrophe. In order to prevent COP28 from being the most embarrassing and dismal failure in 28 years of international climate negotiations, the final text must include clear language on phasing out fossil fuels. Anything else is a massive step backwards from where the world needs to be to truly address the climate crisis and make sure the 1.5°C goal doesn’t die in Dubai

The draft “really doesn’t meet the expectations of this COP in terms of the urgently needed transition to clean sources of energy and the phaseout of fossil fuels,” U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said during a fractious, closed-door meeting late Monday night and early Tuesday, which POLITICO listened to via an unsanctioned feed.
But representatives of other countries, including a bloc that includes China and India, said they would not accept any language proposing either a “phaseout” or “phase-down” of specific energy sources.

Negotiations at the Expo City campus on Dubai’s outskirts were expected to continue through the wee hours on Tuesday — the scheduled final day of the summit.

Earlier that evening, summit president Sultan al-Jaber urged the nearly 200 governments assembled to be flexible and make a deal. The “world is watching” after almost two weeks of discussion, said al-Jaber, who is also the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company.

Protesters stood outside chanting: “This text is bullshit.”

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore unloaded on the proposal, saying in a statement that “COP28 is now on the verge of complete failure.”
“The world desperately needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but this obsequious draft reads as if OPEC dictated it word for word,” Gore said. “It is even worse than many had feared.”

Greens erupt as oil, gas and coal ‘phaseout’ is dropped from proposed COP28 climate deal - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/11/fossil-fuel-phaseout-dropped-cop28-00131066

summary zaveru copu - silnej push od usa, eu a dalsich statu na fossil fuel phase put. staty opec a rusko do toho brutal hazi vidle a snazi se vykoupit moznosti cca

Reducing emissions theoretically provides for several pathways, of which phase out of fossil fuels is just one. And in this case, “emissions” and “unabated” targets are essentially two forms of a “get out of jail card” to keep their fossil fuel production and use going.
The difference between an “emissions reduction” pathway and a “fossil fuel phase out” pathway is that major fossil fuel producers believe they can keep pumping oil and gas and digging coal while working on emissions reduction technologies like carbon capture, direct air capture and investing in offsets.
As we know, despite the time the technology has existed, carbon capture is still not deployable at even a fraction of what would be required. Saudi Arabia, for example, has just one functioning plant.
It’s catastrophically expensive, potentially costing $1 trillion a year according to researchers at the Oxford Smith School and doesn’t work very well, according to Climate Analytics. And CCS doesn’t even apply to oil use at all and it only has potential application to gas and coal in quite specific circumstances.

The key COP28 battle: emissions v fossil fuel phase out
https://unclimatesummit.org/the-key-cop28-battle-emissions-v-fossil-fuel-phase-out/

TADEAS: hadam že by to mohli byt chcipajici lesní plantáže?

osobne proti tomu nic nemam ale je to proti prirode tak at se s tim uklidijou nekam

„Přehlasovali nás lidi, co bydlí kilometry daleko.“ Jak v Krouně na východě Čech dali zelenou obří větrné elektrárně
https://denikn.cz/1301459/
V obci Krouna v Pardubickém kraji hlasovalo 70 procent účastníků referenda pro stavbu 200metrové větrné elektrárny, která má vzniknout v okrajové osadě Františky. Při pohledu zblízka ale zdejší podpora větrníku není až tak jednoznačná.

YMLADRIS: "takze minuly tyden za to mohli miliardari, ted za to muze neoliberalismus, ale mi pripada ze za to muze proste to co jsi psal niz: lidi kteri maji majetky ve fosilu, udelaji vsechno proto, aby status quo pokracovalo, vcetne toho ze si dokazou zajistit triliony na dotacich at je tam trump nebo biden"
vypada to, jako bys potrebovala jednoho vinika. ale svet je slozitej, spolecensky deni je uplne vzdy souhra faktoru. na druhou stranu je taky tvarnej a nepredvidatelnej, zaroven USA jsou (jeste stale) demokracie, takze ta moc fosilnich lobbies neni absolutni a da se limitovat. Ostatne treba New Deal Franklina Roosevelta je dobrej priklad, ze se ty lobbisticky kruhy daj sesekat velmi vyrazne (ve prospech treba verejnejch projektu, socialniho zabezpeceni, vetsi bezpecnosti prace, environemntalnich opatreni a ochrany prirody).

TUHO: nemam zadny data. je to jen predstava, ze i kdyby US nebylo neoliberalni, ale totalne republikansky tradicni, stejne by se zadne green dealy nedelaly, nebot ten fosilni komplex je silnejsi nez bezna politika.

takze minuly tyden za to mohli miliardari, ted za to muze neoliberalismus, ale mi pripada ze za to muze proste to co jsi psal niz: lidi kteri maji majetky ve fosilu, udelaji vsechno proto, aby status quo pokracovalo, vcetne toho ze si dokazou zajistit triliony na dotacich at je tam trump nebo biden

ale pripoustim ze muzu byt uplne mimo

YMLADRIS: A jak si na to prisla? K tomu si mela nejaky data nebo slo proste projekce ideolgoickyho schematu (nic proti, vsichni mame svoje ideologicky predsudky a vsichni nemuzem vedet vsechno ovsem - imojine proto je tak ucinna fosilni propaganda, ktera presne tohle tlaci .) Aneb: zeleny jsou vevnitr rudy, ve skutecnosti jde o centralni stat, komunismus, globalni nadvladu atp, hromada narativu produkovanych na miru cilovym publikum a jejich ideologiim.
Ale imho to je uplnej bullshit, malokterej prumysl ma tak koncentrovanou lobbistickou silu jako je fosilni prumysl. I OZE ma samozrejme svoje lobbysticky skupiny, ale kvantitativni analyzy ukazujou, ze jsou o rad slabsi. Pohrabu se a casem kdyztak hodim

Neoliberalism and climate change: How the free-market myth has prevented climate action
Activists and scholars increasingly blame neoliberalism for the failure to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but there is insufficient research that investigates the theoretical link between neoliberalism and climate paralysis. This paper seeks to fill that gap by presenting a coherent account of how neoliberal ideology has constrained policies to address climate change in the United States. As motivation, we first present evidence suggesting more neoliberal countries perform worse in addressing climate change. We then analyze how three tenets of neoliberal ideology—to decentralize democracy, defund public investment, and deregulate the economy—have stymied climate action in the United States. Finally, we discuss the Green New Deal as a decisively anti-neoliberal framework that seeks to wield the power of the federal government to pursue large-scale public investments and binding climate regulations for rapid decarbonization.

Neoliberalism and climate change: How the free-market myth has prevented climate action - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800922000155

TUHO: No, ne uplne to sem patri, ale obrovskym (a neauditovanym) zdrojem emisi je taky armada - a tedy zaruka bezpecnosti, teritorialni integrity a politickyho radu.

Turning Point: A History of German Petroleum in World War II and its Lessons for the Role of Oil in Modern Air Warfare
No war for oil is a protest frequently heard whenever the United States responds with military power to a crisis in the Middle East. There are some who believe the 1990s Gulf War, and current U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Libya, were inappropriate responses driven purely by U.S. petroleum interests. Others would argue those claims are more rhetoric than reality, and that America has a larger strategic goal in the region. However, it does beg the question--Is oil really worth going to war over And perhaps more importantly for both politicians and war planners--Is protecting oil a valid strategic military objective When one examines history, the answer is a resounding yes. Since the birth of the industrial age, crude oil has not only been the life-blood of an increasingly global economy, but also a determining factor in success or failure on the battlefield. This is particularly true when one considers the application of air power. In a matter of a few short decades, powered flight drastically changed the face of warfare. And while nearly a century of evolution has transformed air power from a small, supporting actor on the battlefield into a dominant force that provides modern nations with rapid and decisive military response, one truth has remained constant. No air force can survive for long without adequate and unrestricted access to oil.

Turning Point: A History of German Petroleum in World War II and its Lessons for the Role of Oil in Modern Air Warfare
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1020261

YMLADRIS: Imho spousta stranded assets (velka cast hodnoty / zisku se odviji od specifickeho know how, vlastnictvi nebo licenci na fosilni naleziste, vetsina fosilni infrastruktury je planovana s gigantickejma investicema na desitky let dopredu…) Tozn velky risk z nezvladnute transformace pro management i vlastniky, malej push a zaruky ze strany verejnyho sektoru…