There was massive media attention to the COP 28 conference in Dubai, in the months running up to it. It was news for one day at its end. Now nobody is even talking about it, never mind writing about it.
Maybe they should. The closing statement was 12,000 words but the legacy media seized on just a couple of lines about “transitioning away” from fossil fuels — a direct attack on Alberta — as though "the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era" was the whole story.
But there is much more.
The new phrases seized upon by the commentators were “Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power” and “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”.
Western Standard’s Cory Morgan put it nicely. “The (70,000) delegates at COP 28 will consume more resources in a week than the combined citizens of some small countries. And until we start calling them out and firing the governments that employ them, they will keep getting away with it. If we keep swallowing the lies from the environmental left and ignoring the double standards they flaunt in front of us, we deserve the energy and financial poverty that comes with it.”
However there's more and some background understanding is needed.
The 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC, (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) is an annual gabfest sponsored by the UN. Its goal is to to influence and embarrass countries into implementing environmental prescriptions.
Bragging rights by participant countries appear to have some cachet. That's certainly what the Trudeau Liberals want and their track record is that they have been willing to sacrifice the basic well-being of all Canadians in exchange for five minutes of glory at a microphone, and perhaps a one-day headline at COP.
But, nothing is binding on countries. So, after nearly three decades of bragging at these meetings, has anything been accomplished?
In a word, no.
The first COP was in 1995. Government representatives and accredited "observer" non-governmental organizations and media gathered. Alongside the conference were climate-related exhibits and events open to businesses and the general public. While the parties signed the 1992 framework to "protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind," it did not say how that would be done.
How could they? They don’t know. That's what COP summits have been working on ever since. And they still don't know.
They start with the basic assumption that harmful climate change is the result of human lifestyle behaviour that burns fossil fuels. The percentage concentration of CO2 gas and methane has been identified as the priority culprit, and humanity must change how it lives to minimize the creation of "greenhouse gas".
However, a basic unchangeable problem is the size of the world population. The world population was about 2.5 billion in 1950. Now it is just under 8.1 billion, and trending to 10.4 billion in 2086 before beginning to very gradually decline. And every person has an environmental footprint.
But, we are not about to allow governments to massively kill millions as did past dictators, to solve the basic population impact on earth.
Further, the information and technological ages have raised expectations of the millions of "have-nots" around the world. Fossil fuel has delivered all the past economic and social benefits of our society: Thus, millions are striving to join the standard of living enjoyed by the prosperous G7 west, and they will need cheap energy to do it. Therefore, oil and gas have an assured future, regardless of COP meetings and UN admonishment.
Sp, what would it take for Canada to hit its climate targets and have continued bragging rights?
Back to that 12,000-word "stocktake."
This document is supposed to look at where we are in terms of reducing emissions and building resilience to climate change, and financially supporting developing countries to acquire clean energy. The hoped-for response to this global stocktake document was to light the fuse to an explosion of ambition in 2025.
But it turns out to be a long, repetitive read with occasional gobbledegook.
This scolding document said countries must:
1. Triple renewable energy capacity. .
2. Double energy efficiency.
3. Bring clean power to all by 2030.
4. Phase out all fossil fuels, with a clear time frame aligned to the 1.5 C Paris limit.
And if one counts up the agenda items, it turns out to be mostly about finance. Last year's COP27 produced an agreement to set up a loss-and-damage fund, which would help the world's vulnerable countries recover and rebuild after being battered by climate disasters.
So, taxpayers in Canada pay for their own energy transitions as well as millions to other “vulnerable communities.”
Ah, it's about wealth transfer.
So, given the time and resources expended, are COPs worth it?
Probably not. Despite the annual COP conventions and all the grandiose speeches, emissions continue to rise globally.
Canada is among a group of top fossil fuel-producing countries that are on track to produce more oil and gas in a manner consistent with the international targets stated to limit global warming. Countries generally still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 that would be required to limit warming to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels.
These findings are at odds with government commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as with projections by the International Energy Agency that global demand for coal, oil, and gas will peak within this decade. Global demand for oil and natural gas is reaching record levels and growing, and Canada has an important role to play as an energy supplier to our trading partners around the world.
However, the NDP-Liberal cabal is doing its utmost to deny reality.
Canada grew its conventional production while lowering the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions over the last ten years, and the country is well positioned to further develop vast reserves and grow our position as a leader in decarbonization projects while ensuring a stable and affordable energy system.
Alberta leads the way; it just needs to overcome misguided people in Ottawa.
Not incidentally, the long 12,000-word stocktake sermon was about more than just greenhouse gas. The word “children” appeared five times; “gender” appeared eight times; “indigenous” nine times. There are other objectives.
Thus, when one takes a closer look at what these dilettante prescribers envision for everyone else, hypocrisy comes to mind. Our friends on the left take pride in their claim that they are the supporters of “science” while those who disagree with their interpretations are “low-life deniers." The lefties choose not to hear challenges, and snarly condescend and abandon science, which is ever-questioning, testing, reviewing, and refining.
From the electronic media or traditional newspapers, to campus or protests, they have shown themselves highly intolerant of any views other than their own.
No doubt these conferences will continue. But let us not continue to have any faith in them, and certainly not in the people who have been representing Canada when they assemble.