Why did 60,000 delegates have to travel to COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, to achieve such marginal results. To limit carbon emissions for such conferencing, couldn't these discussions have taken place in a well orgaized manner via the internet?
I looked at summaries of COP29. Nowhere did I see mention of cutting overconsumption of energy by affluent countries or addressing global overpopulation. Nor did I see anything on humanity's moral obligation to protect other life from the consequences of anthropogenic climate change.
COP29 appeared to be one huge debate about money. I shudder to the think how much of those trillions of dollars would go for large industrial-scale projects that destroy rather than preserve life on Earth.
To answer the question posed in your post title: NO!
As I concluded in a post on this very topic a number of years back: “Basically, the snake oil salesmen of the world are, as they often (always?) do, leveraging our fear over a crisis (or crises) to enrich themselves mightily. We are being led to follow a path that actually exacerbates the predicament of overshoot rather than reduces the harm caused by us blowing past the biophysical limits imposed by a finite planet.
COPS and NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And especially as the “rest” of the global economies continue to do nothing anyway. It fits with the notion of focused adaption for “high risk areas” and will allow us to get on with prosperity using the power of Fossil fuels.
For next year's COP, they're planning on meeting in the Amazon. Imagine!
https://www.euronews.com/.../plagued-by-pollution-and...
Why did 60,000 delegates have to travel to COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, to achieve such marginal results. To limit carbon emissions for such conferencing, couldn't these discussions have taken place in a well orgaized manner via the internet?
I looked at summaries of COP29. Nowhere did I see mention of cutting overconsumption of energy by affluent countries or addressing global overpopulation. Nor did I see anything on humanity's moral obligation to protect other life from the consequences of anthropogenic climate change.
COP29 appeared to be one huge debate about money. I shudder to the think how much of those trillions of dollars would go for large industrial-scale projects that destroy rather than preserve life on Earth.
#overconsumption #overpopulation #scaledown #Endhumansupremacy #scaledown4nature
To answer the question posed in your post title: NO!
As I concluded in a post on this very topic a number of years back: “Basically, the snake oil salesmen of the world are, as they often (always?) do, leveraging our fear over a crisis (or crises) to enrich themselves mightily. We are being led to follow a path that actually exacerbates the predicament of overshoot rather than reduces the harm caused by us blowing past the biophysical limits imposed by a finite planet.
Sad on so many levels.”
https://stevebull.substack.com/p/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-e9f
COPS and NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And especially as the “rest” of the global economies continue to do nothing anyway. It fits with the notion of focused adaption for “high risk areas” and will allow us to get on with prosperity using the power of Fossil fuels.
More at …. https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
Do I think thousands of self-important people flying around the world every year to achieve nothing is helpful?
I'm gonna go way out a limb and guess ... no.