In the news

Yummy

Tbh, if you’re on the brink of sinking in the next 100years, then no amount of money will prevent that now.

All the more reason to make a noise.

You don't even get a banana, just a piece of paper giving you the right to reproduce the piece.

A piece of paper?!

Christ, it's 2024! I want that shit on a blockchain!

the developing nations’ response ignores the fact that there is limited money to share around.

I mean, I want to believe you’re not a cunt, but there’s this…

In the U.K. it felt to me like an Overton Window shift, bolstered by the myths that grew up around Thatcher after the Falklands war and ringfenced by the rabid Tory press that still worships her. If General Galtieri hadn't rescued her from a likely one-term premiership, who knows.

I say there was an underlying cause for Thatcher, same as Reagan, and even that joker Friedman who furnished the academic fig leaves for the neo-feudal agenda of neoliberalism - just look for the fattest parasites exerting the most influence: those Mont Pelerin fucks and their ilk (if they actually have any company behind that number of layers of insulation from the rest of us).

If Thatcher hadn't happened along, some other soulless bozo would've passed the audition.

With some of the recent contributions on here, we're increasingly in need of an 'overheard in the daily mail website comments' thread....

Sometimes the truth is difficult to swallow.

Are the developing nations better off walking out with nothing or walking away with something?

Do you genuinely believe that all world leaders - even those of Climate-threatened developing nations - really care about managing Climate Change?

I’m arguably cynical, but that doesn’t make me a cunt.

Again, I completely agree, but financial help is obviously limited.

Genuine question: I'd be interested to know where you are getting your news or how you've formed these views.

The walk-out comes across a bit like they’re not really that bothered about addressing the problems. Otherwise they’d take the £250bn and have at it as best they can. IMO.

The Least Developed Countries were one of the groups that walked out. As mentioned previously, these are the poorest countries in the world that have contributed nothing to the current climate crisis, but are expected to skip the burn coal/oil stage of development and skip straight to solar/wind/batteries along with the rest of the world. Helping these countries transition has been part of the talks for at least a decade, but they are only starting to put an actual number on it now. The real sticking point was not only the amount of money coming from developed nations, but the form it takes. How much of the £250 billion are grants and how much are loans? These countries are already loaded with debt, if the 'deal' just loads them with more high interest debt which they need to spend on windfarms, then it's not helpful at all and they would be better off sticking with burning their coal.

You are absolutely correct, but the developing nations’ response ignores the fact that there is limited money to share around.

How much are developed nations spending on fossil fuel subsidies currently? I think the developing nations argument is that there is actually quite a lot of money that can be found if the will was there.

I know all of this. That the discussions are more than a decade old, that developing nations haven’t contributed to Climate Change and that they’re being asked to use sustainable/renewable energy.

I am just a big old cynic and I don’t believe all developing nations (well, their leaders) are truly interested in doing their bit, regardless of how much money and in what form. That’s just how powerful humans operate. It’s why they’re powerful, in the majority of cases.

are truly interested in doing their bit.

What, in the context, should their bit be?

I am not a Climate scientist - you’re asking the wrong person.

I know all of this.

You keep saying that, but not only does this not justify your initial, flip response, it makes it should even shadier.

I don’t believe all developing nations (well, their leaders) are truly interested in doing their bit

This may be true. But it is probably equally, if not more true of many developed nations. It's just odd that you reserve your ire for the poorest countries.

And you are right to be cynical of the process, but again the process is pretty much being dictated by the countries with money. So maybe be more cynical about the people with the power rather than those with none.

I have ire for - and am cynical about - the whole thing, for the record. Nations leaders don’t get a free pass just because the nation they lead is a developing one.

IMO, the Cop summits are nothing more than posturing from all sides.

Shady is an interesting choice of word. Are you suggesting I am hiding something?

When Tate Modern first opened, I went in and in one (very obviously) unfinished room there was piles of plaster board and on top the half eaten packed lunch of one of the builders. People were in there taking photos of it discussing what the meaning was...

Perhaps that your stated conclusion doesn't seem to follow from everything else you've said.

The poorer developing nations, which are generally disadvantaged by lack of resources and/or colonial history, are being asked to skip the only development path any existing country has ever successfully followed, directly to a utopian carbon-neutral future that no existing rich country has achieved despite vastly greater resources.

This unprecedented great leap forward is, apparently, "their bit".

The fact that it's all based on importing technology from China or the developed world, who coincidentally emitted most of the carbon that made this necessary, is no reason to negotiate for more money, right?

It's more important to know their place and act grateful than it is to ensure that enough resources are allocated to actually achieve anything.

cynicism is originally and usually directed towards those that hold the balance of power, because it is about questioning the general order/knowledge that undergirds that power. to be cynical of those with, in this context, the least power, albeit leaders themselves, is somewhat turning things on their head. it’s more like you want to believe/ are invested in hegemony, or the gravitational pull of power and privilege, and are bending the term to mean ‘doubtful about alternatives or any form of resistance’. But if this position was described as the position of a politician in the West, for example, rather than of an internet random, another way of putting this so-called cynicism would be ‘arrogance’.

It's more important to know their place and act grateful than it is to ensure that enough resources are allocated to actually achieve anything.

I never actually said this.

This is a really good and fair post. I’m cynical of people in power, but fair comment when the relativity is taken into consideration it looks like I’m turning everything on its head.

I never actually said this

No, but that's the only way I can explain

Are the developing nations better off walking out with nothing or walking away with something?

If the "something" isn't enough to achieve its stated aim, why would you help the donor countries get their greenwashing press release?

Unless you're convinced the "something" they're turning down is enough, based on some carefully costed scheme you're just choosing not to share.

I look at it from the very simple perspective that something is better than nothing. On that particular point, it’s no deeper than that.

But on the broader take, I think the whole thing is a sham and no one comes out of it looking particularly good.

The something could be a planet with a functional ecosystem.?

Would for example the Pacific island leaders be better off negotiating for an extra $100m or getting a global agreement in place that stops ocean rise and means the islands continue to exist?