
I’m sure they’ll come with disappointingly low standards which the day after will already be ignored, just like they did every other time before.
The very fact that they’re not negotiating with the thought of our mere survival in our heads and go “oh fuck we need to cut CO2 down close to zero within 5 years” they’re actually negotiating how many millions (perhaps even billions) of people are okay to die from the consequences of climate change so that they and their top donors can stay rich enough.
This should be a very simple negotiation. This should be “are we going down to 10% of CO2 output * in 5 years top or 15% in 6?” This should end with binding agreements, but this will end with a few suggestions that everyone will politely ignore before laughing their way back home
Cynical take? I’m sure it is. I’m also sure that it’s what will happen
Edit: and right the next article I read:
One mundane procedural issue stands out, however: voting. Due to the concerted efforts of oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, participants in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC—the treaty that kicked off the yearly COP negotiations—are unable to vote on contentious issues. Instead, they have to pursue consensus, giving every country a de facto veto power over proposals they don’t like. Environmental groups have called this a “poison pill” that has undermined climate progress for decades. Many are trying to stop it from sullying other international environmental agreements, like the UN plastics treaty.
Ding ding ding





Implying there is clean coal, or what?