Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Pretty much every major talking point of the upcoming COP26 report is being manipulated by government lobbyists, according to the BBC.
COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report
By Justin Rowlatt & Tom Gerken
A huge leak of documents seen by BBC News shows how countries are trying to change a crucial scientific report on how to tackle climate change.
This “lobbying” raises questions for the COP26 climate summit in November.
The leak shows a number of countries and organisations arguing that the world does not need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as quickly as the current draft of the report recommends.
An adviser to the Saudi oil ministry demands “phrases like ‘the need for urgent and accelerated mitigation actions at all scales…’ should be eliminated from the report”.
One senior Australian government official rejects the conclusion that closing coal-fired power plants is necessary, even though ending the use of coal is one of the stated objectives the COP26 conference.
A number of countries argue in favour of emerging and currently expensive technologies designed to capture and permanently store carbon dioxide underground. Saudi Arabia, China, Australia and Japan – all big producers or users of fossil fuels – as well as the organisation of oil producing nations, Opec, all support carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Australia asks IPCC scientists to delete a reference to analysis of the role played by fossil fuel lobbyists in watering down action on climate in Australia and the US. Opec also asks the IPCC to “delete ‘lobby activism, protecting rent extracting business models, prevent political action’.”
Brazil and Argentina, two of the biggest producers of beef products and animal feed crops in the world, argue strongly against evidence in the draft report that reducing meat consumption is necessary to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
A significant number of Switzerland’s comments are directed at amending parts of the report that argue developing countries will need support, particularly financial support, from rich countries in order to meet emission reduction targets.
Australia makes a similar case to Switzerland. It says developing countries’ climate pledges do not all depend on receiving outside financial support. It also describes a mention in the draft report of the lack of credible public commitments on finance as “subjective commentary”.
A number of mostly eastern European countries argue the draft report should be more positive about the role nuclear power can play in meeting the UN’s climate targets.
India goes even further, arguing “almost all the chapters contain a bias against nuclear energy”. It argues it is an “established technology” with “good political backing except in a few countries”.
…Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445
I don’t know how much influence these government lobbyists have, but if the BBC leak is genuine, it does demonstrate what a political football the IPCC COP26 climate process is.
The funniest example was the alleged Australian demand that a reference to government lobbyists manipulating the final report be removed from the report.
The BBC article did not mention what US lobbyists are doing. Given the Biden administration is pushing hard for more radical climate action, and given this leak is very damaging for lobbyists who appear to be trying to secretly undermine support for radical climate action, there is an obvious explanation for the curious omission of US lobbyists from the BBC article.
Many of the climate scientists working on the IPCC reports may be just as guilty of playing politics as the government lobbyists. The recent James Cook University / Peter Ridd debacle in my opinion demonstrated that only climate scientists who talk up the alleged climate emergency and demand more funding to study the problems are welcome in academia. Scientists like Peter Ridd, who criticise the alarmism of their colleagues, risk ostracism and expulsion.
Frankly I think national interest lobbyists should get out of the way and grant climate alarmists unfettered freedom to speak their minds. The sheer absurdity of alarmist positions, like demanding the world slash fossil fuel production in the middle of a northern hemisphere energy crisis, would do more to wreck the green climate charade than anything I could ever write.