By David Wojick
About 60 countries just gathered together to try to kick off a global phase out of fossil fuel use. For now it is more of a show than a threat so it is worth watching with some humor. Planning to achieve the impossible has to be funny.
At this point there are just a lot of proposals. By far the funniest is a proposed phase out deadline of 2030 for coal. Do they not know that China is burning over 5 billion tons a year? That India, Indonesia and others are rapidly building fleets of new coal-fired power plants? This madness is the measure of the phase out movement.
The most threatening proposal is for a designing a new Fossil Fuel Treaty (FFT) mandating the phase out that countries can adopt. As a treaty the FFT would be a legally binding instrument enforceable by the Courts. The FFT has its own promoting organization here.
What is most interesting is that such a Treaty has the potential to destabilize the UN Climate Change Program. The UN Program is based on an existing treaty, the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).
The FFT could compete with the FCCC such as for financial resources and even for jurisdiction. The FCC might even make the FCCC obsolete.
This is no accident since the FFT was born out of frustration with the FCCC. The annual decision meeting of the FCCC is the well known COP which stands for Conference of the Parties.
It took 28 COPs to finally get the words “fossil fuel” into a decision and it had no teeth. The reason is simple. The FCCC COP rules call for decisions to be unanimous so nothing controversial ever gets said. At COP 30 there was a movement to get a decision calling for national roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels. It failed but the present phase out Conference was authorized as a concession.
Given that the FFT is not part of the Conference charter it is far from clear what connection this Treaty has to the UN, quite possibly none. So it is certainly possible that the FFT movement could compete with the UN Program for attention, funding and other resources. The UN Program may have spawned its demise.
The Conference itself made some progress down the road to impossibility that the FFT movement can tap into. France claims to have created a model phase out roadmap. I have not seen it but it likely uses a lot of nuclear power. France figures that if the world goes nuclear their companies will get a lot of the work.
There has also been created a so-called “Panel of Experts” to help countries develop national phase out roadmaps. It is described here.
They are described as scientists and economists and I do not see any engineers. More fantasy that.
It is easy to see how developing a phase out roadmap can lead to adopting a phase out treaty to enforce it. All it takes is a strong green government which most countries get from time to time when the political pendulum swings far left.
It is also easy to see this FFT movement replacing the FCCC. Why spend a fortune on huge ten day global meetings where nothing gets decided? Better to operate at the national level picking off one country at a time.
That the goal is impossible and ill informed has little bearing on the political reality. The Fossil Fuel Treaty movement is potentially even more dangerous than the UN Climate Change program. It bears careful watching.
Stay tuned to CFACT as this hatchling monster grows.
Yes, they get the Political Green Movement as the Political Pendulum swings left. Fortunately though the Political Pendulum also swings Right and we get a Political Bowel Movement Like Trump which eliminated a lot of Crap the Green Movement built up.
“This town needs an enema.”
This explains why California politicians are constantly fighting Trump. They understand that the badly needed enema will expose their lies.
Start with an advisory show of commitment. The question being: “What year is your nation absolutely committed to no coal use whatsoever?”
This is yet one more attempt to extract money from “developed nations” despite coal use being a “developing nation” issue.
And again – “What year are YOU resolved to no longer accept or use products from any source that requires fossil fuels in their manufacturing process?”
I don’t mean to imply the YOU and Giving Cat are the same. This was an add on to your statemnt.
Strange that the major users of fossil fuels; China, USA, India etc. aren’t interested in joing a death cult preparing a suicide pact.
The final list of participating countries: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Portugal, Saint Kitts y Nevis, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vatican – Santa Sede.
I don’t see any eastern European countries in the list and very few African countries. In fact, any countries which use significant amounts of coal have refused point blank to have anything to do with this ludicrous reality denying organisation.
Good observation! Unlike a good dozen of SIDS, which prominently participated in the newly-invented climate jamboree, those nations are busy with real things and cannot waste time for this hot air.
Being the “B” in BRICS I’m surprised to see Brazil on that list
At first I thought the same, but the EU is listed, so technically countries like the Baltics are included.
“Australia is a global coal powerhouse, ranking as the second-largest exporter and fifth-largest producer”
First prize to Norway for hypocrisy.
Norway has massive amounts of hydro power. Their geography and rainfall put them in a rather unique situation for hydro power.
I went through their participation list and did not find ‘Australia’, as in the Federal Government, signing on to this boondoggle.
There are some regional councils and one territory (the ACT, of course).
There is nothing I could find in their extensive praise of their achievements and future plans for replacing the thousands of products for which fossil fuels are a necessary prime input.
‘Equality’ and ‘reparation’ are front and centre. When we are all carbon copies (pun intended) of each other (other than the people who have to sacrifice themselves to run the World) and we are all living in squalor, then they will have achieved their ‘equality’.
They do wish for locals to own and have responsibility for local resources and mining of same. How they will mine anything without fossil fuels is not stated. Child labour, maybe???
Check the list. Australia is in the list.
NOT ONE of those countries would, or could, exist without the massive benefits of the use of fossil fuels.
Well Australia can’t join – over half its power is generated by black or brown coal, plus another 4% or so gas. But wait, it gets worse! Depending on the hour of day, coal can provide around 80% of power, and use over two-thirds of coal capacity. And gas can rise to 12% of power – not sure capacity use though.
At noon, solar may supply 60% of power generated, but from 6pm to 7am or so, there’s not much sun!!! As for wind, sure it might top 20%, briefly, during a good hour, but at other times it’s around 5%. Australia’s current windfarm capacity is about two-thirds that of its coal plants – 13 GWh versus 22 GWh, but if wind is providing only a fifteenth of the power, that means, at a minimum, over 200 GWh of wind farms needs to be built. That’s simply not going to happen.
It is conceivable that Australia’s current Leftist government would sign up to the treaty, thereby committing the country to a course of action the Right will not agree to, and the country cannot achieve, in a bid to tie the hands of the next government. Current polling suggests Labor will be re-elected despite the pain Aussies are feeling, and significant discontentment with the government, but dissatisfaction isn’t translating to vote changes. Alternatively, Labor might be hoping to get in, miss the deadline, and dump a mess on the following government which would be a 2031 election, probably.
Interesting that Australia has signed up when it is the leading country in the world for coal mining for export projects with a total of 46 projects almost half of the 95 such projects in 13 countries.
Second in the list is South Africa with 14 such projects.
IEA ‘Coal 2024 Analysis and Forecast to 2027’ (Dec. 2024)
Yet another COP-out.
On the bright side, all the talking generated enough wind to power a single WTG for an hour or so.
King Canute had more brains than those clowns. They can write all the treaties they want, even get Congress to ratify them and ditto for however other countries ratify treaties. They can’t stop reality.
It is pretty unlikely that the US Senate would ratify an extreme treaty. Some senators may be clueless but not 2/3s of them.
Irrelevant. Reality will not ratify any such treaty, and reality gets the ultimate say.
Reality won’t let it be complied with. That is different than a legal mechanism for ratification.
Which “the Courts”?
Now let’s see. Fossil fuels provide 82% of the energy needed today. We have been reducing that share for 5 decades now and at the present rate (off the top of my head) it would probably only take about 5 centuries to reach net zero and I’am being kind.
I’d suggest we encourage this nonsense enough to get at least a few of the countries to sign.
Then start a movement to recognize all subterranean and subsea hydrocarbon deposits as “abiogenic” in origin, so none of the world’s resources would be subject to the agreement.
After all, changing the meaning of words to suit their objectives is a favorite tactic of liberals, wokesters and climate hoaxters…
It probably wouldn’t nice to laugh and point at the stupid 60 countries. Oh, what the heck. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
IPCC, UNFCCC, FFT, FCCC… This excess of organization, treaties, and bureaucracy…
WALOAFABON (What A Load Of Acronyms For A Bunch Of Nonsense)
Yer, cancel UN tyranny.
More boondoggles to come at lush resorts all on the taxpayer’s dime.
“…About 60 countries just gathered together to try to kick off a global phase out of fossil fuel use…a treaty the FFT would be a legally binding instrument enforceable by the Courts.”
I think MUNR just had an orgasm in his pants.
EEEuuuuwww!
FCCC – “how come we’ve now got the FFT?
SPLITTERS!!
Soon to fizzle out…PFFT…poof gone
FFS. We will need to add letters to the alphabet soon.
The question in this regard is “Why has Virtue Signaling replaced common sense, substance and truth?”
Money.
Control.
Power.
If you read one of the links , you will find that one of the “chairs” is Ottmar Edenhofer, the German director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research…
.. who once said the following…
Yes, this is exactly what he (proudly) kept on saying at different occasions. They likely believed that they would change the world. In fact they used to be just blind tools in somebody else’s hands, the people who made use of their silliness and vanity in order to advance their agenda.
And of course they all travelled to Santa Marta, Columbia, an idyllic seaside town, without any use of fossil fuels 😉
This is just another self-aggrandising COP-out soiree..
This is just another climate change fighting publicity stunt, much like the various COP conferences. With the COPs, it soon became evident that few of the signatories had any intentions of taking anywhere near the drastic measures to replace fossil fuels because no practical ones existed. Instead government and green product peddlers saw that creating a bogus climate threat was a way of generating tax revenue and forcing eco-friendly products on what they hoped were credulous consumers. So creating a fossil fuel phase-out treaty might look good on paper, but when industries, businesses and consumers find that the only viable alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal either don’t exist or are prohibitively expensive, the mandates and demands for them will be dropped like the proverbial hot potatoes.
They’d have better luck trying to get rid of paper clips and staples.
“China is burning over 5 billion tons a year…”. Wow. I just asked ChatGPT how big a cube of 5 billion tons of coal would be and he replied about a mile on each side.
So after burning all that coal, roughly 0.38% or an additional 0.73 ppm of all plant food currently in the atmosphere.
It’s time the trees went on strike demanding more plant food
Yet another useless international organization screwing things up.
That’s all they know how to do because when it comes to realistic practical solutions they can’t provide any.
Just another rag-tag group of hypocritical totalitarian “believers” wanting to force their agenda on others.
Why would it be dangerous for these 60 countries to swear off fossil fuels?
Those countries have populations. The danger is not to the country, per se, but to the people.
So, you’re saying they laid an egg?
“Most of the world’s biggest emitters are absent from the group of 59 participants”
ROFL so this is going nowhere unless they are proposing an armed invasion 🙂
I love lefties describe it as high level important talks … it’s a room full of leftards that think they are important and matter.
Nothing they do will matter and no-one will care but they will have a good holiday and think they are achieving something … bless there little hearts.
At this point there are just a lot of proposals.
No they’re rolling up their sleeves and getting stuck in-
Spanish steel pipe maker Tubos Reunidos enters insolvency after 134 years
How did the representatives from Europe actually travel to and from Colombia?
This is one of the events listed
”The Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative invites you to an open-air celebration of movement, music, and momentum toward a just transition in the heart of Santa Marta.
This street party is where the energy of the global push for fossil-free future comes alive. Expect rhythms from across the Caribbean, powerful cultural expression, and a vibrant space to connect, celebrate, and recharge alongside the frontlines of the movement.
This is more than a party, it’s a moment to feel the power of collective action, to dance in resistance, and to keep building the energy driving the transition forward.”
and an after party
”As the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels comes to a close, the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative invites you to gather, reflect, and celebrate what comes next. This evening brings together delegates, advocates, and partners for a special moment in Santa Marta to take stock of the progress made, the alliances strengthened, and the work ahead. It’s a space to connect beyond the formal setting, deepen relationships, and carry forward the shared commitment to a fast, fair, and financed transition through a Fossil Fuel Treaty.” What is producing the energy for all of these events?
Although policy is political by its very nature, as someone who isn’t a US resident or citizen I am finding some of the references to the Republican and Democratic parties more than a little off putting, especially the current incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, particularly since he has suggested that the U.K. cede the Falklands, against the wishes of those living there, to Argentina whilst suggesting that the USA takeover Greenland.
I joined this group purely for the science not political shenanigans, especially since U.K. politics and US politics rarely intersect on an ideological level. Therefore I ask that as far as is possible and feasible not to bring political ideology into discussions (I know I’ve broken my own request in making my point above, but I normally shy away from such comments)
One more Climate Woodstock?
I find myself turning away when the discussions go from science to politics, although some of the politics are amusing. Where are the Marx brothers when you need to laugh at Marxism?
I went through the written contributions that are available on their website. It’s worthwhile noting that nobody (with very few exceptions e.g. NGOs) dared mentioning the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (well-known as CBDR). Some applied “historical responsibility”, though. Apparently CBDR does not sell any longer? Interesting!