- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
Despite frequent and devastating heat waves, droughts, floods and fire, major fossil fuel-producing countries still plan to extract more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with the Paris climate accord’s goal for limiting global temperature rise, according to a United Nations-backed study released Wednesday.
Coal production needs to ramp sharply down to address climate change, but government plans and projections would lead to increases in global production until 2030, and in global oil and gas production until at least 2050, the Production Gap Report states. This conflicts with government commitments under the climate accord, which seeks to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
The report examines the disparity between climate goals and fossil fuel extraction plans, a gap that has remained largely unchanged since it was first quantified in 2019.
You must log in or register to comment.
Well of course. Profits for shareholders is more important than saving the environment, obviously
I blame John Wayne; because it’s the idea of rugged American individualism that prevents collective actions to curb the externalities of capitalism. Or something…I don’t know…. /s
Well, time to fill my life with meaningless debauchery, because it’s not like there’s a future to plan for.
Ironically, that’s what got us to this point. /s
Why the /s? It’s true!
To not invite contrarians.
How about that US bill that was supposed to be the greatest climate bill ever or some shit?
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Despite frequent and devastating heat waves, droughts, floods and fire, major fossil fuel-producing countries still plan to extract more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with the Paris climate accord’s goal for limiting global temperature rise, according to a United Nations-backed study released Wednesday.
The report examines the disparity between climate goals and fossil fuel extraction plans, a gap that has remained largely unchanged since it was first quantified in 2019.
“Governments’ plans to expand fossil fuel production are undermining the energy transition needed to achieve net-zero emissions, creating economic risks and throwing humanity’s future into question,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said in a statement.
As world leaders convene for another round of United Nations climate talks at the end of the month in Dubai, seeking to curb greenhouse gases, Andersen said nations must “unite behind a managed and equitable phase-out of coal, oil and gas — to ease the turbulence ahead and benefit every person on this planet.”
A transition away from that kind of electricity is underway in many places, including Germany, Canada, South Africa and the United States.
The organizations are calling for governments to reduce fossil fuel production in line with climate goals, and to be more transparent.
The original article contains 627 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Pledges are worth whatever paper they’re printed on.
Government pledges are worth the toilet paper you print it on.
Do it or shut the fuck up.
I remember being at aiche conference in 2018 I think, and there was a keynote speaker that helped draft the Paris agreement, talking about need to reduce co2 emissions and how they got their projections. Thus speaker was followed by speaker (VP of production or something) from Chvron or Shell and they basically presented that they see minimal to no change in oil demand or production, EVs will minimally reduce global consumption of oil and effectively for next 100 years they project business a usual for the most part…it was extremely depressing as I believe projections Shell/Chevron as they have the power behind them to maintain them, while the scientific community has to convince the average public to enact laws… Depressing…
“We’re fucked anyway, let’s go all in!”
The actual reason is that US is now net exporter of oil products. With war by Russia and opec cutting down production trying to get prices up, US compensates this by producing more. This is not a bad thing and does not contradict by itself to shifting to green energy internally. Being independent from price/supply control by such countries as Russia, Iran, Saudi is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Oil is devastating our climate, period. No increase in oil production is ever a good thing for the climate.
You should look whether global oil production increases or not. Just looking at US is pointless. Do you think that gas is chip on gas station? No? Then it means there is no overproduction.
Maybe I wasn’t clear with my original comment. All oil extraction is a problem. It is adding carbon to the carbon cycle that isn’t naturally there.
Yes, but you also said “No increase in oil production is ever a good thing for the climate” in response that specifically discusses that it is local increase (in US) that compensates decrease elsewhere. To expand, it is a good thing because otherwise the oil prices will be too high that might trigger US and global recession and actually reduce available funds for innovations and investments into green technology.
Ahhhh, yes, the green washing starts. I always enjoy when people bring that one into a conversation.
Call it as you want, but economy is a real thing and there is a way to go green without destroying people livelihoods.
Then why haven’t we done it yet? Instead we have kicked the can down the road for decades promising to do it later, all the while with climate scientist sounding alarm bells that we are wrecking our climate…heck, they have even provided a road map of what we have to do to stop it and we’ve basically shrugged at the idea.
Thats not how the climate works. Producing more oil for the rest of the world while using renewables here doesnt mean just the rest of the world will face the effects of climate change.
he saying the rest of the world was using other world sources so we are just lowering what would be used. this is not good for the environment though anyway as russia had stacks just burning because shutdown is hard. unfortunately war behavior will be bad for the environment and will likely increase.
