By Michael Grey*
As tens of thousands of weary delegates stagger off their righteously offset intercontinental flights, leaving the inhabitants of Belem to clear up the mess from a fortnight of COP30 (November 10-25) in the Brazilian jungle, there are just a few signs of hope. Not in any progress that might have emerged from this annual Olympiad of catastrophism and cant, but some serious voices suggesting that the format for this expensive and frequently futile exhibition might have gone about as far as it can, and that changes ought to be made.
The pointlessness of the final statement of this latest gathering, hosted by a nation with ambitions to become a world leader in the production of oil and gas, when fossil fuels were excised from the document, has underlined the sheer silliness of these events. And what do all these tens of thousands of delegates do for a fortnight, other than eat three square meals a day and reinforce their own righteousness?
Why cannot they just stay at home and communicate electronically? We know the answer of course; there is a lot of money involved in such events, just as there is a need to keep the funds flowing to the participating NGOs and climate catastrophe departments, by constantly shrieking about the imminence of climate disaster.
They will not give up in a hurry, but rather more questions might be asked about the whole grisly process and that surely is progress. Here is an idea – as most of the participants do very little to ameliorate the process of climate change, which we can probably agree has been a permanent feature of life on this planet, why not leave it to those very few countries whose actions can make a difference (and, more importantly, can afford to do so?).
Let the others do what they can, when they can, and preferably without wrecking their economies. Surely some of this is bound, by the use of the markets, if nothing else, to filter down and around, to the benefit of all. And maybe we should discourage nations (like the UK) from adopting such a “holier than thou” approach; pretending leadership, when no-one on earth is following, and effectively de-industrialising, while hazarding both its own security and ability to feed itself, with unaffordable energy.
Defter handling needed of fossil fuels issue
Let us secularise what has become a global religion, tone down the rhetoric, pause the preaching, stop terrorising young children and focus on the contribution of scientists and engineers rather than climatologists, priests of this cult, and their hypothetical models. Perhaps we can recognise the reality that we cannot electrify everything by the day after tomorrow and that there is still a future in making fossil fuels more sustainable, rather than trying to push water up a hill, by banning them. It might be also quite sensible to refrain from drastic action, when governments are stampeded by howling activists to do things like banning gas boilers or petrol cars, to properly analyse, at an early stage, both the practicality and price of such moves.
To properly count the cost of insane and doctrine-driven ideas of leaving oil and gas in the ground, when importing it from elsewhere, just to keep the lights on. More carefully analysing the ridiculous practice of “exporting emissions” would provide a cruel shot of reality. And finally, rather than spending time shouting about hypothetical disaster, let the powers that be recognise what progress is being made by engineers and scientists to make things better. Give some credit to brilliant automotive engineers who have made mobility more sustainable. To those who realise that because sails or batteries are unlikely to power a 300,000dwt ship any time soon, you must make big powerful diesels cleaner and greener. And we might, for a start, just tell all those tens of thousands of pointless activists and their co-religionists, already booking their offset tickets to COP31, that it isn’t going to happen.
(Photo of web banner of COP30)
*Michael Grey is former editor of Lloyd’s List. This column is published with the kind permission of The Maritime Advocate.