Cop29 CEO Filmed Agreeing To Facilitate Fossil Fuel Deals at Climate Summit (theguardian.com) 70
The chief executive of Cop29 has been filmed apparently agreeing to facilitate fossil fuel deals at the climate summit. From a report: The recording has amplified calls by campaigners who want the fossil fuel industry and its lobbyists to be banned from future Cop talks. The campaign group Global Witness posed undercover as a fake oil and gas group asking for deals to be facilitated in exchange for sponsoring the event.
In the calls, Elnur Soltanov, Azerbaijan's deputy energy minister and chief executive of Cop29, agreed to this and spoke of a future that includes fossil fuels "perhaps for ever." Cop officials also introduced the fake investor to a senior executive at the national oil and gas company Socar to discuss investment opportunities.
Soltanov told the fake investment group: âoeI would be happy to create a contact between your team and their team [Socar] so that they can start discussions." Shortly after that they received an email from Socar. The UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), the UN body that oversees Cop, says officials should not use their roles "to seek private gain" and it expects them to act "without self-interest."
Soltanov told the fake investment group: âoeI would be happy to create a contact between your team and their team [Socar] so that they can start discussions." Shortly after that they received an email from Socar. The UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), the UN body that oversees Cop, says officials should not use their roles "to seek private gain" and it expects them to act "without self-interest."
This is important! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't care what you believe about climate change but if you believe the politicians and technocrats getting together at these conferences are doing anything other than trying to line their own pockets and get a fancy meal on the tax payer dime - you are a rube!
Re: This is important! (Score:2, Insightful)
This, and that they almost always take jet planes to these events to be there in person, rarely rail transport and rarely telecommute.
Re: This is important! (Score:5, Insightful)
This, and that they almost always take jet planes to these events to be there in person, rarely rail transport and rarely telecommute.
And from what I've heard, they eat the most expensive, must be delivered fresh (via flight) from all over the world meals you could imagine. These conferences are a testament to all the things we're doing wrong, and end up being a worship session for the status quo nearly every time. Why we consider these people "leaders" of anything is beyond me. The only thing they lead is money and luxury straight towards themselves.
Re: This is important! (Score:5, Insightful)
>> from what I've heard
From what I've heard, they don't. But then I don't have a cite either.
Re: This is important! (Score:3)
Practical Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not oppose reasonable action on climate change but I also think it is reasonable to expect politicians who are going to pass laws aimed at making us take trains instead of planes to practice what they preach
Just do ground the discussion, exactly which politician is it who "passed laws aimed at making us take trains instead of planes"?
Also for reference, which train to Baku, Azerbaijan do you recommend?
Re: (Score:2)
Take the Sofia-Istanbul train to Istanbul. Dogu Express to Kars, then the Bakuâ"Tbilisiâ"Kars railway to Baku. This is going to suck (especially if you're not starting in Sofia), but anything for the climate, right?
Re: (Score:2)
exactly which politician is it who "passed laws aimed at making us take trains instead of planes"?
In Canada Trudeau and all the Liberal MPs who implemented a carbon tax. Some European countries have been even more direct and implemented bans on short haul flights, so the politicians who voted for that etc. There are lots of examples of legislation aimed at encouraging low carbon transport like trains vs. planes. You should know or be able to find out the politicians in your country who favour this.
Also for reference, which train to Baku, Azerbaijan do you recommend?
For reference, the one that goes from whichever capital you are in that is located under 1000km away to B
Re: (Score:2)
It's predictable that the people who oppose any action on climate change will complain that those doing ANYTHING have not traveled using windpower wearing homespun flax clothing. I would once have attributed this to astroturfing rather than convergent stupidity, but this week has mademe open to arguments for either.
At least Greta Thunberg ate her own dog food with that sailboat adventure across the Atlantic Ocean to NYC. Or was that simply performance art?
Re: This is important! (Score:2)
Greta Thunberg, at least, practices what she preaches.
The politicians going to these conferences are mainly forced to go there by an electorate that suffers from climate issues, and industries afraid of the consequences of their actions, in order to make sure the latter don't get inconvenienced, and the first fet assured that "reasonable men are at the helm".
No, most politicians there don't care because they can escape the consequences of climate change. They can afford to lose their house to rising seas or
Elites 'negotiating' your economic future (Score:3)
A skeptic take is that these elites will agree to some greenwashing talking points, punish countries which actually have enforced environmental laws (EU,UK,US,NZ,AUS, JP, South KR, etc.) , and help get more money in motion.
Money in motion is the crux here as others have said so that each of the elites, their companies, governments, NGOs, UN, nonprofits can all make money and careers off of this.
A "You First" may be the best approach here, telling the global organizations, UN, NGOs, IMF, World Bank, governme
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>> rarely rail transport and rarely telecommute
It's pretty hard to find a train that crosses an ocean, and have you ever tried to telecommute to an in-person conference?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the bigger insinuation was...why do you "need" to be in-person when telecommute/zoom/teams type meetings would work JUST as well.
You know, like how much of the world has been doing a LOT of modern day work via WFH?
Those meeting tools work great...no need to fly over oceans and travel miles when a computer, camera and network hookup will suffice just as well.
Re: This is important! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much easier to get to know someone and interact with them in person than just seeing them on a webcam. Zoom is just a fancy phone call. Would you rather attend a party in person or on Zoom?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, depends on if I'm going to a party to "party" , I'd like to be in person, or if I'm doing work or meeting to do work...in which case I'd prefer zoom/online.
Re: This is important! (Score:2)
Teams has a place and time. But if you've ever dealt with sensitive negotiations, you should know that body language really doesn't come through on a screen. So no, it's not a replacement for that.
The conference preparations, sure. But not the actual wheeling and dealing.
Re: This is important! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This, and that they almost always take jet planes to these events to be there in person, rarely rail transport and rarely telecommute.
And that is a complete red herring. Turns out there are no planes that go over the Atlantic (you can Google that one if you don't believe me) and at large debates and conferences telecommuting is simply not effective for communication or achieving the purpose, as anyone who has been in a Teams meeting with more than 5 people can attest to.
In the end, those private jets are a metaphorical piss in the ocean of carbon emissions. Leaving aside the OP's cynicism, if one assumes they are at least attempting to ma
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This is important! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure you've seen cops turn on their siren just to blow a red light. People in authority positions frequently believe the rules don't apply to them, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the rules are still there for a good reason. Climate change is a serious problem, and leaders behaving in hypocritical manners just means that they're hypocrites but it does not invalidate their message. Like a doctor with his own pack-a-day habit telling you to quit smoking, he's still correct.
Of course, I wouldn't count out the possibility that these people simply realize just how utterly screwed we truly are and figure they might as well enjoy what's left of things with a few more bucks in their pockets. Reminds me of that quote from the movie Titan A.E.:
Cale : Yeah? What is the truth?
Korso : That the human race is outta gas. It's circling the drain. It's finished! The only thing that matters is grabbing whatcha can before somebody else beats ya to it.
Re:This is important! (Score:4, Informative)
Climate change is a serious problem, and leaders behaving in hypocritical manners just means that they're hypocrites but it does not invalidate their message. Like a doctor with his own pack-a-day habit telling you to quit smoking, he's still correct.
One, patient taxpayers aren’t paying directly for that doctors pack-a-day habit.
Two, I can fire a hypocritical doctor a lot easier than I can my local “representative”.
Three, some analogies, aren’t.
Re: (Score:2)
Orrrrr it means that the people - ALL the people - who come into power on a the message of fighting global warming will behave in this fashion in the end. For them it's a powergrab. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: This is important! (Score:2)
But for *us* it is rapidly becoming a matter of survival. And if we don't pressure politicians into working for us, then we don't stand a chance in the long run.
We can be cynical, or we can act.
Re: (Score:3)
It also shows that oil companies are not acting in good faith. If they're so quick to agree to a quid pro quo scheme like this, how many other quid pro quo schemes have they already agreed to that haven't been publicly outed yet?
We cannot trust Big Oil to do the right thing. We have never been able to trust Big Oil to do the right thing, with ample evidence to show why. I don't know why anyone would think that they would ever start doing the right thing unless mandated to by the force of government.
Re: (Score:1)
"officials should not use their roles "to seek private gain"" Please. That is clearly the main objective of many of the attendees.
UN says (Score:2, Informative)
...officials should not use their roles "to seek private gain" and it expects them to act "without self-interest."
Let me see, who is in charge of the UN: Guterres, received Chinese money as his wife sits on the board of Jose Berardo's companies, a Portuguese business man (in)famous for defrauding the Portuguese central bank and facilitating money laundering and bribery through the international exchange of art collections.
Before that:
“Beijing paid bribes to the two successive Presidents of the General
Re:UN says (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: UN says (Score:4, Funny)
Not that I'm excusing it for the UN, but is there literally any country, or hell, decently sized city, where its leader is NOT corrupt?
Soon there will be: the USA.
(After Trump pardons himself)
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're going for a joke, but that's just more corruption. It's just corruption that is uniquely unprosecutable.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically speaking, of course. But that was the only Funny for a story with lots of potential?
Re: (Score:2)
So, what exactly is "Cop29"? (Score:1, Troll)
The article seems to assume everyone knows what this presumed acronym stands for....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why don't you just try following the news for the last few years and not just the right-wing echo chamber? Try not to be such an ornery old codger too: it's an easy enough search to find your answer, but I think you were trying to make a statement rather than ask an innocent question and truly learn something new.
Re: So, what exactly is "Cop29"? (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m active in the climate space and youâ(TM)re way off baseâ"Cop29 isnâ(TM)t something that is general knowledge such that it needs no introduction. Accusing someone of a specific political bent isnâ(TM)t helpful and makes you look unhinged.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm active in the /. space and very familiar with cayenne8's posts. Apparently more familiar with them than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just try following the news for the last few years and not just the right-wing echo chamber? Try not to be such an ornery old codger too: it's an easy enough search to find your answer, but I think you were trying to make a statement rather than ask an innocent question and truly learn something new.
msnb and cnn had a article on cop28, cnn's was february 2024, msnbc's was december 2023, neither had anything about cop29. In fact there were maybe 4 articles in 3 years that used that acronym cop(year). cbs news had one article on cop29 just this month. So the news the last few years on the non wight wing echo chambers, seems dry on using any acronym.
Re: (Score:2)
What, no comment about your cars and how you don't give a shit about the environment?
Re: So, what exactly is "Cop29"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you so hard up for time that you can't open a browser tab and type `cop29` in and get search results answering your question? Your hands don't even need to leave the keyboard and you would have your answer in a little over 1 second.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more of a comment of someone posting an article on here and assuming everyone knows what the cryptic name of whatever is common knowledge.
If posting on /. you need to make sure things are easily understood without having to stop and do side research just to get the gist of the summary.
And also, this is Slashdot...people don't read all the articles or do research...are you
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see much in the article explaining WTF a Cop29 is...?
The article seems to assume everyone knows what this presumed acronym stands for....
Using acronyms, and not defining acronyms, is one of the scourges of modern life. It results in text which nobody can understand unless they are already in the field.
Three letter acronyms are about the worst, since all of them have multiple meanings. Here are many of them: https://www.acronymfinder.com/... [acronymfinder.com]
No-one believes it (Score:1)
No-one believes it. Except for a few die-hards in the US, UK, maybe Germany and Australia. These have managed to pressure the West into going along with the agenda, though the political class in general is just giving it lip service. But when it comes to taking any sort of effective action to reduce emissions, you find that no-one outside the countries listed above is prepared to do anything, and none of them believe in the so called energy transition.
It is impossible to run a modern economy on wind and
Re:No-one believes it (Score:5, Informative)
And yet by taking these measures, the UK had reduced its emissions in 2021 by 48% compared to 1990 levels.
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
There's no reason why there can't be continued success, even if the path isn't obvious to you right now.
It's also not just about the environment but also security and sending our money to countries with less than pleasant governments. We certainly shouldn't be held to ransom by countries such as Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
By taking which measures? By moving from coal to gas. Not thanks to wind or solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Switching from coal to gas represented a third of the decrease by 2017. Two thirds came through other means such as increasing efficiency. Renewable output has increased significantly since 2017 too and increasing usage of EVs will cut transportation emissions, which have to date been some of the hardest to address.
Re: (Score:2)
The way not to be held to ransom by countries like Russia is to produce enough energy domestically.
Heck, the US fracked so much gas it's exporting it via LNG to Germany to make up for their dependence on Russia -- and that's after they intentionally mothballed their own nuclear plants in the middle of an energy crisis!
Personally, I don't care whether it's wind or solar or nuclear or gas (coal be nasty tho, can't have asthma). Deliver reliable power safely and for a competitive rate -- the rest should be tot
Re: (Score:2)
The way not to be held to ransom by countries like Russia is to produce enough energy domestically.
Nice for some. The practical problem here in the UK is that we've passed peak production in the North Sea, particularly in our exclusive economic zone. There are still exploitable reserves yet to be drawn on but they're in deeper harder to reach spots and thus less profitable. It's cheaper to import gas from Norway than exploring and extracting these fields (and contrary to popular misconception the UK is still exploring and moving fields into production at this point).
This is why the UK is making big bets
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to run a modern economy on wind and solar. Still less, to do it while doubling demand by moving everyone to EVs and heat pumps. The problem is intermittency, to which no-one has any solution.
Longer term, it will be impossible to run a modern economy on fossil fuels ... because we will run out of them, set aside any concerns about climate. There's a reason that wind and solar are known as renewable energy sources.
This is now becoming clearly stated, at last. Its been an unspoken commonplace outside Europe and the US for a decade or more now. Minds in Europe have just now been concentrated as we speak by the week or so long Europe wide calm, which has dropped wind generation to tiny levels. No-one has any solution to this, except to install gas to cover demand, which of course blows net zero out of the water. But its that or blackouts.
No solution? Haven't you hear of storage? Yes, battery technologies are expensive and still need to scale-up, but much progress has been made. As for interim reliance on fossil fuels to cover the "intermittency" problem, this does not "blow net zero out of the water." It just sets you b
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have heard of storage, and so has the Royal Society, which produced the definitive report on how much storage net zero would require for the UK at present demand levels.
So large that they dismiss batteries out of hand. So large that they proposed excavating and sealing 900 caverns and filling them with hydrogen, to come from we know not where.
How many GWh did they think it would take? 60 to 100 TWh! It is not remotely realistic. This is engineering for the infrastructure of an economy and society
Everyone believes it (Score:2)
No one believes an executive would facilitate under-the-table meetings at a climate summit? You underestimate the cynicism level of slashdot.
Everyone believes an executive would facilitate under-the-table meetings at a climate summit.
The Nuclear Option (Score:2)
It is impossible to run a modern economy on wind and solar.
No, but it is possible to do it without oil by using nuclear power and battery storage. That is how you solve the intermittancy problem using existing technology.
Most people (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people try to be decent. We may disagree with what that means, but the underlying behaviour is there.
However, significant percentage of people are a moral opportunists, and they are motivated to get into positions where they have more opportunities. And once they are there, your average decent person rolls with it rather that fight it, because they know they're more likely to lose significantly than the opportunist who is exploiting the system.
It's amazing we ever form short term stable cooperative systems in the first place.
Selection Bias (Score:2)
Most people try to be decent.
Yes, but most people are not politicians.
Others will do what they do. Be better yourself. (Score:2)
lack of understanding of reality (Score:2)
>officials should not use their roles "to seek private gain"
He's not seeking private gain. He's seeking public gain. Azeri oil industry is in the hands of the state, not private individuals. By definition, that means public gain.
And Azeris are one of the most important players in oil sector right now, as they have a lot of growth, and a solid path to supply EU through Georgia and Turkey.
Re: (Score:1)