Climate Action Chat

The global communmity relies on fossil fuels for energy and seems destined to do so for many years ahead. Every nation is (and will continue to do so) experiencing the impacts of GHGs. Many fossil fuel executives and lobbyists were at COP 29 in Baku. Do fossil fuel companies bear significant responsbility for the climate crisis, and if not, who does? And if so, what does that responsbility mean? Here are some interesting articles... https://apple.news/AQx-6z0NCTOSD5qJ86mg2bA https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/15/cop29-live-day-five-begins-with-demands-for-change-to-way-summits-are-run?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/16/trump-administration-chris-wright-energy-secretary?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in the 1990s, negotiators focused on greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs. They discussed mitigation actions; ways to reduce GHGs. The landmark Kyoto Protocol of 1997 (at COP 3) emphasized mitigation, with commitments from developed countries to reduce their production of and reliance on fossil fuels. The 2015 Paris Agreement set the goal of a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2050. This goal would be achieved only if developed countries - the major GHG emitters - transitioned significantly to renewable energy sources. This has not happened. Countries are expanding their use of renewables but not fast enough th meet the 1.5 degree goal. Consequently, negotiators now devote considerable time to discussing adaptation - how to deal with a warming world and its consequencxes, such as wildfires, drought, intense hurricanes and typhoons... These articles relate to the imp...

President-elect Trump is likely to take the US out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, just as he did in 2017. When the US pulls out, other countries step forward to take on leadership roles. China has emerged as a leader - really the dominant leader - when the US withdraws from the Paris Agreement. And the US becomes a very minor player in the on-going global UN negotiations on climate change. This has implications not just for fighting climate change, but for ther US ecomomy and its leadership in the world. These articles discuss this situation and its implications. https://apple.news/AFzecoiEITeq8ty3udg0l5w https://apple.news/AB6diKuhZQBOqkA3KuwxKUw https://apple.news/A4ECq5REMQ8S-nKKmJZXnQg

When Donald Trump became President of the US in 2017, he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The US was on the sidelines of UN negotiations during the Trump Presidency - not a major player. I wrote to the Trump Administration, urging it to stay in the Paris Agreement. I have taught negotiation for almost 40 years and have read Trump's book The Art of the Deal, and I recommended that the Trump Administration keep the US seat at the table, even as it disagreed with the Obama Administrations's policies and much of the Paris Agreement. There3 is more to be gained by stayng engaged - staying at the table - than by walking away. When one walks away, one loses voice and influence. Other countries and negotiators continue to move forward. The Trump Adminstration never answered my letter. In 2025 President-elect Trump will likely take the US out of the Paris Agreement again. And yes, I will write again urging the Trump Administration to keep the US seat at ...

I just returned from COP 29 in Baku, Azerbiajan - the annual end of the year UN climate change negotiations. The major agreement involved money - a commitment of nations to provide 300 billion dollars (US$) to fight climate change, particuarly to help developing countries. Do the major emitters of green house gasses, like the United States, have a responsibility to help the countries that are the most vulnerable - the most impacted? Two articles... https://apple.news/A1EF4Sz2nSqGvhMJ55un4Cw https://apple.news/AWBFlyfS7T9m4mQAK6N94hw