At the COP28 climate conference on Saturday, nearly 120 nations pledged to triple the output of renewable energy on the planet by 2030.
In Dubai, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, along with 118 countries and COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber, launched the Global Pledge on Renewables and Energy Efficiency at the World Climate Action Summit, a press release from the European Commission said.
So, both coal and methane are fossil fuels. This is according to the International Energy Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Defense Fund, and Carbon Brief (UK-based group focused on climate science, climate policy, and energy policy). When it comes to methane specifically, it’s the best green house gas when it comes to heat-trapping potential. So with the whole temperature rising component to global warming, it’s an ideal fossil fuel to focus on, even according to MIT (…mit.edu/…/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxi…).
Coal lives on private funding primarily, so in the big picture, stopping that is cutting coal off at the knee’s. With methane, regardless if it’s leaky pipes from previous consumption or active consumption, it’s one of the best moves to make by the numbers, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. What else were you expecting from the conference? These are attainable goals, I’d say.
Edit: In addition to the 300% increase in renewables also decided on at the conference as well. The conference was held in a country overflowing with oil too. Odd choice certainly, but glad we have an attainable plan which will result in benefits environmentally if followed.
preventing private investments could give state enterprises like Coal India an advantage, not sure that’s good. then using public money to repair private gas pipelines is good because they might actually get fixed. as I’ve alluded to, both seem pretty okay to me.
something else i wish they would have committed to is a reduction in consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas/methane.
Is that not an indirect benefit to more widespread use of renewables? Not just now, but even more, through the ability to find better methods to go about the process via substantially more use and funding as well.
It could be if a three fold increase in renewable production from current levels outpaces demand growth over the same period. If it doesn’t, then it won’t.
I suspect that if it did out pace demand growth, they would have mentioned it because that would be remarkable, and the arithmetic to see if this would happen isn’t challenging
Weak. Increasing renewables only matters to the extent that it displaces fossil fuels. It’s just a way to look good by doing something that mostly would have happened anyway due to increasing energy use.
Are you saying applying renewables more broadly won’t result in an increased rate of advancement? Utilizing them more broadly not only will lessen the current rates of oil consumption, but also allow the processes to become more efficient. Additionally, it’s not just a single renewable energy source, but many different approaches, making the three fold increase in application beneficial across many different areas of focus. Not to mention the uptick in jobs which will be associated with larger scale use. The states could sure use it, especially after the drastic loss of coal based jobs. But this is just my stance, I’m well aware some folks don’t assess situations logically.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to do, just that it’s not a direct commitment to do anything meaningful about climate change which is what we should demand out of these talks. With the price of renewables, governments barely need to do anything to build them out, which they’ve been using to avoid taking real action for years now. This is just a continuation of that same pattern.
Add comment