9/ This is reckless climate and economic policy. And magical thinking. Net zero doesn’t happen without reducing fossil fuel supply. At least the US has the cojones to say it doesn’t give a shit about climate. @mark-carney.bsky.social is still pretending that Canada does. FIN

2/ The biggest CCUS project in the world to make Alberta’s exceedingly dirty and expensive oil, less dirty and more expensive. Tax credits to incentivize private $$ investments in CCUS, and... wait for it... *including for enhanced oil recovery*. WTAF?

after decarbonisation has achieved net zero CO2 emissions, so if you come to rely on Stardust's particles to cool the planet (even leaving aside the unpredictable consequences for regional climate) you have to do it essentially forever, as Kolbert's article notes. And if what Stardust had in mind

physics. In a retort to the problem of termination shock, the New Yorker fact checker inserted the Stardust statement to the effect that "Geoengineering could be gradually wound down as decarbonisation efforts get underway." Poppycock! The warming effects of carbon dioxide persist for millennia even

Applies also to other bans worldwide (Ireland, Denmark, NZ when the ban came in) - easier to ban exploration when you have minimal prospectivity.

Use coal for over two centuries and then claim climate leadership for closing the last plant in 2024. Drill for oil and gas to near-depletion and then again claim climate leadership for announcing a 'ban' with leeway for more extraction

People also seem to be forgetting news like this about depleted reserves

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09...

And this is again being called 'leadership'. Yea I was wrong. Celebration of 'climate leadership' happens during non-COP time also

Blocking finance and just transition discussions (quite effectively that too given the weak final text) while pushing for phaseout is not collaboration.

Ideally, phaseout/ transition language in line with CBDR should mean more scrutiny on FF expansion by the rich but let's see

Thanks for the alert on CCS

If the richest countries in the world claim they do not have the money to enable climate action and a just transition in poorer countries, maybe they should not be forcing a phaseout. They basically held the talks hostage to phaseout language and ensured it made media headlines. Quite duplicitous

👍

Anyway, I will await further analyses. Although I remain sceptical of how this will pan out in the future

The BBC report also says "... the wider relaxation in rules is widely thought to increase the chances Rosebank will ultimately be approved."

The U.K. and the EU, alongside other rich countries, engaged quite pathetically on both finance and just transition at COP30. After watching this unfold, I do not buy the argument that the roadmap was meant to enable climate action

It seems like a huge dilution of a much-touted plan. Makes me sceptical of the ban itself. What is the guarantee that more relaxations/ reversals will not be announced in the future?

bsky.app/profile/nata...

The U.K. and EU countries led the 'fossil fuel phaseout roadmap' at COP30. They threatened to walk out if the language was not included in the final text. These countries and others like Australia have also joined the call for a global conference on phaseout hosted by Colombia and Netherlands

Yes, that argument was used

4. I have my reservations about this paragraph. How many African negotiators did the journalist speak to and how many of them said they supported the roadmap outright?