LOS ANGELES.–Ending the U.N.’s COP28 Climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 200 member states produced a watered down communiqué calling for a “transition,” not a “phase down” from fossil fuels. Everyone knows, including COP28 president Sultan al-Jaber head of UAE’s national oil industry, that China, India, Africa, Latin America and island nations rely heavily on fossil fuels for their industries, just like the Industrialized world on the United States, Europe and Asia that fossil fuels are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Attempts to reduce tailpipe emission through electric cars may not make any difference in improving the carbon-driven climate change scenario, assuming that greenhouse gases cause global warming and its related climate effects. Agreeing to “transition” from fossil fuels placate none of the hardcore environmentalists looking for pie-in-the-sky.
Hidden from the press conferences and press releases, the anti-fossil fuel, pro-nuclear industry pushes the world to adopt technology that could have far more toxic consequences to the planet than fossil fuels. Anti-fossil fuel demagogues like former Vice President Al Gore or post-teenage climate media creation Greta Thunberg, cites the most specious climate science making wild claims about impending disaster from global warming. COP28 leaders want net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, an arbitrary 1.5 degrees above pre-industrialization temperatures. What would be worse for the planet in the future an increase in temperature or nuclear radiation spread from unsafe nuclear wastes around the planet? All the so called scientists hide behind the great secret push for nuclear power, technology that hasn’t yet been widely produced and tested for safety.
COP28 is a non-binding legal document that commits 200 countries to the prospects of transitioning away from fossil fuels, not really knowing the consequences to the planet’s economy from a push to more nuclear power. Conference attendees, especially the ecology crowd, don’t want to talk about nuclear power, only pretend that wind, solar and hydroelectric can accommodate the demands the world’s industrial powers. Without fossil fuels, world industry would grind to a halt, sending industrialized and developing countries in a tailspin, turning the clock back on post-industrial age progress. “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly manner,” reads the COP28 join-resolution. Calling the documents “fundamentally weak,” said Justin Rowlatt, BBC’s climate editor, an anti-fossil fuel writer on climate change and global warming.
No mention in the final communiqué was made of oil, the major industry in OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Emirates, Kuwait,Venezuela and other OPEC oil producers. If climate scientists got their way, they would change out every coal and natural gas power plant with Small Modular Nuclear reactors [SMRs], prone toward leaking radioactivity and producing toxic radioactive wastes that must be stored underground. Yet no mention is made at all about the backroom deals and the actual views of climate scientists suggesting practical alternative to fossil fuel electricity generators. If current electric car trends continue, it would require a major build-out of electric grids around the planet, largely pushing for nuclear to replace natural gas and coal-fired power plants. If that’s the real plan of COP28, why isn’t it mentioned in any of the summit minutes, press conferences or releases?
Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said more must be done to close the energy gap between industrialized and developing countries. No mention was made at COP28 of the requirement that industrialized nations help developing countries in the new build-out to make energy more available, helping with the “transition” away from fossil fuels. Cleetus should explain publicly the position of her organization on SMRs technology to accommodate the future electrical needs of industrialized and developing countries. Developing nations, particularly island nations, don’t yet see a way out of fossil fuels. BBC’s environment correspondent Matt McGrath said the COP28 resolution is “likely not enough to keep global temperatures under th !.5C threshold,” asking that industrialized nations, like China and India, submit “stronger carbon-burning plans by 2025.”
U.N. climate conferences need to level of member-nations and the public about the back deal plans to push the world into a new generation of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors [SMRs] when, in fact, the technology has not yet been refined enough to guarantee widespread use would not create a far more climate disaster than fossil-fuels. Yet no one hears about the push for nuclear power, rather than the push for better pollution controls for the fossil fuel industry. Climate hysteria and the nuclear power industry conspire to sell potentially deadly alternative to fossil fuels, not having safe nuclear technology that can replace gas and coal-fired power plants around the planet. Climate hysteria must be removed from U.N. climate conferences if the world can expect the best possible outcome. With all the problems of fossil fuels, they’re still the safest bet out there.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
