The countries committed to permanently ending fossil fuel use now far outnumber those against. Their problem? Their chief organising conference, the 30-year-old COP conferences, comes with vetoes from the petro-states. This year, 1,600 fossil industry lobbyists attended, and they managed to get any mention of fossil fuels scrubbed from the final agreement.
This ridiculous state of affairs can’t continue, and this is a classic move to break the deadlock. Sideline COP & the petrostates, by creating an alternative, they don’t have power in.
Maybe, and? Do you believe it can change and/or has the right to change?
The conference’s page does not try to pretend that it’s all shiny and perfect right now. Quoting:
You’re talking aspirational, I’m talking the economic and political realities of Australia.
So to answer your question, no, I don’t think it can change, but not because they don’t want to, as I don’t know what’s in their hearts, but because their economy is structured around resource extraction.
So fine, talk all the aspirational talk, but just know that you’re putting a fox in the hen house, which I’m pretty sure is exactly why they removed the petro-states.
I think I see the point you’re trying to make. I’m not sure if my question is purely aspirational, though. When you say “political realities of Australia” for example, shouldn’t the word “political” already imply that this is heavily influenced by people’s thoughts and resolve? I think Australians should evaluate that, not me who is in Europe or you since you refer to Australia as “they”.