General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Can we finally say that COP28 was the telltale sign of an ongoing conspiracy?

Asked by luigirovatti (2869points) December 13th, 2023

What I mean is, I’m a conspiracy theorist. Anyone who has read my past posts already knows this. People generally don’t believe this. But now I wonder, in Cop28 the Arab Emirates put pressure to remove the word “phase out” from the final text regarding the reduction of fossil fuels. This key word could have averted a potential climate disaster. Now, I wonder: there were more than 150 states of the world at that conference. There were, I might add, plenty of negationists. The Arab Emirates managed to convince these 150 states, each with their own interests and agenda, to remove this word from the final text. How do people still pretend that there isn’t a conspiracy going on? Especially the military-industrial complex?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

mazingerz88's avatar

What does phase out mean? Total non-use of fossil fuels? Is that even realistic?

ragingloli's avatar

It is not a conspiracy, because it is not secret.
It is pretty obvious that the countries that derive all their wealth from supplying the world with oil would be against phasing out fossil fuels. It is also obvious that the countries that still rely on fossil fuels would give in to those demands.

luigirovatti's avatar

@ragingloli: The general terms of the conspiracy are known to the world. What’s not known is proof, testimonies, places, times, hard facts, or investigative journalism. No one connects all the dots, there’s not a conspiracy theory of everything.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t know what Cop28 is, but there is never going to be a complete phase out of fossil fuels in my opinion, but rather a shift towards greener solution, especially for new construction, cars, etc. There is still a ton of fossil using already happening and will carry on for a long time.

If they don’t want to use the phrase phase out, I would guess it’s either from a marketing perspective not wanting to reinforce the idea of switching ti other energy sources or just being accurate that fossil fuels won’t be completely phased out.

Oil producers quite obviously must see the writing on the wall regarding the world’s will to get off of fossil fuel dependency. Even so, they will still be rich beyond imagination with what they are selling for many generations to come.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I don’t think it is a conspiracy either.

It is a business decision -> we have 28 countries that have some or all dependency on fossil fuels, and they are going to keep the golden spigot running for as long as they can. It is all about money.

@JLeslie is correct that we will continue to see oil-based energy for our lifetimes, and probably the next hundred years.

But as she said, the oil countries also recognize that there is a reputational cost (in addition to the environmental cost) to doing nothing about climate, and since oil is such a huge contributor to climate issues – along with coal – they have to be seen as doing something.,

So it’s not a conspiracy in the classic sense of the word. It is an overt, completely visible set of businessmen doing things to prolong their income streams.

kritiper's avatar

What difference does it make? Sperm counts in all animals have been falling at about 1% per year for the last 50 years, and the rate has increased to about 2% to 3% per year.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@kritiper I think you’re answering the wrong question. Sperm counts don’t really mesh with COP28. Unless all the participants are male.

luigirovatti's avatar

@elbanditoroso: Probably many of the conspirators are businessmen. That said, I guess what I said is up for debate.

janbb's avatar

^^ Not really.

flutherother's avatar

It would be difficult to get any random group of 150 people to agree about anything and impossible if no one was willing to compromise. What you see as a conspiracy is the haggling and horse trading necessary to reach an agreement. I don’t see anything sinister in it at all.

Zaku's avatar

We could say it before, and after, but not everyone would call it a conspiracy. [Shady] diplomacy, along the lines @ragingloli mentioned, seems more appropriate of a word.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther