Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Frenzy at COP28
The activist demand that the U.S. phase out all fossil fuels in eight years is borderline insane.

Dubai, United Arab Emirates—"A fast, fair, fully funded, and forever phase-out of fossil fuels" demanded climate activist Brandon Wu from ActionAid USA at a press conference today at the United Nations' 28th Climate Change Conference (COP28).
How fast? According a new report endorsed by ActionAid and 200 other activist groups, rich countries like the U.K. and the U.S. should forever cease all extraction of coal, oil, and natural gas by 2031.
What exactly does fair and fully funded mean? Greenpeace Regional Campaigns Manager Ahmed El Droubi at an earlier press conference convened by the 350.org activist group citing a June 2023 study suggested that the wealthy developed countries owe "$170 trillion in climate debt" to poor countries. For reference, world gross domestic product (GDP) in 2022 was just over $100 trillion. And it is worth considering how low world GDP would now stand if humanity had forsworn the vast improvements in living standards, health, longevity, and education made possible by the energy supplied by fossil fuels.
Despite the expansion of wind and solar power, fossil fuels still account for 82 percent of the world's primary energy. In the U.S., fossil fuels supply 79 percent of the primary energy that Americans consume, with nuclear accounting for 8 percent. It is not at all plausible that the U.S. would be able to completely and forever phase out fossil fuels over the next eight years. In fact, such a demand sounds borderline insane.
As it stands, the current negotiating text of the Global Stocktake document, which would be the principal output of COP28, retains several options calling for the phase-out of fossil fuels.
Option 1: A phase out of fossil fuels in line with best available science;
Option 2: Phasing out of fossil fuels in line with best available science, the
IPCC's 1.5 pathways and the principles and provisions of the Paris Agreement;Option 3: A phase-out of unabated fossil fuels recognizing the need for a peak
in their consumption in this decade and underlining the importance for the
energy sector to be predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050;Option 4: Phasing out unabated fossil fuels and to rapidly reducing their use so
as to achieve net-zero CO2 in energy systems by or around mid-century;Option 4: no text
Of course, each option raises their own questions. What is the best available science? For example, a 2022 study in Nature calculated that if all of the parties kept all of their current promises to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, global average temperatures would peak below the 2-degrees-Celsius threshold agreed to in the Paris Climate Change Agreement. If this result holds, that would mean the "climate crisis" being relentlessly flogged by activists and U.N. bureaucrats at COP28 would fade back into the still significant, but not potentially catastrophic, problem of climate change.
The second option seeks to bind the signatories to the already lost cause of trying to meet the Paris Agreement's aspirational goal of keeping future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Why is it a lost cause? Because in order to achieve that temperature objective, the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions 43 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels, according to U.N. calculations. Keep in mind that the only year since 1990 that global greenhouse emissions fell significantly is the pandemic year 2020 when they dropped by 4.6 percent.
What about phasing out unabated fossil fuels? Unabated basically means capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide emitted through burning coal, oil, and natural gas by burying it underground or planting trees to absorb it. Happily, a study published in November found that trees and other plants will likely absorb 20 percent more of the carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels than previously expected.
Of course, there remains the redundant Option 4: No text. In other words, COP28 negotiators may decide to remain silent on the issue of phasing out fossil fuels.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
COPE28
Unipolar is falling apart.
8 years for the US and rest of the west, plus Japan and China might be done IF all concerned immediately permitted and commenced building of sufficient nuclear plants, and allowed any amount of CO2 produced by the process of building those plants to be tolerated ON TOP of current levels, and told the greenies and progressives to shut up about renawables and stop wasting the adults’ time with their chatter about the same.
Ain’t gonna happen.
And, no, I have no idea of how to actually pay for this.
And, no, I have no idea of how to actually pay for this.
Tax the “rich”!
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
So...you're a step ahead of environmentalists who seem oblivious that they have to clue how to pay for it.
No amount of money is going to accomplish a complete phase-out of fossil fuels in eight years. It’s not just the electricity generation, it’s also the distribution and replacing every vehicle and ICE on the planet.
1. How did the activists get there? By walking? I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't practice what they preach, especially if they are demanding some sort of drastic action.
2. Are they willing to talk about nuclear in any serious way, or do they expect us to basically become subsistence farmers and / or die out?
Die out is the plan.
On the Round up I suggested that King Charles should, for the next conference take the HMS Victory out of ordinary to attend, and Biden can call up the USS Constitution. Of course, since the USS Constitution is already maintained in sailing conditions and is fully commissioned and the HMS Victory is maintained in ordinary in dry dock. Actually, show us how to not use fossil fuels.
And while they’re in those sailing ships after sunset, they better be using light sources limited to beeswax candles and whale oil lanterns. Even paraffin candles and kerosene lamps would be cheating. And their clothes better be only made from cotton, wool, or linen. No polyester or other such fossil-fuel derived fibers allowed. No plastic products of any kind had better be found on those ships. And I expect any plant-based food they consume to have been grown with “night soil” as the only fertilizer. If you’re going to not extract any more fossil fuels at all, everything had better be period accurate to circa the mid 1700s, or even a bit earlier, as we can’t allow any modern steel.
I wonder what the activist protesters' signs are made from.
Much earlier if we they can use no products or manufacturing techniques that utilize fossil fuels. While charcoal was dominant, some smiths were utilizing coal in the High Middle Ages. Then again charcoal manufacturing for metal smithing was hardly carbon neutral (burn a whole tree to make a sack or so of coal. Construct a mud and stick temporary oven which the wood was slowly burned/smoldered, for days until you arrived at the final product. This also required constant vigilance, opening air into the apparatus or closing vent as needed to maintain the correct temperature (hot enough to thoroughly char but cool enough that it didn't ash completely). Oh and I wonder how they'd view one of the most common fuels for interior heating, peat (or basically young coal).
If we want to be generous we can limit to preindustrial revolution, so mid-16th century or so. Tudor England here we come (they have constructed a replica of the Golden Hind. Of course we'll have to limit navigational devices, which relied heavily on accurate time keeping until the early 20th century, which required intensive metallurgy, and portable clocks weren't really a thing in Tudor England. About a century to early and two centuries for consistently accurate clocks.
It's ironic that Rockefeller saved the whales by offering oil instead, then turned around and invested in the rise of Christian National Socialism by funding the Prohibition Party--pietistic fanatics that seek to ban everything, especially happiness.
Gee, what a coincidence that a bunch of countries that are pissed off at 'the west' endorse the idea that 'the west' should purposefully plummet themselves back in the middle ages while paying those same parties a massive amount of cash.
It is not at all plausible that the U.S. would be able to completely and forever phase out fossil fuels over the next eight years. In fact, such a demand sounds borderline insane.
So if that's borderline insane, what would actually insane look like one wonders? Actually following through with the nonsense agreements no one has any intention of honoring?
Actual insane is everything about this fake climate catastrophe, and everyone who believes it. But since every believer got there from a fantastical point of view, logic and reality will never get them back in touch with sanity.
This. There is no amount of logic and no amount of facts that will bring the true believers down from the branches they're perched on. The only thing we can do is minimize the impact they have.
By denying the science 24/7.
Like "there are two sexes"?
The problem is less that there are just two sexes than that the is , at most one kind of physics, geophysics included.
So what you're claiming is that the entirety of the earth's interactions with the sun, it's own geological processes and atmospheric phenomena can be modeled by a single computer program cooked up in the eighties?
Wow.
Even better, PE is saying that humans can actually control those processes.
That carbon dioxide is toxic and not the single most important gas for life?
That a medicine that won the Nobel prize for its use in humans is horse paste?
That the mRNA jabs prevented transmission and illness?
That all fats are deadly and follow the food pyramid?
Close. The Dark Ages are what resulted when monotheistic mystics wiped out all secular, pantheistic and less altruistic superstitions. Moderns can now choose between sacrificing their liberty and lives to please dead Jesus or dead Mohammed. Even the statues of Diana and Athena have been vandalized, mutilated, sacrificed.
Borderline?
As in they're openly hedging against liquidating entire populations, potentially some of them by force and any meeting where they don't actually liquidate large numbers of people is bordering the very real and very much more insane demands, yes.
Madness.
Sparta.
M.A.I.D. needs to be approved for everyone with climate anxiety disorder.
I can get onboard with that.
Make "M" for mandatory instead of medical.
"A fast, fair, fully funded, and forever phase-out of fossil fuels" demanded climate activist Brandon Wu from ActionAid USA at a press conference today at the United Nations' 28th Climate Change Conference (COP28).
Wu does not have even a shred of technical or scientific expertise ...
Brandon holds a Master of Public Policy from the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs, where he played a lead role in an effort to unionize 4,500 graduate employees. He also holds a B.A. in sociology from Yale University.
https://www.actionaidusa.org/about/experts/brandonwu/
No offense, but I wouldn't particularly care if he had a degree in climatology or economics. Neither one has anything to do with the other vis-a-vis the invisible pink unicorn wish casting.
Most of these assholes don't actually hold STEM degrees of any kind whatsoever.
Especially the ones who went to CO2 Coalition kindergarten:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/11/attack-of-user-friendly-anime-molecules.html
Quit pushing your scam site, Shrike. What’s with you deliberately trying to mislead people with that phony URL anyway?
"Especially the ones who went to CO2 Coalition kindergarten:"
Stuff your fake web site up your ass, and then do the world a favor: Fuck off and die.
STEM is hard. Too hard so they got Poli Sci degrees and went into government and advocacy groups.
You get more of what you subsidize.
Subsidize students with student loans, and the extra ones are marginal.
Marginal students need marginal classes and studies to survive and keep passing those student loan bucks to the colleges.
Marginal classes need marginal fields and marginal professors doing marginal research.
And here we are!
Sociology and public policy degree's, and they unionized graduate employees?
Yeah, I'm not sure you just made the argument you think you made.
Unless this is sarcasm, perhaps?
The proper response to a demand to phase out fossil fuels for energy production is, "Go f**k yourself!" You could l**k it up!
>>The activist demand that the U.S. phase out all fossil fuels in eight years is borderline insane.
agree with you for once but take a fucking stand. borderline?
More testing needed to be sure.
Trust the science.
All Net Zero things are crazy: Global Warming = Better Climate
.
Did you know that over the last 50 years in much of the USA
.
SUMMERS BECAME COOLER.
.
That is scientific fact.
Not better for my favorite winter activities. But what are you gonna do? Get mad about the weather?
Bullshit.
No, it's not "borderline" insane ... it's insane by the very definition of insanity, i.e. out of contact with reality. What's also insane is that we're even listening to demands that the U.S. phase out fossil fuels at all, ever. What do you call someone who takes nonsense seriously? I mean, besides "Psychiatrist."
Don't take advice from people who don't mean you well.
Has anyone asked how much temperatures would plunge if we did the whole Animatrix blot out the sun thing? I mean, heat comes from the sub so I'd think blocking sunlight would be the easiest method of lowering temperatures.
Google 'geoengineering'
Geo engineering is an icky word that makes climate activists feel unsafe. How dare you!
Fuck off and die.
I searched it with a Microsoft bot and it said: "Nuke totalitarian dictatorships and the resulting nuclear winter will make global warming sound like a dinosaur nostalgia story." Can we have a Snoops fark czech on that?
This article contained 652 words about some summit somewhere in the eastern hemisphere. This is about 652 more words than anyone on this planet needs to hear about it.
The Venn diagram for climate activists, Hamas supporters, and those who believe in unlimited genders is an almost perfect circle.
You left out China, after Soviet Socialism replaced the Hirohito Co-Prosperity Sphere with Maoism. Johnny Von Neumann tried to warn everyone about totalitarian genocide, AND that climate prediction was not gonna happen because physics precludes the input accuracy needed for such math to work. Search "Petition Project"
"You first, cunts."
If the pandemic was the only year in which greenhouse gasses fell in recent decades, the answer is obvious. Turn the money printer on full and permanent lockdown.
Other than people who make the stuff I want to buy. They can't lock down.
Oh, and the delivery drivers who bring the stuff to me. They also need to keep working.
???? ???? ♾️
Maybe the 'activists' need to go get a F'En job instead of STEALING a living via gov-'guns' and ending up so bored they have to spend all their time lobbying for 'guns' against all those 'icky' people to feel special.
It's only "borderline insane" if one accepts the premise that they hate humanity, want to make as many of us suffer and die as possible, and have latched onto a fossil fuel ban as a means of achieving this goal.
If one presumes that they have 'good intentions' then they're extreme far-out completely around the bend la-la insane.
All you have to do is define altruism as "good." Then econazi intentions are by definition every bit as good as the Guyana People's Temple, International Socialism and Christian National Socialism.
Does "all" include communist Chinese oil, gas and coal?
The correlation between per capita access to energy and life expectancy is about as tight as the correlation that inductively made "all men are mortal" into a factual premise from which conclusions may safely be drawn. The definition of a health hazard is any action that can be relied on to reduce the average life expectancy of a population. Using force to shut off access to energy is the most dangerous health hazard ignorance and superstition have yet devised. (My testimony before the The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) in Austin before the STNP reactor came online).
Isn't is great to see the comments here about the article and the issue of climate activism? The editors of Reason always bring new, interesting and useful ways of understanding the world. Never predictable, or one-sided. The intellectual courage to seek evidence that contradicts one's own bias is on full display here. No enabling of superficial understanding that is co-dependent with the maintenance and expression of emotional states that are like addictions. No anger, smugness, condescension. Certainly no name-calling. Disagreement that is not only respectful of other's minds, which are of course important to consider, but is also respectful of knowledge itself. Here is a sanctuary from the distractions of narrowly-targeted advertising and political manipulation. Where it is possible to find the wisdom that knowledge is not fixed or static, and that there is always a way to improve our current knowledge. Exactly what should be expected from a magazine that named itself after "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses". Clearly there isn't a single person here who does not make reason a virtue.
(translation for those less able to tolerate irony)
This whore of a ragazine has been slinging the same tired old saggy tiddy ideas down intellectual avenues named after forgotten people for decades. And now it's face is caked with Koch brother spooge. I suppose that the deception promulgated for petro-profit is considered a facet of a "free market". Often, we are judged by the company we keep. Telling your readers what they want to hear is not the worst kind of work. Even if it requires satisfying their emotional urges as a substitute for the authentic discussion of ideas. But even street walkers understand that there is no such thing as a "free" market. That, without rules, or without a human agency to enforce those rules, the market follows the law of the jungle, where violence decides what is true and there are no values except for a constant struggle to survive. I somehow had the impression that human beings, who alone among animals possess REASON, could do better than that.
Argentine ecological christian anarco-nationalsocialist Savior Milei has decided The Darkening Age was right after all. Argentina will now help Red China pass laws outlawing energy everywhere except China, Cuba and Mohammedan Saudi Arabia. Thanks and a tip of the steel helmet to the Lootveeg Fon Mises Austrian Anschluss Caucus for this Victory of Faith over Reason.