Don’t want to scoop myself by giving away too much here but I am working on this

Just about every part of this decision is baffling. Indigenous opposition, awful climate implications, timed to come online just as a global LNG supply gut takes shape & financially benefits US billionaires linked to Trump (one of which is under investigation for $170 million payment to Epstein).

To make sense of a COP, I believe these tensions need to be acknowledged. There's some good stuff happening, but also some pretty alarming stuff. It doesn't fit into a neat good or bad box, because it's an arena of politics. It's value comes from how groups leverage the space.

Most is loaned not granted, meaning there is an expectation to recoup the money from the most vulnerable with interest widening the gap between rich and poor. It's a form of green colonialism.

Stuff like that is why these spaces demand critical coverage. They're reshaping the world.

There are lots of harmful things that happen at COPs too. I'm not here to uncritically boost them. Climate finance is one of those key issues to me. Because of the Paris Agreement rich countries give hundreds of billions in finance to poorer countries for climate impacts, except...

Climate change is mostly solved with a global phase out of fossil fuels. You don't get a coordinated phase out without diplomacy. Market forces are too slow to work on their own, so these summits are needed. If they didn't have the potential, oil and gas lobbyists wouldn't infiltrate them.

Pre-Paris Agreement the world was on track for 4-5C warming. Absolutely horrifying levels. We're now under 3 based on current policies. Still terrible and still too slow don't get me wrong, but right direction. Implication here is we should ratchet up action, not retreat from multilateralism.

The argument here is two-fold. First the Paris Agreement isn't working well enough, but it is working better than many acknowledge.

Second, the test for whether something is important or not isn't 'has it worked perfectly?' it's 'does it have real potential?'

What happens when the fuel burns? What about the methane leaks? What about diverting electricity away from decarbonizing the rest of the economy to power LNG plants?

Even if you believe net zero production is possible there is no credible way to believe LNG expansion is part of the transition.

LNG is not net zero. Gov claiming it will be is them bullshitting the public.

The evidence it will replace coal is also super questionable. Evidence we do have is that LNG displaces renewables. It’s counter to climate goals in just about every conceivable way.

news.cornell.edu/stories/2024...

A lot of climate advocates were expecting much better from Carney given his background. I think safe to say that after today, the grace period he was offered is over.

"It is a costly blunder, mainly to the benefit of foreign fossil fuel investors, that makes our economy less competitive in the long-term."

"Economies that cannot rapidly disentangle themselves from fossil fuels will be left behind by the ones that do.

Subsidizing a dying oil and gas industry and scaling back climate spending moves us in exactly the wrong direction."

"Perhaps the greatest irony of this approach — and the tragic legacy of this budget — is that it is not very strategic at all. The budget itself acknowledges that global investment in the clean economy already outstrips investment in fossil fuels, and that the gap is widening."

I’m still with @nationalobserver.com, but as of today, I’m reporting from Toronto! Excited to cover climate, energy and the environment from a new perspective — please reach out with story ideas or just to say hi ☺️