The Saudi delegation has flatly opposed any language in a deal that would even mention fossil fuels — the oil, gas and coal that, when burned, create emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. Saudi negotiators have also objected to a provision, endorsed by at least 118 countries, aimed at tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030.

  • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    11 months ago

    Is there a legitimate reason why « we » globally care about their opinion ?

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The Saudis own entire economies. They aren’t even listed on the world’s richest people because they own the mechanism that those people operate in.

    • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’ll just start funding more terrorist organizations and attacks à la 9/11. The Saudis are no one’s friends and the world would do well to remember that.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      They produce a lot of oil, they can easily influence oil prices, and thereby influence elections.

      Piss off the Saudis, they reduce output, prices go up, idiots everywhere vote for the other guy who’s willing to suck their dick.

      Eg. 2022 US midterms they used oil as a weapon against the democrats, losing them the house.

      • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        True but eventually there will be an alternative to oil and that day they can go back to trading camels. There power is relatively new and won’t last. It’s so weird to piss everyone off in the meantime.

        • anlumo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The concept of money is built in a way that once you have a lot of it, it doesn’t go away any more.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        One more reason for renewables so sucking the dicks of dictators can’t help you win elections as easy as that

          • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Iran? What’s the deal with them? They seem rather tame compared to a lot of other shitholes.

            • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Saudi Arabia is western aligned because they oppose Iran - Iran has always been viewed as more dangerous to America… ever since they kicked out the British backed Shah in 1979.

              There’s also oil, but both countries had oil… but one stayed a monarchy while the other became a theocracy and then kind of democracy. Instead of supporting the democratic transition away from a theocracy America, of course, backed the monarchy.

              If that doesn’t gel with your expectations about America and spreading freedom and whatnot bear in mind… Kissinger.

              • anlumo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Monarchies are way easier to control than democracies, so this isn’t surprising.

                You can see that with Russia, it took them an ungodly amount of money and decades of propaganda to take over the Western democracies.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      The rules on the talks require consensus, and the president of the talks is an oil executive from another petrostate and likely to interpret a requirement for consensus as a requirement for unanimity

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mean, the world economy moving away from petroleum-based fuels would make them mostly geopolitically irrelevant (the exception being that Mecca is (currently) in Saudi Arabia), so this isn’t terribly surprising.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You’re right about their motivations, but I think geopolitics gives absolutely zero shits about Mecca. Just like with Israel, religion is sometimes used as rhetorical justification, but ultimately it’s about power. Invoking religion is another political move as a shield against their cynicism.

      Like just look at how these sentiments tend go: “we are fighting for our holy land because we are righteous; they are fighting over their holy land because they are simpleminded and superstitious”. It’s just flag waving. It’s such easily manipulated rhetoric that it can work to any end, so of course it gets deployed.

      It’s no more meaningful to the people in power than any other culture war issue. They care about it exactly as much as they care about the green M&M.

      Edit: I mentioned Israel, and I realise a lot of people still don’t understand this, but when the US invokes religious duty as their reasons for supporting Israel, it’s cynical. Biden made the real reason abundantly clear decades ago, and he has not walked this back: https://youtube.com/shorts/2HZs-v0PR44?si=vBjdkrzWB5xAWJ7u

      He literally says it’s about “values”, then immediately says they’d have to invent an Israel. He made it clear decades ago that was purely for US geopolitics.

  • klisklas@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand why a unanimous final statement is so important for the COP. Making big compromises to appease OPEC will send a devastating signal to the people in Europe, America and so on. This will accelerate the loss of trust in politics in these countries. Why not let the talks fail and announce a big multilateral agreement the next day uniting the Americas, Europe and China? This will send a strong message and will bring us forward in climate politics.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Saudi Arabia is taking the fall for the other oil-producing nations (or the corporations that own those nations), allowing them all to ignore climate change entirely. This way they can all point to Saudi Arabia and say, “Blame them, not us! We did everything we could, but Saudi Arabia just wouldn’t let us come to an agreement. Oh, well. Too bad. Maybe next time.”

      COP28 is a fake climate conference led by oil billionaires and fossil fuel execs. Their only goal is to exert control on the global messaging around climate change. They will never agree to meaningful change. We need to be calling it out as the charade it is and demand a legitimate conference that excludes fossil fuel execs and billionaires entirely. There is no “self-regulation”. They need to be regulated by force of laws, not empty promises and fake climate summits.

      • klisklas@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        COP28 is a fake climate conference led by oil billionaires and fossil fuel execs.

        That’s my point, just let it fail and prepare an agreement without the oil execs. Multilateral agreements happen all the time, why should COP be the only possibility to make climate politics happen?

  • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    It makes sense that they would take the position. It is just odd that the effects of global warming hasn’t hit their populations either.

    How long could they insulate their populations from the worst of it?

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They don’t need to insulate the population, just the ruling house and the oil sector. The rest of the country is basically disposable, that’s the nature of the resource curse.