You know, the host nation who’s economy is based on fossil fuels
COP28 summit: Future of fossil fuels center stage at climate talks
Delegates from nearly 200 countries will convene this week for the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, where conference host and OPEC member the UAE hopes to sell the vision of a low-carbon future that includes, not shuns, fossil fuels.
That narrative, also backed by other big oil producer nations, will reveal international divisions at the summit over how to combat global warming.
Countries are split over whether to prioritise phasing out coal and oil and gas, or scaling up technologies such as carbon capture to try to diminish their climate impact.
So the BBC asks
COP28: Can a climate summit in an oil state change anything?
I don’t know. Kinda hard to force the climate cult beliefs on Other People when
COP28 is about to take place in one of the hottest places at this time of year, Dubai.
70,000 attendees, 1000s of private jets, and a few motorcades for the richest most carbon hungry individuals on Earth, to tell the poorest people they are destroying the planet.
Priceless. pic.twitter.com/Fc584zlwnK
— DD Denslow ???????? (@wolsned) November 28, 2023
Ho boy! Hope she gives a speech.
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/after-criticism-biden-skipping-global-climate-summit-white-house-send-kamala
#PresidentLOL81Million
Bwaha! Lolgfy
US News and World Report ranks the states – See how Florida vs. California match up
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2023/11/us-news-and-world-report-ranks-states.html
STOP SAYING FOSSIL FUELS! Oil doesnt come from dead dinosaurs.
I do not concede your point.
Plants also leave fossils, and when used as an adjective e.g., fossil fuels the use of fossil is technically correct.
According to Merriam-Webster
Ms. Harms,
I conceed your point. At this point however, it hardly makes any difference. It is the nature of language that words take on new meanings. The term “Fossil fuels”, though technically wrong, is useful enough to describe the context that no one is confused about the fact that you are referring to gas, oil, coal, and sometimes peat. This is similar to gun purists complaining that the term “assault weapon” is being used incorrectly by gun banning lobbyists. Their point is factually correct but not relevant since we all know what they really mean. Their agenda is total ban on private ownership of firearms, except for the aristocracy. Similarly, the people who wish to ban fossil fuels don’t really limit themselves to control over dinosaur remains. Eventually (right away), they want to control all energy production and distribution. Wealthy and connected people can have as much as they want and the serfs can “put on a sweater” in the winter.
To be fair, it also includes dead plant remains!
Every “liberal” response, translated: “But that’s DIFFERENT!”
HOW this is different is never explained, likely because it’s based on FEELZ.*
*An argument which conservatives are somehow barred from using, for some reason also not explained.
Sometimes it is different.