Our climate Metternich does not seem to be proving as effective as he might have hoped. A couple of weeks ago, angered by Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, the Chinese regime made it clear that it was not too interested in cooperating with the U.S. on climate issues. In reality, that won’t make much difference; Chinese energy policy has long been driven by other considerations (its investment in renewables owes more to Beijing’s pursuit of self-sufficiency — and export opportunities — than concerns about the climate), but it will make it even more difficult for Kerry to claim that the “world is with us” on our current climate-policy trajectory.
And so will this (via Bloomberg):
India’s government is studying a slower retirement of aging coal-fired power plants as it also adds newer sites, a move that would keep fossil fuel capacity higher for years and potentially stall efforts to hit climate goals.
Officials are considering a proposal to shutter less than 5 gigawatts of existing capacity by the end of the decade as the nation grapples with surging electricity demand and a global energy shortage, according to people familiar with the matter. That compares with plans drawn up in 2020 that proposed shuttering about 25 gigawatts by the same date…
The world’s third-largest emitter doesn’t envisage hitting net-zero until 2070, and is aiming only for half of its electricity generation capacity to use clean fuels by 2030, giving the nation scope to continue relying on coal for decades more. Together with China, India frustrated efforts to set a date to phase out the use of unabated coal power at last year’s Glasgow climate talks.
Never mind; there’s always the U.K., still wondering how to move forward with the war against meat.
The only way to have sustainable land use in [Britain], and avoid ecological breakdown, is to vastly reduce consumption of meat and dairy, according to the UK government’s food tsar.
Henry Dimbleby told the Guardian that although asking the public to eat less meat — supported by a mix of incentives and penalties — would be politically toxic, it was the only way to meet the country’s climate and biodiversity targets.
“It’s an incredibly inefficient use of land to grow crops, feed them to a ruminant or pig or chicken which then over its lifecycle converts them into a very small amount of protein for us to eat,” he said.
Currently, 85% of agricultural land in England is used for pasture for grazing animals such as cows or to grow food which is then fed to livestock. Dimbleby, the Leon restaurant chain co-founder and a respected voice in Conservative circles, believes a 30% meat reduction over 10 years is required for land to be used sustainably in England. Others go much further: Greenpeace, for example, say we must reduce our meat intake by 70%.
“If we fail on this,” Dimbleby said, “we will fail to meet our biodiversity or climate goals in this country. We also have a huge opportunity to show thought leadership worldwide, and show them that this can be done, that we can farm sustainably and still feed people.”
“Thought leadership worldwide”: Delusional, of course, but, as a phrase that combines both megalomania and McKinseyspeak, it’s not unimpressive.
Dimbleby, I note, is described as “a respected voice in Conservative circles.”
Well . . .