If you want to stay informed about climate change, sign up to receive free climate change updates. Every morning, you’ll receive a myFT Daily Digest email summarizing the latest news on climate change. Welcome to our on-site version of the Moral Money newsletter in London. By signing up, you’ll get the newsletter delivered directly to your inbox. Visit our Moral Money hub on the FT website for all the latest news, opinions, and analysis on ESG issues.
Greetings from London, where residents are enjoying the final bank holiday of the summer. As the northern hemisphere summer comes to an end, the COP (Conference of Parties) is approaching. COP28, this year’s conference, has already sparked heated debates among climate activists. In this article, I will discuss the differences of opinion between US elder statesmen, John Kerry and Al Gore. What are your thoughts on this debate? Let us know by emailing us at [email protected] or simply replying to this email. – Simon Mundy
A fascinating divide is emerging between two influential figures in the fight against climate change. Al Gore, former US vice-president, recently gained attention with his passionate TED talks on the climate crisis. He expressed frustration with the lack of global action on the issue. On the other hand, John Kerry, the US presidential climate envoy, shared his perspective on the struggle during a roundtable interview at the FT’s London headquarters.
Despite some obvious similarities between these two notable figures, they hold contrasting views on the fossil fuel industry. This divergence highlights significant divisions within the wider climate debate. Gore directed his criticism towards the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the host of COP28, and Sultan al-Jaber, who serves as both COP28 president and chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. Gore accused al-Jaber of having a blatant conflict of interest and questioned their credibility. On the contrary, Kerry emphasized the close relationship between the US and the UAE, defending the country against unfair criticism. Kerry’s stance echoes the views of climate experts who believe that the UAE’s presidency of COP28 could lead to positive outcomes. By putting a major fossil fuel producer in the spotlight, it could push them and others to take more serious climate actions.
However, there are those who strongly support Gore’s perspective, arguing that the UAE’s presidency represents a “capture” of the COP process by the fossil fuel industry. This debate will heavily impact the perceived integrity of COP28 and any agreements that result from it.
One specific point of contention at COP28 is carbon capture technology, which the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and private-sector companies like ExxonMobil have been promoting. Proponents of this technology believe it enables the continued use of fossil fuels with minimal impact on the climate. Critics, including Gore, view this as a distraction from the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel usage and rapidly transition to alternative energy sources. Gore expressed doubts about the effectiveness and readiness of carbon capture technology, accusing its proponents of using it to deceive the public.
Kerry, while acknowledging the technology’s limitations, expressed a more favorable view of investment in carbon capture. He highlighted its commercial use in the US oil extraction process. The carbon capture debate may appear technical, but its outcome will have significant implications for the energy transition. Previous climate discussions primarily focused on reducing unabated fossil fuel usage. The extent to which abated usage will be accepted in the coming decades is a key question at COP28 and could impact the share prices of global oil companies.
Gore also criticized energy giants Shell and BP for diluting their clean energy commitments amidst rising oil prices. He accused the industry as a whole of lacking good faith. Kerry took a less confrontational approach, citing a conversation with BP CEO Bernard Looney, who assured him that the company had not abandoned its climate targets but had adjusted the pace of implementation. Where Gore emphasized the growing presence of the fossil fuel industry at COP events, Kerry emphasized the importance of engaging the sector in meaningful action.
Despite their differences, Gore and Kerry share common ground on several climate issues. They both emphasize the need for increased funding for green energy in developing countries and advocate for more ambitious action by the World Bank. They also recognize the positive impact of Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act on green investment. Additionally, both express concern about the influence of fossil fuel industry lobbyists on the US political process.
As the complexity and magnitude of the climate challenge give rise to various perspectives among climate activists, the question remains whether these differences will foster productive debates and drive momentum or hinder progress.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
