One in every 25 participants at 2025 UN climate summit is a fossil fuel lobbyist
Quite interesting that it’s really just a fossil fuel gathering. Even Brazil is clearing the Amazon and still exploring for oil and gas
On another note, bit like having it in Australia, we’re a “petro state” and should be banned from even attending, let alone how completely cringe it is to even LARP at concern, so lets hope we don’t get it. The emissions involved to get everyone to the arse end of Australia (Adelaide) at the arse end of the world are ludicrious, better to use the funds to give GST exemptions on bicycle purchases and build better cycling infrastructure)
better to use the funds to give GST exemptions on bicycle purchases and build better cycling infrastructure)
I’ve read this a couple times now, and i like this idea more and more. Bikes receiving the same tax treatment as things like fruit and veg, i can get behind that.
I’d want to improve it by whacking a made in Australia requirement on the bikes getting GST removal. I think it’d fit well with the Government’s Future Made in Australia policy. Bikes are fairly low barrier to entry for manufacturing, so it could be a gateway for companies to get established. Peugeot had a pathway from steel to cars that included bikes, and S&P grinders.
1 in 25 attendees, on a low turn-out year, thats the take-away. I don’t know, i’m a bit dissapointed in the way they’ve tried to hype the number of fossil fuel lobbyists being sent in this article. Its like ~900 less than were at Dubai, and less than Baku. This article is straying into ‘make the numbers fit the narrative’ territory.
I mean, 1 Jamaican Representative to 40 Fossil Fuel lobbyists, i get the current news and it’s inclusion from that perspective, but its still not a meaningful comparison. I mean are the lobbyists all from the one company? No, of course not , so what is the composition of these lobbyists and does that relate as a meaningful comparison to the Jamaican delegation. Not really.
My initial questions when i read the Jamaican comparison were: The Jamaicans have just had a massive hurricane blast through the island, was the size of the delegation curtailed because of that? Did the Guardian contact the Jamaicans to ask about delegation size? Alone the comparison is meaningless at best, rage-baity at worst. Much like the comparisons of the Philipines, Iran, etc
I’m not necessarily against fossil fuel lobbyists being present at COP, although i think they do pull the piss undermining everything as much as possible. So does that fit within the requirement to cooperate in good faith? No, so, maybe they shouldn’t be there. Theres a lot of articles to be written about their inclusion without making the numbers fit this janky narrative.
