The latest United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP 28, has come to an end.
The big news is this was the first global pact to explicitly mention the need to shift away from every type of fossil fuel. You'd think that would be welcome news to some, but it wasn't, because there's no clear commitment to a fossil fuel phase-out or phase-down.
Want to know when they plan to make this happen? It's not mentioned. Want to know how it's going to be done? Good luck with that.
In other words, it's exactly what you would expect from a United Nations climate conference: a bunch of delegates come together, spend lots of time talking, go into extra time to try to come up with resolutions, and concoct some ideas that are big on talk but short on specifics.
It certainly didn't help that COP was held in the United Arab Emirates, which remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels. You'd think the bright people at the UN would have decided to have the convention in a country where its goals and resolutions would be better received.
We spend big money for these conventions to happen, and many of the delegates contribute to global emissions with their travels. Meanwhile, these gatherings give detractors of the UN even more ammunition.
Saskatchewan had a presence at COP, and an expensive one at that. When the provincial government announced in the fall throne speech that it would send a delegation to COP, we cheered. Saskatchewan should jump at every chance it gets to promote the technology that we have and the efforts that are being made to gradually curb emissions. And yes, there are a lot of measures being taken in agriculture, mining, oil and gas, and more.
We certainly hope that the carbon capture and storage facility at SaskPower's Boundary Dam Power station was front and centre in the government's efforts.
Could Saskatchewan have been a little more fiscally prudent with its presence? Sure. Did we need such a big delegation? No. Did we have to have a six-figure advertising bill? Absolutely not. But at least people were hearing about our story.
As for what this pledge to phase out fossil fuels means for us in the southeast, it likely won't mean anything for a long time to come. It's bureaucratic hot air, kind of like when the G7 nations pledged in 2015 to phase out fossil fuel use by the end of the century. Remember that one? If you do, it means you have a very keen memory, because most people don't.
We know that changes are coming for the different energy sectors. The day is coming in which we won't need fossil fuels anymore. But that day isn't happening any time soon. It won't be in this lifetime for many of us.
People can live in a nice dreamworld in which we can convert to renewables tomorrow without any consequences, that hydroelectricity is the answer for all power grids, and that wind and solar power can be baseload power options.
The pragmatic reality is we still need fossil fuels. We need them for electricity, to heat our homes and for transportation. If people want to drive electric and hybrid vehicles, that's their decision. But we're not at the point in which we could all drive them tomorrow.
And since we still need them, it's incumbent on governments to invest in technologies to make these industries as green as possible to combat climate change.
Net zero isn't as far-fetched as some people like to think. But we can attain this lofty goal while keeping fossil fuels in the mix and taking positive steps for the environment, without having crippling economic consequences.
