387
Is there a legitimate reason why « we » globally care about their opinion ?
The Saudis own entire economies. They aren't even listed on the world's richest people because they own the mechanism that those people operate in.
They'll just start funding more terrorist organizations and attacks à la 9/11. The Saudis are no one's friends and the world would do well to remember that.
Yeah. And yet it’s one of the very few places where USA aren’t exporting a lot of freedom…
They produce a lot of oil, they can easily influence oil prices, and thereby influence elections.
Piss off the Saudis, they reduce output, prices go up, idiots everywhere vote for the other guy who's willing to suck their dick.
Eg. 2022 US midterms they used oil as a weapon against the democrats, losing them the house.
True but eventually there will be an alternative to oil and that day they can go back to trading camels. There power is relatively new and won’t last. It’s so weird to piss everyone off in the meantime.
The concept of money is built in a way that once you have a lot of it, it doesn’t go away any more.
One more reason for renewables so sucking the dicks of dictators can't help you win elections as easy as that
money?
More legitimate ?
Iran Scary.
That's always the reason.
Iran? What’s the deal with them? They seem rather tame compared to a lot of other shitholes.
Saudi Arabia is western aligned because they oppose Iran - Iran has always been viewed as more dangerous to America... ever since they kicked out the British backed Shah in 1979.
There's also oil, but both countries had oil... but one stayed a monarchy while the other became a theocracy and then kind of democracy. Instead of supporting the democratic transition away from a theocracy America, of course, backed the monarchy.
If that doesn't gel with your expectations about America and spreading freedom and whatnot bear in mind... Kissinger.
Monarchies are way easier to control than democracies, so this isn’t surprising.
You can see that with Russia, it took them an ungodly amount of money and decades of propaganda to take over the Western democracies.
The rules on the talks require consensus, and the president of the talks is an oil executive from another petrostate and likely to interpret a requirement for consensus as a requirement for unanimity
Stop including SA in climate talks. Diversify or die.
When your economy is made of 1 sector.
I mean, the world economy moving away from petroleum-based fuels would make them mostly geopolitically irrelevant (the exception being that Mecca is (currently) in Saudi Arabia), so this isn’t terribly surprising.
You're right about their motivations, but I think geopolitics gives absolutely zero shits about Mecca. Just like with Israel, religion is sometimes used as rhetorical justification, but ultimately it's about power. Invoking religion is another political move as a shield against their cynicism.
Like just look at how these sentiments tend go: "we are fighting for our holy land because we are righteous; they are fighting over their holy land because they are simpleminded and superstitious". It's just flag waving. It's such easily manipulated rhetoric that it can work to any end, so of course it gets deployed.
It's no more meaningful to the people in power than any other culture war issue. They care about it exactly as much as they care about the green M&M.
Edit: I mentioned Israel, and I realise a lot of people still don't understand this, but when the US invokes religious duty as their reasons for supporting Israel, it's cynical. Biden made the real reason abundantly clear decades ago, and he has not walked this back: https://youtube.com/shorts/2HZs-v0PR44?si=vBjdkrzWB5xAWJ7u
He literally says it's about "values", then immediately says they'd have to invent an Israel. He made it clear decades ago that was purely for US geopolitics.
I don't understand why a unanimous final statement is so important for the COP. Making big compromises to appease OPEC will send a devastating signal to the people in Europe, America and so on. This will accelerate the loss of trust in politics in these countries. Why not let the talks fail and announce a big multilateral agreement the next day uniting the Americas, Europe and China? This will send a strong message and will bring us forward in climate politics.
Saudi Arabia is taking the fall for the other oil-producing nations (or the corporations that own those nations), allowing them all to ignore climate change entirely. This way they can all point to Saudi Arabia and say, "Blame them, not us! We did everything we could, but Saudi Arabia just wouldn't let us come to an agreement. Oh, well. Too bad. Maybe next time."
COP28 is a fake climate conference led by oil billionaires and fossil fuel execs. Their only goal is to exert control on the global messaging around climate change. They will never agree to meaningful change. We need to be calling it out as the charade it is and demand a legitimate conference that excludes fossil fuel execs and billionaires entirely. There is no "self-regulation". They need to be regulated by force of laws, not empty promises and fake climate summits.
COP28 is a fake climate conference led by oil billionaires and fossil fuel execs.
That's my point, just let it fail and prepare an agreement without the oil execs. Multilateral agreements happen all the time, why should COP be the only possibility to make climate politics happen?
It makes sense that they would take the position. It is just odd that the effects of global warming hasn't hit their populations either.
How long could they insulate their populations from the worst of it?
For as long as the rest of the world is subsidizing their public works
They don't need to insulate the population, just the ruling house and the oil sector. The rest of the country is basically disposable, that's the nature of the resource curse.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading exporter of oil, has become the biggest obstacle to an agreement at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, where countries are debating whether to call for a phaseout of fossil fuels in order to fight global warming, negotiators and other officials said.
A group of nations led by small islands, whose countries are most vulnerable to sea level rise and other climate-fueled extreme weather events, want the summit to adopt a formal statement that the era of coal, oil and natural gas should soon come to an end.
In particular, oil- and gas-rich nations in the Persian Gulf appear to view the challenge to the future of fossil fuels, a resource that has brought their governments and royal families extraordinary wealth, as a threat as existential as climate change itself.
Frustrated Saudis often point out that oil production in the United States is surging and that, during the energy crisis brought on by the war in Ukraine, some European countries turned to coal-fired power plants.
Despite decades of trying to break the so-called “resource curse,” Saudi Arabia remains highly dependent on revenue from fossil fuels to sustain its economy, its government budget and its political stability.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is spending tens of billions of dollars to try to diversify the Saudi economy, investing in industries like renewable energy, tourism, entertainment and artificial intelligence.
The original article contains 1,593 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
387 points (99.2% liked)
World News
39019 readers
2241 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS