The Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/22/fears-over-oil-producers-influence-with-uae-as-next-host-of-cop-climate-talks) ‘Fears over oil producers’ influence with UAE as next host of Cop climate talks’ There we are given from the top “More than 630 fossil fuel lobbyists attended Cop27, and the Emirates, where Cop28 will be held, is a major oil and gas exporter” with the added “Fears are growing among climate experts and campaigners over the influence of fossil fuel producers on global climate talks, as a key Gulf petro-state gears up to take control of the negotiations.” But the stage is incomplete. To understand that I need to take you to the past, 4 weeks in the past. There we see the IMARC. It is not as big, no real ‘top celebrities’, a few ministers (as far as I know).
I tried to attend and I had the invitation. But the doors remained closed. The invitation was not enough, I needed some QR code, and a signed letter of invitation with my identity details. So I had an invitation and could not get in. This happens, no biggie. I had no essential requirement to be there, curiosity was the largest contributor for me going there. But consider the COP27, with all those dignitaries. It would have massive protection and protocols in place. As such the article gives us all kinds of details, but the one part we do not see anywhere is where they got “630 fossil fuel lobbyists attended Cop27”, not merely who they are, but how they got an invitation that got them there? Interesting how such a stage was overlooked. Or the simple setting of nationality of these 630 people. How many were Americans? None of that. And this is not the first time the Guardian pulls such a stunt. And we are given “The Guardian approached the UAE multiple times at Cop27 without response. UAE had a large pavilion at Cop27, and a delegation of about 1,000 members, which was twice as many as the next biggest delegation, that of Brazil.” So why approach the UAE? Why approach them a year in advance before anything is set up? We do not get that, merely emotional paragraphs and no explanation of where these 630 people were from, how that list was obtained and other such matters. Perhaps the Guardian has forgotten how to vet information? How to make top-line summaries and that list goes on, but there they are these 630 lobbyists, and not a nationality in sight. Why is that?
Oh and in comparison, how large were the delegations from Saudi Arabia and the US? It seems that some comparison would be essential, but we weren’t given that either, were we? So was this article a simple BS exercise with the eight of nothing? The use of less than that? I can’t tell, to do that we need actual verifiable data and we aren’t given any, are we?
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 