COP28 sucked when it came to food systems

And, many would argue, everything else. I'm highlighting this:

Despite the spotlight on food systems at COP28, the final decisions said little about the urgent need for transformative shifts toward agroecology to address the climate crisis.

The Global Stocktake decision, designed to inform governments as they ramp up their national-level climate plans, failed to strengthen climate finance commitments. The final report contains only high-level principles about food systems without concrete guidance on reducing or preventing food system emissions or strengthening their adaptive capacity. Left without strong guidance, countries now must ambitiously push beyond the COP28 stocktake recommendations to reform climate policies and transition food systems to avoid the loss and damage from a worsening climate. Countries in the Global North, home to the highest-emitting agriculture systems and with access to the most resources, must spearhead climate action independent of the UNFCCC. - IATP

Big Meat/Dairy had a big presence at COP28

I understand that they're going to look out for their own interests. But in the bigger picture their influence was likely baleful.

Lobbyists from industrial agriculture companies and trade groups have turned out in record numbers at COP28, which this year has a strong focus on tackling emissions from the food sector.

Attendees are present from some of the world’s largest agribusiness firms – such as meatpacker JBS, fertiliser giant Nutrien, food giant Nestlé and pesticide firm Bayer – and powerful industry trade groups.

Meat and dairy interests are especially well represented with 120 delegates in Dubai, triple the number that attended COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.

Overall the analysis of the delegates list by DeSmog shows that the total number of people representing the interests of agribusiness has more than doubled since 2022 to reach 340...

The findings of the UN’s climate science body the IPCC show that the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement cannot be met without climate action on food. - DeSmog

What is with this appalling "triple nuclear" nonsense?

People should know better. Now more than ever.

Climate campaigners scoffed Saturday at a 22-nation pledge to triple nuclear power capacity by mid-century as a way to ward off the increasing damage of warming temperatures, with opponents calling it a costly and “dangerous” distraction from the urgent need for a fossil fuel phaseout alongside a rapid increase in more affordable and scaleable renewable sources such as wind and solar...

“There is no space for dangerous nuclear power to accelerate the decarbonization needed to achieve the Paris climate goal,” said Masayoshi Iyoda, a 350.org campaigner in Japan who cited the 2011 Fukushima disaster as evidence of the inherent dangers of nuclear power.

Nuclear energy, said Iyoda, “is nothing more than a dangerous distraction. The attempt of a ‘nuclear renaissance’ led by nuclear industries’ lobbyists since the 2000s has never been successful—it is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming. We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

When word of the multi-nation pledge emerged last month, Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and co-founder of The Solutions Project which offers a roadmap for 100% renewable energy that excludes nuclear energy, called the proposal the “stupidest policy proposal I’ve ever seen.” - Beyond Nuclear International