Bigger share of COP29 badges for Global South NGOs upsets rich-country groups
And the opposing argument is that the reduction of badges for NGOs from Western Europe et al. effectively makes it so that the governments of the countries with the largest emissions can control who gets to observe the conference from their respective countries. This is coupled with the fact that fewer people can attend in the first place than last time, since the venue is smaller.
To be honest, I don’t know who’s in the right here, but the article definitely feels like it’s taking a side, and the editorialized title makes that bias worse.
I think more observers, and a larger venue, could be justified for the biggest climate conference of the world. I think this event should be more important than “you will own nothing and be happy” Davos for example.
To be honest, I don’t know who’s in the right here, …
The way I see things, it’s pretty clear. In the global south are the countries that suffer the most from the economic activities (to say the least) that come from the global north. Giving these badges to the global south NGOs is important as an effort to balance out how underrepresented these part of the world typically are, even tho they are most affected by actions of others ,namely the countries that got upset, or companies that come from there.
Admittedly, I don’t expect too much out of this specific climate conference due to the intense lobbying that takes place there. I’d love to be wrong on this one and be pleasantly surprised, for sure.
…but the article definitely feels like it’s taking a side, and the editorialized title makes that bias worse.
I believe it is important to accept that all media is biased, even if they try to portray themselves as neutral or objective (an easy example would be fox’s fair and balanced sloggan). So I don’t think that bias is a problem by itself, but performing impartiality totally is, and mainstream media do that for several reasons.
Still, I think a journalist or an outlet can be trustworthy, and this relies on their processes. They need to be honest and meticulous in their research (and perhaps something else that I didn’t think of right now).
namely the countries that got upset, or companies that come from there.
I guess the point is that the rich countries and companies are actually happy with this outcome, since less of the pesky NGOs that bother them in the same country can attend.
The point is, contrary to how the article wants to portray it, or you are portraying it, it’s not the rich countries or the companies complaining, but the NGOs fighting for climate conscious policies in those rich countries. They say that this makes it so that the rich countries can control who can go to the conference and who can’t. So this actually helps those rich polluting governments and companies.
Thank you for pointing that out, this part really does not make any sense. Not to sure what I had in mind, so I thought of making an edit with a strikethrough so that the sentence does make sense.
And the opposing argument is that the reduction of badges for NGOs from Western Europe et al. effectively makes it so that the governments of the countries with the largest emissions can control who gets to observe the conference from their respective countries. [
Not really the EU is at 6.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the UK at 0.76%. ](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-global-ghg-emissions?tab=table) The more realistic reason is that Western Europe is rich, but also has a lot of different countries. So a lot of NGOs, which have enough money to actually go to COP. Still unfair though.
The actual title is:
And the opposing argument is that the reduction of badges for NGOs from Western Europe et al. effectively makes it so that the governments of the countries with the largest emissions can control who gets to observe the conference from their respective countries. This is coupled with the fact that fewer people can attend in the first place than last time, since the venue is smaller.
To be honest, I don’t know who’s in the right here, but the article definitely feels like it’s taking a side, and the editorialized title makes that bias worse.
I think more observers, and a larger venue, could be justified for the biggest climate conference of the world. I think this event should be more important than “you will own nothing and be happy” Davos for example.
The way I see things, it’s pretty clear. In the global south are the countries that suffer the most from the economic activities (to say the least) that come from the global north. Giving these badges to the global south NGOs is important as an effort to balance out how underrepresented these part of the world typically are, even tho they are most affected by actions of others
,namely the countries that got upset, or companies that come from there. Admittedly, I don’t expect too much out of this specific climate conference due to the intense lobbying that takes place there. I’d love to be wrong on this one and be pleasantly surprised, for sure.I believe it is important to accept that all media is biased, even if they try to portray themselves as neutral or objective (an easy example would be fox’s fair and balanced sloggan). So I don’t think that bias is a problem by itself, but performing impartiality totally is, and mainstream media do that for several reasons.
Still, I think a journalist or an outlet can be trustworthy, and this relies on their processes. They need to be honest and meticulous in their research (and perhaps something else that I didn’t think of right now).
Edit: The strikethrough
I guess the point is that the rich countries and companies are actually happy with this outcome, since less of the pesky NGOs that bother them in the same country can attend.
The point is, contrary to how the article wants to portray it, or you are portraying it, it’s not the rich countries or the companies complaining, but the NGOs fighting for climate conscious policies in those rich countries. They say that this makes it so that the rich countries can control who can go to the conference and who can’t. So this actually helps those rich polluting governments and companies.
Thank you for pointing that out, this part really does not make any sense. Not to sure what I had in mind, so I thought of making an edit with a strikethrough so that the sentence does make sense.
Not really the EU is at 6.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the UK at 0.76%. ](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-global-ghg-emissions?tab=table) The more realistic reason is that Western Europe is rich, but also has a lot of different countries. So a lot of NGOs, which have enough money to actually go to COP. Still unfair though.