Say what you will about the summer climate of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) (“the heat of Phoenix with the humidity of New Orleans”). The weather on the first public day, December 4th, of COP28 was nearly perfect—light clouds, moderate breeze, and temperatures in the lower 80s. Winters are delightful here. The actual meetings began on November 30, but that was for the “Blue Zone” attendees only—national delegates, UN officials, insider NGOs, and other “stakeholders.” The public attendees were limited to the “Green Zone” only and barred from entering the Blue Zone, where the real action happened, and the serious decisions were being made.

The local population had been actively encouraged to apply for Green Zone tickets. Flashing signs on the local freeways gave encouragement and the website address; it seemed that many government employees were offered a paid day off to attend. However, despite the host country’s prodding, the site at Dubai’s Expo City was not thronged on opening day despite the fine weather and December 4 being a national holiday. On the other hand, it was by no means deserted, and there were long waits at the event’s cafes. Still, the parking lots for Green Zone attendees were far less than half full.

The place was festooned with signs proclaiming, “Hope Inspires Action.” Attendees were invited to identify as “Actionists.” The parking lots were tagged with names like “Sustainability.”

Perhaps the first day’s theme of finance may have been less than enthralling for the general population, with event titles like “Voices and Ventures: Women Driving Climate Solutions” or “The Future of Carbon Pricing,” which ominously warns that “Voluntary carbon markets alone will not be sufficient to achieve climate policy goals…” Maybe most are waiting until Friday to hear about “climate ambassadors” or “anticipatory humanitarian action.”

Image: The Climate Summit in Dubai. YouTube screen grab.

But what is the underlying premise of COP28? What does it hope to achieve other than saving the world?

It appears that the core notion is that capitalists can no longer be allowed to allocate capital using capitalist values like risk and reward. No, the United Nations and its selected NGOs will skew investments in directions that they decide are best for “the planet.”

Before you write this off as not involving you, remember that your desires in the market ultimately drive capital investments and that the largest pools of capital (at least in the US) are in pension funds like state and union retirement funds or in private investment outfits like Vanguard. So mostly, it is your money they wish to redirect from profitable investments to those with lower returns but higher priority for United Nations “stakeholders.”

The people-watching was the most enjoyable part of the day. Some were the idle curious, just there to see what the hoopla was all about. Then there were those who really, really wanted to be an “Actionist”—you know one when you recognize the eagerness for purpose in their lives. The worst were the sharks. Some of them wore expensive suits; others came in national costumes. These people flocked to sites where there’s an opportunity to grab some easy money. They walked with purpose and with eyes scanning for the marks and for their competition.

The good news was that nuclear power seemed to be showcased, with the UAE proud of its new four-unit nuclear power plant, the first in the Middle East and one of the most powerful reactor sites in the world. The hosts helicoptered dignitaries during the two flight hours for a tour of the outside of the plant; lesser souls got a four-hour (one-way) bus tour.

The nuclear-oriented displays in the Energy Transition exhibition hall seemed crowded and rather popular. In particular, the World Nuclear Association’s booth was packed for their panel discussions. The reactor models and explanatory displays from Korea were also quite popular. Prominent pro-nuclear activists from Spain, Sweden, US, Taiwan, Philippines, and Australia networked and compared notes.

More substantially, 22 countries announced a common goal of tripling global nuclear power output by 2050. The host country (UAE) also signed a memorandum of understanding with two reactor vendors for investment and project development of small modular reactors (SMRs.) One was with General Electric-Hitachi for its 300 MWe BWRX design, and the other with Bill Gates’ TerraPower, with its liquid sodium-cooled “Natrium“ reactor of about 345 MWe.

One may find it ironic that the host country (UAE) for this global “climate disruption” conference is one of the world’s largest exporters of oil. But at least it offered a concrete and pragmatic alternative to the “Net Zero” craziness that threatens to drive the populations of industrial economies into poverty and starve the rest. While the “Net Zero NUCLEAR” plan can’t and won’t be considered a complete response or counteroffer, it is much more grounded in energy realities than anything else under discussion. Plus, the UAE is putting its money where its collective mouth is, which is more than we can credit most climate “actionists.”