Chicago Bulls’ Zach LaVine to miss 3-4 more weeks with right foot soreness

posted in: News | 0

Zach LaVine likely won’t play for the Chicago Bulls again until 2024.

The team announced Wednesday that LaVine will require three to four more weeks of treatment to address right foot soreness, which has already sidelined the guard intermittently for the last two weeks.

This timeline would place LaVine’s earliest expected return to the court on Dec. 28 for a home game against the Indiana Pacers. But LaVine could remain sidelined until the new year. That leaves little time before the Feb. 8 NBA trade deadline, by when the Bulls are expected to move LaVine as the team approaches a future without their longtime star.

The injury occurred during a home game against the Miami Heat on Nov. 20 — just days after LaVine chose not to deny reports that he is interested in a trade away from Chicago.

LaVine played through the injury for both games of a homestand against the Heat, then missed one road game against the Oklahoma City Thunder. He returned for three games but was pulled in the second half of a blowout loss to the Boston Celtics on Nov. 28.

“It felt a little better and just progressively got worse,” LaVine said of his foot injury after the game in Boston. “It just didn’t make sense to continue to risk it. It hurts. When you suit up, no one cares about that. I’ve played through a lot of stuff before so it doesn’t matter. But it didn’t make sense with the way it was feeling to keep going.”

The team shut him down for a week three days later.

The Bulls have been playing their best basketball of the season without LaVine, notching a three-game win streak since his extended absence was announced last week. This stretch has been highlighted by a more fluid style of play and bolstered by hot shooting performances from Coby White. But this brief improvement has also raised a pointed question — can the Bulls keep playing like this when LaVine returns?

DeMar DeRozan alluded to a potentially lengthier absence for LaVine after the team’s win over the Charlotte Hornets on Wednesday.

“It’s one day at a time,” DeRozan said. “Zach’s got to take care of himself, not sure how long that will be. So every single day, every single practice, shootaround, game, we just got to stay locked in, be prepared for when guys get all the way healthy. We’ve just got to keep building.”

The spotlight has been on LaVine in the three weeks since his interest in a trade was originally reported. LaVine hasn’t just missed three games since then — he scored 13 or fewer points in three games and appeared detached from his duties on defense.

The Bulls will now face another critical stretch without their highest-paid star as they attempt to dig out of an 8-14 hole.

()

Biden Has a New War Room to Tackle Gun Violence. Can It Stop the Bloodshed?

posted in: Politics | 0

The NRA had a bad day on Sept. 22.

That was the day President Joe Biden unveiled his new Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the first-ever White House office dedicated to the issue. Sitting in the Rose Garden for the announcement was Rob Wilcox, the initiative’s new deputy director who couldn’t help but think of a two-decade old quote from an NRA official crowing that the powerful gun group would have an office in the West Wing if George W. Bush was elected president.

That never happened. Instead, seated between his kids and fellow deputy Greg Jackson was Wilcox — a longtime gun safety advocate — set to start his job inside the White House.

But not long after, Wilcox had some bad days of his own.

A month after the office’s unveiling, it had to respond to its first mass shooting, in Lewiston, Maine. Then another one in Chicago. They’re just two of the 630 mass shootings so far this year.

“The gun violence that is happening is unacceptable,” Wilcox said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. “The truth is that we have a lot of ground to make up.”

Biden can claim credit for signing the first gun safety law in nearly 30 years and has issued a slew of executive orders, but he’s also been criticized by progressives for not doing more. The new White House office was a long-sought goal of gun safety activists, who were eager for further action from the administration, particularly with new legislation all but doomed in Congress amid Republican resistance.

Despite the ongoing carnage, including a tragedy that hit Wilcox’s own family, he remains optimistic that America can tackle this growing crisis. And he made the case that the federal government is building new systems right now that might actually stem the bloodshed.

“Gun violence is rooted in heartbreak,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean it’s rooted in hopelessness.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Your office’s name includes the word “prevention.” Did you expect that responding to, rather than preventing, mass shootings would play such a big role in your job? 

The president gave us four clear tasks: The first is to expedite the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and the previous executive actions. The second is to identify new executive actions that we can take to reduce gun violence. A third is to expand the coalition of partners that we work with to get more state and local action. And then the fourth is to improve the support for our communities and individuals impacted by gun violence.

And it’s not just mass shootings, it’s concentrations and surges in gun violence. And so was I surprised? No, absolutely not. But my fellow deputy, Greg Jackson, had been working on developing the first-ever, whole-of-government response to gun violence when it occurs even before that shooting [in Lewiston] and so he was well prepared to lead the largest federal response ever to an act of gun violence.

And that’s a system for how federal agencies can jump into action in the event of another shooting? 

Exactly. Since we knew this was our job from the jump, we had already worked with the agencies to begin to understand what potential resources they could bring to bear to respond to gun violence. When that tragedy happened in Lewiston, we were just forced into action. That system only gets perfected over time, especially as we look back at lessons learned. We hear more about needs, and we develop a real comprehensive response plan.

The thing that we know is that no shooting is the same. Part of the art of the challenge is not to apply a cookie cutter formula to every incident, but to be thorough with the tools that could be brought to bear so we can be adaptable to what the situation demands.

Do you have specific examples of what this looked like in Lewiston? 

My fellow deputy was on the ground within a couple of days — there was obviously a delay since it was an ongoing [manhunt]. We were able to bring multiple agencies to the scene so that we could support the kids that are going back to school and the principals that are dealing with the fallout; the Veterans Affairs Department working with the veterans community; directly addressing the needs of the deaf community, which was specifically impacted in this shooting; and working with the Chamber of Commerce on support for small businesses.

We really were bringing federal resources to bear in a coordinated fashion that just never had been activated like this before.

Is there anything that you learned from this response? 

Look, I think the things that we learned are some of the things that Greg and I have always known. The pain and the trauma lasts longer than a news cycle. Families of individuals who are shot live with that the rest of their lives. Parents that lose children will never recover. And communities live with that reverberation of trauma for years and years, if not their entire lives.

What we’ve been able to bring is that perspective to this office, so that the systems that we put in place and the interventions that we support are meant for healing and helping those that are closest to this pain. And it’s not just about mass shootings. It’s about gun violence in all its forms, about domestic violence, about community violence. It’s about suicide. It’s about accidental shootings.

How does your office play a role in coming up with new ideas for executive actions, and should we expect any new policy moves soon? 

Yeah, we’ve been working around the clock, and there is so much support in this administration for taking action. Our job is about focusing the efforts of this administration. There are several offices and dozens of agencies that all have specific pieces to address this problem. But the issue is, when you have multiple people attacking the same issue, you can see silos. You can see things happening in parallel, but not with strategic coordination. And so we are a dedicated office that acts as that coordinator.

Both you and Jackson bring experience as not only advocates, but as survivors of gun violence. How has this informed your work?  

For example, when it came to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we knew that one of the purposes was to implement extreme risk protection order laws and red flag laws. We could dive in and immediately assess the progress in terms of where that funding was and how it was getting to the states. And we convened the states very quickly, to encourage them to get their plans in so that they can begin accessing this money and spending it on the implementation of these red flag laws. Because at the end of the day, we know that these are the types of laws that can save lives because after way too many of these incidents everyone’s saying, “I saw the flag.”

That’s literally the reason my cousin isn’t here today. The man who killed her was in the middle of a mental health crisis that his brother wanted to take action on. He tried some things, but there was no tool at that time to get the guns out of his brother’s hands, even though he wanted to. So that guy walked into the mental health hospital where my cousin was just volunteering for winter break from Haverford College and he shot and killed her and others.

I still today can picture the funeral. I can see where people were sitting. And you want to do something. You want to do something not just for your family, but the families that you don’t even know yet.

There’s obviously a lot of push and pull between policymakers and advocates. Have you disappointed any former colleagues yet in the advocacy world? 

You’d have to ask them if they’re disappointed. Look, there’s no time for grace. There’s only time for the urgency of action. And I think people see that that’s how Greg and I move and that we are here to put in all the work and they know the reasons why we do it. And so I think we welcome all the ideas. We’re not shy, to say bring us the best ideas.

What’s been the biggest challenge? 

The biggest challenge we face is that gun violence has continued. Some of the solutions that have been put in place are beginning to make a difference, and we’re seeing reductions in violent crime and homicide in our cities across this country.

But we still know that the gun violence that is happening is unacceptable, and the president has told us as much — that it doesn’t matter that we passed the first law in 30 years. It doesn’t matter that this administration has taken more executive actions than every other administration combined. What matters is that this gun violence is happening everyday. So I think that the challenge is that we don’t have a minute to spare.

A lot of people are losing hope. Many are scared to send their kids to school. What would you say to Americans who feel like gun violence is never going to end?

The truth is that we have a lot of ground to make up. We’ve had years of underinvestment in the community-based organizations that are doing the hard work on the ground, to intervene and stop violence before it starts — six years where the leading federal agency to enforce our gun laws was without a confirmed director. And we were 30 years from the last time that we had any advancement in our gun safety laws. So we’re just getting started at putting all those pieces into play.

Gun violence is rooted in heartbreak. But that doesn’t mean it’s rooted in hopelessness. In fact, it’s the opposite. And the truth is the 20 years I’ve been involved in this prove that to me. The NRA thought they were going to work out of the West Wing. Twenty years later, we’ve established the first ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

And in 2013, after a tragedy that captured the nation’s attention, we only got 54 votes in the U.S. Senate for a background check policy. And in 2022, after another tragedy at a school and a tragedy in Buffalo, we saw 65 votes in the U.S. Senate for a bill that included multiple interventions, not just when it comes to gun laws, but in mental health.

I see survivors and students and young people leading on this issue in ways they never had before. And so, I’m filled with hope.

Trump’s ‘dictator’ remark puts 2024 campaign right where Biden wants it

posted in: Politics | 0

Donald Trump keeps returning the 2024 presidential race to the ground where Joe Biden wants to fight it.

After Trump told a Fox News town hall he would not be a dictator upon returning to office “other than Day One,” the Biden campaign pounced. It highlighted Trump’s remarks as another moment in which the GOP frontrunner showcased his undemocratic and dangerous plans for a possible second term.

Biden has expressed his fear to confidants that Trump would have unchecked power if he were to return to office. He’d likely have at least one Republican-controlled chamber in Congress, a conservative Supreme Court, the allegiance of true-believer staff members and GOP state officials — and the knowledge he could be impeached twice and charged criminally in four jurisdictions and still claim power. He’d view that as a mandate, Biden has said privately, and abuse power at home and change how America is viewed abroad.

All three people said the stakes have escalated in the president’s mind as he’s watched the Republican Party remain in Trump’s thrall despite Jan. 6 and the revelations about what his predecessor has in store for the future.

“It’s coming back full circle — that in the president’s mind, this is the moral authority for the race. This is an existential threat. This is the reason he ran initially, and the reason — with Donald Trump running — he’s running again,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster for Biden’s campaign in 2020.

“The president has always believed that it was his duty to get the nation beyond Trump,” said one of the three people close to him, who spoke with Biden about his views on Trump and was granted anonymity to speak about private discussions. “He had hoped 2020 would have done it but it didn’t. So he has to do it again.”

Some Democrats have urged the reelection team to highlight other issues. This past weekend, a group of the party’s governors used its annual retreat to urge Biden to focus on issues like abortion, not Trump.

But while the Biden camp will continue to draw issue-specific contrasts, the president himself has made clear he wants to frame the election ahead as a battle for democracy itself. The GOP frontrunner continues to provide ample opportunity for Biden to return to this familiar theme.

This issue fueled Biden’s successful 2020 run, which he deemed “a battle for the soul of the nation.” And despite pushback from some Democrats, Biden leaned in hard again on that argument during last year’s midterms, warning that the extremist “MAGA Republicans” posed a threat to the republic’s foundation and rights.

Biden’s candid remarks Tuesday at a string of Boston fundraisers both reflected another example of the president saying something unscripted that surprised staff but also a window into his true thinking, according to the three people close to him.

“If Trump wasn’t running, I’m not sure I’d be running,” Biden said. “But we cannot let him win.”

Biden then struck a grave tone, warning that he’s “running against an election-denier-in-chief,” who is “determined to destroy American democracy.”

“Trump’s not even hiding the ball anymore,” Biden told the crowd. “He’s telling us exactly what he wants to do. He’s making no bones about it.”

As early as 2021, Biden began having repeated conversations with allies that he would need to run again to prevent Trump from reclaiming the Oval Office. And like he did in 2020, Biden has steadfastly believed that he was the only Democrat who could beat him — though on Wednesday, he noted “probably 50” others in the party could beat Trump next year.

“Folks have forgotten a lot of anxiety that they had about a second Trump term in 2020,” said Brandon Weathersby, the presidential communications director at American Bridge 21st Century, a top Dem super PAC. “And I believe as he continues to talk about his plans — and again, be very explicit about his plans to install an authoritarian regime — that does make it that much more salient for voters as we talk about it, and as we try to lay out the choice for voters in November.”

Since declaring his candidacy in 2019, Biden has repeatedly touched on the idea that the nation’s democracy was under attack — and believed that voters would respond. His triumph in 2020 and the Democrats’ strong 2022 showing has validated that approach, his campaign believes. And Biden believes that he is the best candidate to deliver that message again next year.

Trump’s latest remarks, Lake said, once again raised “the salience [of the issue], and whether [Trump] realizes it or not: America doesn’t want a dictator.”

During the 2020 campaign, there was some idle chatter in Biden’s campaign of making a one-term pledge, becoming a “transitional” president who would rid the nation of Trump and then usher in a new era of Democratic leaders. But those ideas were dismissed even before Biden took the oath of office. And while Biden has never said so explicitly, many people around him believe he might have not sought reelection had Trump been off the playing field. But at this point on the calendar, Biden would almost certainly still run even if Trump suddenly bowed out, according to those close to him.

After Trump’s town hall comment, the Biden campaign flooded social media with warnings and organized an event to bracket the GOP primary debate in Alabama that would include denouncements of the former president.

“Democrats are gonna seize on this … the campaign immediately condemned the comments. The other groups that are working in concert to elect Democrats around the country have amplified this rhetoric as well,” said Weathersby. “These are Trump’s own words. I think you will continue to see more elevation of those words, and making clear that this is the choice — unless something drastic happens in the Republican primary — this person is going to be the Republican nominee.”

Saudi Arabia focuses on emissions from wind and solar over oil

posted in: News | 0

Oil-rich Saudi Arabia is urging nations to take action on what it suggests is a growing threat to the Earth’s climate — wind and solar power.

The pitch from the world’s biggest oil player includes a Saudi government document, obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News, expressing concern about the “lifecycle” greenhouse gas emissions of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, whose popularity has grown as countries look for alternatives to planet-heating fossil fuels.

It comes as the kingdom is stepping up its broader arguments that expensive, largely unproven methods of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans are an essential part of the strategy for countering climate change. In contrast, scientists, environmental activists and representatives of vulnerable island nations say the most urgently needed fix for climate change is to stop producing and burning oil, natural gas and coal.

Other major fossil fuel nations — including the United States — have also expressed support for a technological approach to reducing carbon pollution, in conjunction with shifting toward greener energy sources. But the Saudis have gone a step further by contending that carbon removal is also needed to address climate pollution from wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable energy hardware, according to text of a previously unreported speech scheduled before the COP28 climate summit began last week.

“Renewables are an integral part of the solution,” a Saudi official was set to argue in the Oct. 31 closed-door speech to fellow diplomats, according to a copy of the prepared text. But the Saudi text added that “we must also act immediately to address their lifecycle emissions in the near term. This will require emissions removal.”

Saudi Arabia’s U.S. embassy didn’t respond to questions about the document, which aligns with public statements that Saudi officials have made touting related technology that captures carbon from smokestacks. Advocates for more aggressive climate action say they worry that the kingdom is promoting efforts to manage carbon — and undercut renewables — in order to weaken support for weaning the world off of greenhouse-gas-spewing fossil fuels.

“They’ve been at this for years and years and years,” Bill Hare, a climate science adviser to the Caribbean nation of Grenada, said of Saudi climate negotiators. “They come up with all sorts of ways to argue for delay, one way or the other. It’s another twist and turn in their delay playbook.”

In addition, the Saudis’ argument about planet-warming emissions from the manufacturing and installation of renewable power are “totally exaggerated,” said Hare, who is also CEO of the European think tank Climate Analytics. Analyses of electricity from solar panels, for instance, have found it has a carbon footprint that’s a fraction of the size of coal-fired power.

“In the end, the production systems for these technologies are getting cleaner,” Hare said. “So it’s not the overwhelming problem that they claim.”

Hare said he worries that the rhetoric from Saudi Arabia and its allies will influence markets by sending a signal to the financial community that international support exists for these novel carbon technologies. That, in turn, could divert money and attention from proven measures for reducing demand for fossil fuels, such as new renewable energy projects and increased efficiency programs.

“It would be a massive victory for those that want to delay action – and delay reducing oil, gas and coal,” Hare said.

A new techno-focus

Saudi efforts to elevate carbon removal and capture technologies at this month’s talks in Dubai are happening as island nations and the European Union seek to build global support for phasing out the use of fossil fuels – the leading cause of climate change and the economic lifeblood of the kingdom. Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said Monday that the country would oppose any COP28 text that calls for reducing global fossil fuel consumption.

Saudi Arabia’s push to focus on limiting emissions rather than the fuels that produce them has been aided by the United Arab Emirates, the talks’ host nation, which selected its top oil executive to lead the negotiations.

But for all their pronouncements, both oil-rich countries have made only minor investments in rolling out the emissions technologies, according to data compiled by the Global CCS Institute, a think tank that promotes carbon capture and storage installations. To skeptics, that raises questions about whether the petrostates are interested in carbon capture and removal as a climate solution — or as a convenient distraction.

Carbon capture projects aim to minimize the climate damage caused by fossil-fuel-dependent facilities such as coal power plants and steel mills. Carbon removal technologies, by contrast, seek to reverse that harm by pulling already-released carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Energy analysts often lump the two under the broader umbrella of carbon management.

While similar from an engineering perspective, the commercial and climate appeals of carbon capture and carbon removal are very different.

The plummeting price of renewable energy has limited the potential of carbon capture for already-struggling coal plants, which are increasingly being replaced with wind or solar projects. Cheap renewable energy can also be used to create clean-burning hydrogen for steel makers. Meanwhile, carbon removal at a significant scale will be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, climate scientists have said, most recently on Sunday in a report to the U.N. on the dire state of the climate.

Both types of climate technologies — carbon capture and carbon removal — have caught the eye of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has been pitching those systems as a way to prevent the industrial-era rise in average global temperatures from surpassing 1.5 degree Celsius, the aspirational goal set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement. At the same time, the Saudis have downplayed the need to ditch fossil fuels.

“We must act immediately to tackle emissions from all sources, to keep 1.5 within reach, and not cherry pick one energy source over the other,” the Saudi Arabian official was prepared to say during the pre-COP28 meeting. The closed session, in the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi, was intended for diplomats to outline their national bargaining positions for the climate summit that began last Thursday.

The document doesn’t name the Saudi official. But metadata associated with the file indicates that it was drafted by AlJawhara AlSudairy, the head of international negotiations and policy at the Saudi Ministry of Energy.

When asked for comment, AlSudairy directed questions to the ministry, which didn’t respond to questions regarding who delivered the speech. It’s unclear whether the speech as written matches what was said in the room.

In 2021, Saudi Arabia announced a program known as the Middle East Green Initiative that aims “to scale up carbon capture, invest in the green economy and encourage innovation and growth in renewables.” But the kingdom is starting from a very low base.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that less than 1 percent of electricity in Saudi Arabia is generated from renewable sources. That’s not due to a lack of resources: The sun-drenched and windswept country has advertised to investors that it has among the highest potential for solar and wind energy development of any nation.

Saudi Arabia also has no significant carbon removal facilities in operation or development, according to the Global CCS Institute.

The kingdom has one carbon capture project online at a natural gas processing facility of Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, the Global CCS Institute said in its most recent annual report. The CO2 collected there is pumped underground to help produce more oil, limiting the project’s climate benefits. A much larger carbon capture hub is in “advanced development” and slated to come online in 2027, the institute said.

Saudi Arabia has plenty of cash that it could invest into renewables or carbon removal or capture projects.

With a valuation of more than $2.1 trillion, Saudi Aramco is the world’s third-largest publicly traded company, behind only the tech giants Apple and Microsoft. The state oil company reported earning $161 billion last year, the highest-ever recorded annual profit by a publicly listed firm.

The International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental think tank, last month urged petrostates to quit pretending that carbon management efforts will enable them to keep the world hooked on hydrocarbons..

“Oil and gas producers around the world need to make profound decisions about their future place in the global energy sector,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement. “The industry needs to commit to genuinely helping the world meet its energy needs and climate goals – which means letting go of the illusion that implausibly large amounts of carbon capture are the solution.”

Yet in recent months, Saudi energy officials have been pursuing projects in Africa and Asia to increase oil and gas demand, according to an undercover investigation published last week by the Center for Climate Reporting and the United Kingdom’s Channel 4 News.

Saudi Arabia didn’t respond to those outlets about the investigation. But in 2016 the country announced a plan to reduce its reliance on oil: Dubbed Vision 2030, the effort aims to grow the non-oil sector of its economy from less than 20 percent of gross domestic product to half of

Saudi Arabia’s economic output by the end of the decade. 

UAE, Bahrain promote carbon removal

At COP28, Saudi negotiators’ push to elevate carbon management has a key diplomatic ally: The UAE has also touted the potential for a type of carbon removal favored by the oil industry – at a time when the Emirates are planning to expand crude development.

In July, the UAE submitted new climate goals to the United Nations climate agency that outlined its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions 19 percent by 2030 from 2019 levels and reach net zero emissions by midcentury.

As part of that plan, the Emirates will “explore innovative Direct Air Capture (DAC) solutions which extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere, which in the long term is critical to reach net zero emissions,” the UAE said in the UN filing. “To build up knowledge and expertise early on and support the UAE’s ambition of becoming a hub for low-carbon technology, the country will also start to pilot and implement DAC technology ahead of 2030.”

Direct air capture facilities use fans, carbon-absorbing materials, electricity and heat to separate CO2 from ambient air. The pure stream of carbon can then be mixed with water and injected into reservoirs deep beneath the surface of the earth – a process that’s familiar to many oil and gas companies.

The UAE has only one operating carbon capture facility and no direct air capture plants, according to the Global CCS Institute.

Amid the flurry of publicity that’s accompanied COP28, the Emiratis have announced several carbon management projects. For instance, the UAE’s Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. and the U.S. firm Occidental Petroleum said in October that they would jointly fund an engineering study for a potential UAE direct air capture facility. The following month, ADNOC and the Australian oil producer Santos agreed to explore the potential for a carbon dioxide shipping and transportation network.

But analysts from Climate Analytics and the NewClimate Institute, another European think tank, have raised questions about the UAE’s climate goals, noting that the country plans to spend $150 billion over the next five years on efforts that include expanding its oil and gas production capacity.

“It is unclear how the UAE plans to reach its 2050 net zero emissions target,” the analysts said in a review of the Emiratis’ U.N. filing, which is known as a nationally determined contribution. “The UAE’s latest NDC mentions they plan to develop carbon capture and storage as well as direct air capture, but without specifying the scale of emissions reductions and removals this would represent.”

The UAE’s U.S. embassy didn’t respond to a request for comment. But an Emirati official on Tuesday said the country’s support for carbon management efforts was driven by pragmatism.

“I want to be clear that we aren’t promoting carbon capture to prolong the current energy system,” Majid Al Suwaidi, the director-general of COP28, told reporters in Dubai. “We are encouraging carbon management because the reality requires us to deal with the emissions system that we have, while we build the system we want.”

The Emirates is not the first petrostate to boost carbon removal in its climate pledges.

“Technological innovation and deployment at scale is the key to the Paris Agreement goals,” Saudi Arabia told the U.N. in 2021. “Deployment of and collaboration on the following technologies is crucial: carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), direct-air capture (DAC), clean hydrogen.”

The following year, Bahrain submitted a climate goal that said it “supports key technologies such as carbon capture and utilization, direct air capture and others which are necessary for hard-to-abate sectors.”

Bahrain has no carbon capture or direct air capture facilities in operation or development, Global CCS Institute data shows.

Bahrain’s U.S. embassy did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s too late in the climate crisis for world leaders to seriously entertain the “fantasy” that “it’s still possible to burn oil, and tackle climate change at the same time, through [carbon capture],” said Joanna Depledge, a research fellow at the University of Cambridge’s Center for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, in an email.

After decades of obstruction by Saudi Arabia and other countries, “action to radically cut back on fossil fuel use is needed,” wrote Depledge, who previously worked for the U.N. climate agency. “Focusing on [carbon dioxide removal] is a dangerous distraction, and can only have a damaging impact on global efforts to keep temperatures at something approaching safe levels.”

Karl Mathiesen contributed to this report from Brussels. Sara Schonhardt contributed from Dubai.