Good COP, Bad COP: Beneath the surface of the conference
Climate history was made on November 20 as thousands of representatives gathered around the negotiating table of COP27 and, for the first time, were able to lay the first stepping stone in a loss and damage pact. Nevertheless, the reality of this conference, much like those that preceded it, seems to be one of inaction and a constant struggle to get countries, country unions, and large conglomerates to make the necessary efforts despite being there with the same goal in mind.
After being extended for a full two days, closing statements were heard across the blue-lit room in the Egyptian city of Sharm El-Sheikh. While some praise was duly given for the conference’s achievements, many of the representatives spared no time in demonstrating how hard it is to reach a consensus amongst almost every country in the world.
Egypt’s foreign minister Sameh Shoukry, who spearheaded this year’s conference, did not wait until his final speech was due to point this out.
On the 17th, the day before COP27 was due to end if it had followed its original timeline, he said: “While some of the discussions [have been] constructive and positive, others did not reflect the need to move collectively to address the gravity and urgency of the climate crisis.”
It seemed his words did indeed reverberate through the crowd of politicians, businessmen, and climate experts as, by the time the conference had finished, three days after Mr Shoukry made his remarks, some progress was made in terms of climate finance.
At its core, the loss and damage pact consists of large sums of money being pledged by richer economies to more vulnerable countries, which are at the receiving end of most climate-related damage despite having the lowest carbon footprint.
Many climate experts who followed the negotiations consider this a ‘historic breakthrough’ in the fight against climate change.
Although 200 countries agreeing to anything revolving around money is certainly impressive, problems arise when discussing the nitty gritty of the agreement and, most importantly, following through with it.
As far as staying faithful to pledges goes, take last year’s conference as an example. By the time it had finished, despite last-minute alterations in the wording of the agreement from “phasing out” to “phasing down” coal power, the conference was seen as an overall success as major economies gave promising guarantees to cut emissions significantly.
Nevertheless, despite some progress having been made, the result of Glasgow’s conference, so far, has been reserved to mere words on a page. In fact, the debate around cutting emissions was in large part abandoned from this year’s negotiations.
I spoke to Dr Linda Westman, a research associate at the University of Sheffield working at LO-ACT, a project looking into how ordinary actions can improve everyday life while tackling climate change. As part of her research, Dr Westman was present during both COP25 and COP26, following the negotiations closely.
She said: “While we can say pledges were made — pledges had already been made, and countries had not implemented the targets they had already set up to achieve.”
This was also a common theme in representatives’ speeches at the conference.
New Zealand Green Party MP and Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw, who expressed his disappointment during his final speech, spoke about this inability to build on and implement pledges made during previous conferences.
He said: “The language around 1.5C and mitigation is extremely weak.
“We fought very hard to get this set of decisions around Glasgow and frankly we haven’t moved on a great deal in the 12 months since then.”
UK MP Alok Sharma, who led the negotiations last year, also expressed his criticisms in a speech that went viral on social media overnight.
He said: “Emissions peaking before 2025, as the science tells us is necessary. Not in this text.
“Clear follow-through on the phase down of coal. Not in this text.
“A clear commitment to phase out all fossil fuels. Not in this text.”
In this sense, although it has not been long since the end of this year’s conference, history seems to indicate these pledges will thread the same line of inactivity, especially considering the specifics around this fund will only be discussed during COP28, postponing much-needed aid for yet another year.
That said, the loss and damage agreements should still be considered a significant step forward in terms of climate adaptation and finance.
Dr Westman said: “It looks like quite a big win for countries that are highly vulnerable to climate impacts and that for a long time have been fighting to access adaptation finance while high-income countries have been resisting it.
“It’s the first time that language is there, and we should take it as a big deal.”
Nevertheless, perhaps one of the biggest challenges surrounding the pledges and arrangements being made is the fact countries operate on a voluntary participation basis and have no legal requirement to follow through with their promises.
It would seem the obvious way to fix this is to legally bind countries to the final agreements within the conference’s text. However, if the 1997 Kyoto Protocol is anything to go by, there is no real appetite for such a thing.
Legally binding yourself to a document can be a risky and unpredictable commitment and public support tends to tilt towards cautiousness. On the other hand, political parties thrive from public support and poll results, creating a vicious cycle of commitment avoidance. In fact, to this day, the protocol remains the only legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse emissions, notoriously failing to integrate some of the world’s major emitters.
This is a major problem, of course, as it means progress keeps getting slowed down by bureaucracies, something that might be attributed to the unwillingness to debate emissions cuts during this year’s conference.
Dr Westman said: “Based on the focus on loss and damage and lack of new agreements on emission reductions, the most recent negotiations in Egypt might be reflecting a shift towards an acceptance that emission targets are not going to be reached.”
Alas, before reaching the implementation phase, agreeing on specifics is a completely different question filled with even more politics and bureaucracies, made only worse by the fact these issues are extremely hard to navigate.
Dr Westman explained: “Renewables are an easy thing to talk about, but greenhouse gas footprints are much more complicated. “So apart from energy efficiency, we also have to take into account other forms of emissions – like methane – and emissions in other sectors like agriculture, forestry, urban planning and other forms of land use.
“All of these contribute to why this problem is so difficult to address.”
Oftentimes, in order to translate dense bureaucratic and inaccessible conversations into everyday language, the debate around how to tackle climate change can be too oversimplified by the media. It is not simply the case that countries should cut all fossil fuel emissions and invest all the money into renewables.
The inescapable fact is that fossil fuels are an integral part of the world economy, employing millions of people and generating income for countless families across the globe. Not to mention, some countries such as Algeria, Iraq, Libya, and Saudi Arabia rely heavily on their oil production and exports for survival.
Thus, the transition from a carbon-heavy economic landscape into a greener alternative involves a careful balancing act of de-scaling reliance on fossil fuels all the while re-investing into the industry to enable current reserves to become more efficient and preserve the livelihoods of those depending on them. This, of course, must all happen alongside a push for greener energy.
If this balance is not achieved, what might follow is a future which is undesirable in its own right.
Let’s take a quick look at the history of coal in the United Kingdom, for instance.
The British economy was characterised by a period of over-reliance on coal production which ran from the late 1800s to the late 1900s. When oil and gas began to feature more prominently and environmental concerns started to emerge, the industry as a whole began to crumble.
What followed was an extensive wave of mine closures, leading to disastrous economic consequences for those who depended on them to survive.
Hence, while it may be the case that richer countries’ deeper pockets may enable them to transition to a greener economy more seamlessly, the same cannot be said for smaller countries.
Take as an example the loss and damage highlight reached during this year’s conference. It is somewhat obvious to say rich countries should be held liable for how they have historically profited from being the largest fossil fuel emitters at the expense of poorer nations. However, the reality is hardly that straightforward.
It is still the case that countries belonging to the proverbial West still consume fossil fuels at a much higher rate per capita than any other countries in the world. However, some of the world’s most powerful emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China (or BRIC) have massively increased production and demand in recent years, resulting in them having a much bigger international clout in climate-related issues.
The question becomes the degree to which the BRIC countries will, if at all, contribute to this fund. Given that, out of those countries, only Brazil attended the conference, it does not seem to be the case that they have much interest in doing so.
It is somewhat hard to envision key Western economies giving considerable concessions in the name of a greener future if some of their geopolitical rivals are not willing to do the same, especially considering that, for better or worse, these countries will shape the future of the world economy.
As it stands, insofar as the fight against climate change goes, despite it being one of the biggest concerns amongst voters, especially younger people, developments seem to remain in constant stasis.
The data shows current pledges are not enough to reach the target of restricting climate change to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2030 and even then, countries around the world are struggling to even reach the levels within those pledges.
I spoke to Laura Stefanini, a PhD student at the University of Sheffield specializing in cement chemistry.
She said: “The loss and damage agreement alone, is not sufficient. It needs to go alongside an agreement on fossil fuels otherwise it could start to impede progress on global decarbonisation.”
Climate change affects much more than polar bears and turtles. It affects, people and families. Fixing it is no small task and it certainly isn’t something which can be achieved by a simple switch around of funds. It is intricate and it should be understood in that way.
Nevertheless, voters’ appetite for climate reform has become evident across the world. Through all its faults, COP27 was attended by groups such as poorer marginalized countries, and even younger people. This would have been out of the conversation just a few years ago. This increased pressure towards governments might just be what propels climate action to the level needed to prevent millions of deaths.
Article in print only.
