Do we really need COP 28? by Ramesh Shrestha

If we are going to continue repeating what has been said in past climate conferences, what is the use of COP 28? Will there be one voice to stop wasting time and money on future COP conventions?

The dust from COP 27 is yet to settle but COP 28 is already planned to be held in Dubai from 30 Nov to 12 Dec 2023. Looking back in a series of outcome documents from past COP conventions, nothing has changed in the aspirations of the conventions. There were just visible changes in goal posts being pushed every few years. Since the outcome documents are non-binding, everyone can take their time or even ignore it all together. 

Conflict of interest

The main sponsor of COP 27 was Coca-Cola, one of the biggest polluters. COP 26 was sponsored by Uniliver, another big polluter along with Microsoft which is a partner of Exxon. COP 25 was sponsored by Endesa, the largest energy company in Spain. COP 24 was sponsored by the largest Coal company in Poland, and so on. It will be an example of conflict of interest to be cited in any management course. 

The main conference is always divided in two camps; one for the government representatives, the UN and sponsors and the second for the international organisations and other individuals. This second group has no role in the negotiating table. In Sharm el-Sheikh, these camps were aptly known as Blue Zone and Green Zone. Interestingly, the Green Zone in Sharm El-Sheikh is like the Green Zone in Baghdad for diplomats, fully sealed and protected from outside access – no one in, no one out, how appropriate!   

What is new? 

One outcome in COP 27 is the proposal to establish a loss and damage fund to rebuild infrastructures damaged by extreme weather conditions over the decades in low income countries. But there is no agreement on where the funds will come from and how the damages attributable to the changing climate will be determined. In the past too there was similar proposal to establish a fund with $100 million annually to support poor countries to fend against changing climate starting from 2020, which is yet to be realised. Based on past experiences it is amply clear that making news headlines with financial commitments is easy, but delivering the funds is a whole new ball game. 

Money is not the solution 

Money is important but money will not stop melting glaciers, money will not slow down loss of biodiversity, money will not cool the atmospheric temperature and money will certainly not prevent rising sea levels. The proposed money may even likely to distract the main issue which causes global warming. The focus should be on human behaviour and lifestyle. The effort should be squarely in funding renewable sources of energy wherever big industries and power generations are required.   

We kept ignoring

The first world climate conference was held in Geneva from 12 -23 Feb 1979. It was participated in by 350 specialists from 53 countries and 24 international organisations. The second climate conference was held in Geneva from 29 Oct to 7 Nov 1980 participated by 908 participants from 137 countries including two heads of state and four prime ministers. By 2022, the number of participants in the COP 27 held from 6-20 Nov 2022 has bloated to more than 35,000 participants from 190 countries including almost 100 heads of state. Among the participants were more than 600 climate experts representing fossil fuel industries. 

When two people can have three opinions, can we actually achieve anything substantive in such a large crowd of famous people, many of whom have ego larger than life? 

The Declaration of the first climate conference in 1979 called on all nations to support the World Climate Programme and suggested strategies to assist countries to make better use of climate information in planning for social and economic development. The declaration encouraged countries to build on scientific progress made over the past decades in agriculture, energy, water resources, ecology, medicine, fisheries, environment, economics and data provided by climate research and meteorological observatory data worldwide. This recommendation cannot be more specific. Did we all ignore it? Looks like we did. 

Our energy needs 

In 1979 the total GHG emitted was 20.7 bn. ton, which increased to 32.5 bn. ton in 1990. By 2019 it reached 49.8 bn. ton. In 1979 there were 4.35 bn. people in the world. Last week the world population reached 8 bn. This growing population requires food, water, shelter, clothing, medicine, education, transport, etc. All of these life support systems need energy. In retrospect it is now clear that over the past 40 years countries planned for services but none of the countries planned for renewable energy to accompany the plans for other services. Was it deliberate? In some cases, it may be ignorance but in many cases it may have been deliberate.  

We were warned long ago and continue to ignore 

A Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, a member of the Nobel Committee had predicted the change in atmospheric temperature with increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 1896. This theory was later proved by Guy Callendar in 1938 using weather data. These historical data were conveniently ignored. 

In 1979, the same year when the first climate conference was held, Exxon in its internal research found that if the fossil fuel is replaced by renewable sources, atmospheric pollution would start to decline by1990 and global climate crisis could be averted. On the contrary in 1980, Exxon collaborated with other fossil fuel industries and disputed climate science and began to fund think tanks and their biased studies creating doubts on climate science. The global climate coalition chairman, who also happens to be the President of American Petroleum Institute published in The Washington Post on 17 July 1997 that ‘climate scientists did not say that burning oil, gas and coal is steadily warming the earth’ contradicting what the industries had known for decades. Such misinformation of fossil fuel industries continues unchallenged even today. 

Looking ahead 

Looking back in history there were commitments to reduce the emission by 10% below 1990 level by 2020, 45% below 2001 level by 2030 and 80% below 2001 by 2050. But the emissions continue to rise as demand for energy continues with improvement in people’s living standard and population growth. As much as most people hope against it, fossil fuel will be there as the main source of energy for the foreseeable future. Despite years of talks, the countries were slow in making technical progress in renewable energy. Is it deliberate? Who knows? Who benefits from this? 

The recommendations of 1979 first climate conference are as good as recommendations from any subsequent climate conferences. There is precise understanding on what has to be done. The countries just need to speed up work on technologies for renewable energy. Meanwhile countries need to put in place adaptive mechanisms to protect their populations from negative impacts of changing climate. 

We do not need COP 28

With full knowledge of the above information, over the past 40+ years, since the first climate conference, the number of participants continue to rise and the cost of organising the conference has considerably risen. The visibility of COP continues to increase with global statesmen, celebrities and academics participating in COP events for a few minutes of fame. There were more than 800 private jets landing in Egypt bringing high level dignitaries to the podium this year. Did it matter? Will it make any impact on the recommendations of the first climate conference in 1979? Not really. 

If we are going to continue repeating what has been said in numerous past climate conferences, what is the use of COP 28? Will there be one common voice to stop wasting time and money on future COP conventions? 

Read more by Ramesh by clicking here https://xunicefnewsandviews.blogspot.com/search/label/Ramesh

Ramesh contact is Ramesh Shrestha <ramesh.chauni@gmail.com>