Climate myopia: This year’s CoP was a big disappointment but small surprise

Climate myopia: This year’s CoP was a big disappointment but small surprise

This CoP was labelled the “finance CoP” on the expectation of reviewing the finance goal set 15 years ago at Copenhagen (2009), of raising $100 billion annually by 2020, to create a new target. It is unarguable today that countries, developed ones most disappointingly, are failing to meet their (still modest) greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets, thereby sharply increasing their responsibility as well as the vulnerability of developing countries.

As such, with climate impacts moving from scientific papers to palpable reality, an enhanced finance target has become an existential need for several countries. An annual commitment of just $300 billion by 2035 as against an already modest ask of $1.3 trillion is appalling in its insensitivity and injustice.

The ‘historic’ Paris Agreement of 2015 committed to limit the increase in global average temperatures to well below 2° Celsius above the pre-industrial average, with all efforts to limit it to 1.5° Celsius. A mere nine years later, 2024 will be the first full year when we bust the 1.5° aspirational limit; as recently as early 2023, we had expected that this limit would be crossed only in the early 2030s.

The accompanying impact in terms of extreme events has brought into sharp focus the need for building resilience as well as compensating countries, especially low-income and small island states, for the loss and damage caused.

With grossly inadequate mitigation of the crisis, the climate finance that developing countries can legitimately asl for will increase exponentially, leading to continued disappointment from a stressed Western world. More worrisome is the assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “There are limits to adaptation and adaptive capacity for some human and natural systems at global warming of 1.5° C.”

So, as the key solution to climate change, why has the world done so poorly on mitigation?

Clearly, the governments of the world are failing us. At a time of planetary crisis, every government needs to maximize efforts at mitigation. A lot can be achieved through creating the right regulatory frameworks and design of incentives, especially in the developed countries that must take the lead, but also in emerging market economies—which together account for most of the world’s GHG emissions.

The International Energy Agency estimates that in 2023, governments continued to heavily subsidize the use of fossil fuels, spending $620 billion. This amount is significantly above the $70 billion that was spent on support for consumer-facing clean energy investments. The International Monetary Fund, on the other hand, has estimated that explicit subsidies only account for 18% of total subsidies, while nearly 60% is due to undercharging for global warming and local air pollution.

Also failing us are those businesses that stand to benefit from such wanton behaviour of governments. In particular, those businesses that are engaged in the production and consumption of fossil energy sources—after all, the energy sector contributes to nearly three-fourths of global GHG emissions—and those that stand behind such enterprises (such as the financial sector).

CoP-29, and earlier CoPs, have clearly recognised the importance of mobilizing a wider base of finance to support climate related transformations, with the private sector playing a clear role. Undoubtedly, the share of private climate finance is increasing rapidly, but a lot more needs to be done by this sector to help mitigate emissions of GHGs.

As long as the regulatory framework and availability of finance do not signal otherwise, profit considerations will continue to drive climate-harming economic activity. Having said that, and notwithstanding the notorious short-termism of businesses, private players must recognize that they’re not immune to the impacts of climate change and must lobby governments for much more stringent climate action, along with a level playing field.

Finally, the constituency that is most affected by adverse climate impacts, which is society at large, is also failing itself. While the first two broad sets of actors are likely being driven by considerations of vote-bank politics, revenue and profit generation, society seems to be locked into lifestyles or lifestyle aspirations that supersede sustainability.

While tempting, it may be wrong to use the adjective ‘wanton’ for this constituency’s consumption habits; political alignments and news media (TV in particular) play a key role in the extent and quality of awareness on the subject. A new UNDP report, The Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024, reveals that “More than half of people globally said they were more worried about climate change now than last year, and four out of five want their countries to strengthen commitments to address climate change.”

These averages, of course (i) hide regional variations and (ii) do not provide an insight into what we are willing to do (sacrifice) as society to protect our own future and that of our children. Anecdotal evidence points to a largely lackadaisical attitude driven by gratification and the legacy of traditions.

The battle for climate protection continues to be complex, hard and mired in short-termism. Despite the vested interests of almost all parties in this issue, the fight for an environmentally and socially habitable planet for our children must continue and find the support it needs.

The author is an independent expert on climate change and clean energy.

#Climate #myopia #years #CoP #big #disappointment #small #surprise

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *