COP28

Sticky concerns and wicked problems

 

…The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action — its sovereignty that is to say – -and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security. (Letter from Einstein to Freud)

We look in vain for some such unifying notion whose authority would be unquestioned. It is all too clear that the nationalistic ideas, paramount today in every country, operate in quite a contrary direction….. All that brings out the significant resemblances between men calls into play this feeling of community, identification, whereon is founded, in large measure, the whole edifice of human society….The ideal conditions would obviously be found in a community where every man subordinated his instinctive life to the dictates of reason. Nothing less than this could bring about so thorough and so durable a union between men, even if this involved the severance of mutual ties of sentiment.  (Letter From Freud to Einstein), Letters, International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation.

COP27 Stocktake exercise technical goals and challenges - Climate Visual Stories by Stephanie Heckman and Hazel Hurley (see larger image)

Hosted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at the Expo City, Dubai, the 2023 United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP28) will be held from November 30th through December 12 2023. The expected attendance is 70,000.

COP is a voluntary nonbonding treaty made by nations under the United Nations. Its goals were established by the Paris Agreement (2015). To date 198 nations have ratified the agreement.

COP28 is distinguished from preceding COPs by the following found under Article 14 : The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement shall undertake its first global stocktake in 2023 and every five years thereafter unless otherwise decided by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.

Goals that were ratified in the Paris Agreement include: Lower the temperature to +2/1.5 degrees, increase the ability to adapt and foster resilience, ensure finance flows consistent with a path to lower GHG emissions (Greenhouse Gases) and resilient development.

Acknowledging that climate is a common concern to humankind, the Paris Agreement interwove the importance of equity and human rights as critial components to addressing climate change.

To achieve the above countries submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) which are self-defined national climate pledges. Countries that have ratified the treaty detail what they will do to pursuant to global goals including lowering emissions to keep temperatures no higher than 1.5°C, foster adaptations to climate impacts, and ensure sufficient finances to support capacity building, technologies, and finance as essential to implementation efforts.

The COPs represent a progressive process where it is expected that national ambition will grow as well international cooperation. However, none of the G20 countries are currently reducing emissions at a pace consistent with net-zero targets. 

COP28 is distinguished from previous COPs by the conclusion of the First Stocktake. The Paris Agreement’s Global Stocktake process, designed to assess the global response to the climate crisis, is conducted every five years. It is intended to evaluate progress on climate action at the global level — not the national level — and to identify overall gaps to achieve the Paris Agreement as well as opportunities to bridge them. This First Stocktake is slated to conclude during COP28 in December. It will evaluate the world's progress on slashing greenhouse gas emissions, building resilience to climate impacts, and the success in securing finance and support to address the climate crisis.

The extensive Stocktake evaluation encompasses the work of the Parties to the agreement and a broad assessment of the extent of the climate crisis to date and the world's progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The 2023 Stocktake is an opportunity to not only see where things stand, but to also to change course if necessary. A synthesis of findings in advance of COP28 was released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on September 8, 2023.

Based on the extensive evidence gathered to date the conclusion is that the world has not successfully closed in on the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement. The science of climate change has made it clear for some time that commitments to stronger actions are needed before a second Stocktake in 2028 to prevent temperatures soaring above 1.5°C.

Given recent technological advances in associating climate change with climatic events, it is now clear that reaching 1.5°C. as the goal set by the Paris Agreement is increasingly unlikely.

An Emissions Gap Report 2023 produced by the United Nations Environmental Program released on November 20, just 10 days before COP28, says that predicted 2030 greenhhouse gas emissions must fall by 28 percent to meet the Paris Agreement 2°C upper limit and 42 percent for the 1.5°C goal. If the current rate of emission continues the temperature will rise to 2.9°C above pre-industrial levels in this century. Full implementation of conditional NDCs would lower this to 2.5°C.

As reported in Politico, “when world leaders huddled in Paris to strike their climate deal in 2015, levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were near 402 parts per million — already high enough to threaten a disastrous future for human civilization and the Earth’s ecosystems. Now they’re approaching 420 parts per million, levels that scientists say the planet hasn’t seen since more than 4 million years ago, when seas were 75 feet higher.”

The World Meteorological Oranization (WMO) on November 15 said in its report that Greenhouse gas emissions reached a high in 2022 with "no end in sight to the rising trend".

Breaches that exceed 2°C are a possible sign that the climate crisis situation is becoming more dire. For example, reported in Common Dreams, on November 20 Copernicus Climate Change Service recorded a 2°C. breach making November 17 the warmest day on record. While this in itself is not a true indicator of a longer term trend, this event combined with other examples experienced around the world are the "canary in the coalmine." In other words, the world is approaching the limits set by the Paris Agreement.

The problem is tools and solutions to combat the rise in global temperature exist. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist, Ed Hawkins, says,"we just need to choose to use them."

Reaching the original Paris Agreement goal of 1.5°C puts the onus on a severe cut in emissions. The source of these emissions by far come from the world's wealthest countries as well as the world's wealthiest citizens who constitute about 1% of the world's population.

The Guardian in conjunction with Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Intitute, and other experts conducted a special investigation over a six-month period and produced The Great Carbon Divide. The report said that the richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%. To put it another way, as reported by Johnathann Watts in the Guardian, the main finding of Oxfam's report shows that" the richest 1% of the population produce as much carbon pollution in one year as the 5 billion people who make up the poorest two-thirds."

The inequity extends to the middle class which is responsible for 43% of emissions compared to the poorest 50% at 8% emissions.

This consumption costs millions of lives.

This inequity comes at a time when renewables have never been cheaper or more accessible.

The good news is, at least potentially, this kind of reporting by agencies, non-profits, communities, the media, and the COP Parties should provide a pathway toward how to get it right with a more concrete roadmap on where to go next to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.

As the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) approaches, the global community will have to address tough negotiations over climate finance, emission reductions, direct actions to end fossil fuel dependence, adaptation strategies, and mitigation for climate-induced loss and damage.

Who will facilitate what is a critical part of determining the outcomes of negotiations because COP28 must deal with sticky questions and wicked problems. This is a particular challenge when it comes to the question of emissions as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) host is a large fossil fuel producer.

The reality is that gas and oil production projects have increased. At COP28 an overwhelming presence of corporate interests with the support of governments will fight to keep what they own whatever the greenwashing rhetoric even as the call for shutting down the gas and oil industry and redirecting more efforts toward renewables has grown.

Secondly, the effects of climate change have already been felt in the South which has experienced death and destruction. Even 2°C means irreversible damage to some island countries. However, wealthier nations have failed to provide promised and/or adequate loss and damage funds to the more vulnerable countries which have had little recourse.

The world as a whole has made some progress e.g. advances in wind, solar and batteries, as well as a momentum driven by increasing evidence of climate change. Climate denial has lessened. A sense of urgency has brought some new legislation and financial commitments among a number of nations The science at this point has more capacity to pinpoint what phenomena is associated with climate change and it has reached a consensus that climate change is happening more quickly than originally projected. Now, the respective parties to the Paris Agreement are responsible for assessing their national progress and ambitions.

There are rich nations and poorer nations commonly described as north and south. Many of the latter are located in areas most vulnerable to the effects of climate change with too few resources. If richer nations continue to produce oil and gas projects beyond livability standards then it is conceivable that many island states may disappear. On the other hand, oil and gas interests argue that given wars, the pandemic, climate change itself, it is necessary to take a conservative view regarding lower gas emissions despite evidence that their new projects within the industry are actually escalating climate change in collusion with governments.

Somehow polarizations which prevent sea change have to be negotiated in the name of enlightened self interest toward global solutions. This is a critical undertaking and whether or not nations are moving toward this negotiation is an important assessment. This requires sticky questions in terms of equity, capacity, and power. (What do hard questions look like in practice? A study of coral reefs offers one example).

Which leads to another sticky question.

Those who even know that COP exists (which are too few in the general population) either continue to hope that this COP will be different or ask what’s the point of COP when it appears that nothing really changes among the richer nations when the survival of more vulnerable nations is at stake.

COP is important. It is a process. It is good that voluntary participation of nations in COP happened in the first place and to an extent it is working. Not having COP means less attention paid to climate change. COP allows a process to build on international agreement and commitment. For better or worse it offers a voice to poorer nations and activists who call for a cold turkey approach when it comes to ending a dependence on gas and oil. Importantly, it is a process where the nations do come together with reasonable competition, collaborations, and information exchanges that lead to relationships and inspirations outside of COP, and the process continues.

Also, there is something strong in the COP structure, e.g., when former President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, nations continued their participation without America.

However, despite the value of the process or the endurance of the structure, pressure is growing to get it right sooner. With the irrefutable evidence that climate change is happening, each COP has been considered as the time to get it right. And yet, the process with its circular and polarizing behavior strains credibility as the COPs are accused of a cut and paste mode with no significant changes. Wealthier nations break promises and entertain new gas and oil projects that defy the promised climate goals of the Paris Agreement.

The inability to ask and answer sticky questions to address this polarization, in the face of an existential threat to the planet, does not only apply to the COP processes. Gaps between words and actions grow, as do too many self-interests, given the threat.

One hundred fifty government leaders signed a treaty, effective in June 1993, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The Convention on Biological Diversity was a multilateral treaty with three main goals: the conservation of biological diversity; the sustainable use of its components; and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. It failed to deliver any specific actions.

The COP 15 UN Biodiversity Conference took place from December 7 to December 19, 2022 in Montreal Canada to continued the work under its treaty. One hundred ninety member nations were represented (it should be noted here that typically the US was not one of those nations). The conference was a two-week negotiation to commit to goals, to agree on a unifying framework, and to formulate action plans to protect nature and “halt” biodiversity loss around the world The sticky questions were...who is going to pay a financial target of $200 billion for conservation and the question of governance.

The annual World Economic Forum (WEF) was held January 16 -20, 2023 in the Swiss Alps ski resort of Davos. The conference title was “Cooperation in a Fragmented World.” There were 2700 attendees (see psm article).
Like COP 27 and COP15, there was a bold call for collective action in the face of global crises and from the perspective of WEF an emphasis on a stronger public private cooperation. The challenge of WEF was well presented in its overview. With the exception of Germany it was marked in is absence of the most powerful G8 industrial world leaders including US President Joe Biden and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron.

WEF was viewed by many of its detractors as more of the same - a “swarm” of elite interests who fly polluting private jets to an elite ski resort as a chance to get away. The behavior was viewed as offensive given timelines related to climate change and “crippling and increasing global inequities". Protests against the status quo again sought fissures in green language that signified delaying tactics and cover stories. For example, in the case of offsetting proposals William McDonnell with the ICVCM noted no matter what “definitive quality standard" for carbon credits is established voluntary markets and corporate volunteerism hasn’t worked in the past. This is a key issue."

The Egyptian government, which hosted and presided over COP27, had promised that the summit would finally be the “African COP” that would put the needs of the continent front and center.

Africa contributes less than 4.8% of emissions disproportionately yet it suffers the devastating effects of climate change. The plight of the continent is ignored except for competition for its resources. One South Africa-based climate campaigner said that people in Africa were dying unjustly. He protested against what he called a development tactic which was an attempt by rich countries to bribe Africa into investing in planet-warming fossil fuels.

The concern did not reach a formal recognition of the problem at COP 27.

COP28 is a critically important potential milestone in addressing climate change in light of the First Stocktake. It is a wrap-up of what came before. The question is will it be more of the same? This is a time for unmasking truths.

The growing corporate presence of gas and oil industry representatives and development interests, trying to sell a point of view antithetical to science takes advantage of the concept of “process” and uses loose language liberally seasoned with greenwashing.

In terms of words and actions some of the richest countries have united against the idea of setting up a new loss and damage fund and advocated for delayed funding while vulnerable countries say repeatedly in terms of accessing funds it is too little, too late.

This inequitable history brings up a wicked problem. The sticky question is, given the extent of inequities, how to achieve truth to power to achieve international agreement. The wicked problem is humanity is running out of time.

Is COP working well enough or should it act more as a treaty with a obligatory legal structure rather than a process that is effectively based on some supposed shame and blame ?

COP is a deviation from how international environmental treaties have actually worked. There are alternative models with international agreements and varying regulatory schemes that have achieved dominon over the air and the sea; many of which do work and succeed at specific objectives.

As on example, the Montreal Protocol placed a greater emphasis on nations agreeing to make specific changes. The treaty successfully allowed the phase out of ozone-depleting pollutants by imposing a de facto command and control scheme across the global economy which limited how much of certain chemicals could be made and, importantly, how they could be traded. Other examples of treaties include the treaty of the High Seas to protect the ocean, tackle environmental degradation, fight climate change, and prevent biodiversity loss.

As far as taking stock at COP28, there are many questions. Will voluntary actions without real accountability bring equity? Will the science be followed in effective terms? Will a negotiated settlement regarding lowered emissions include the participation of the most vulnerable nations and people? Can nations rise above their own internal political divisions? Can nations follow principles of international law and rein in corporate dominance in some official capacity? Will adequate and timely loss and damages promises be kept and within an appropriate schedule given the science? Can a world order supercede national soverignty by saying that in terms of dominion the planet, e.g. the state of amazonian natural resources like the sea and the air, is of international importance in the curtailment of, for instance, undue development, and this should be formalized? In terms of consequences based on regulatory schemes and codification will terms such as “ecocide” be able to move past non party banners and placards into a criminal court?

Will horrific images of sacrificed nations not happen in the name of 1.5 C? That remains to be seen.