STOCKTAKE at COP27 - Through round table discussions and exercises focusing on goals and objectives diverse countries assess whether COP27 is still tethered to the Paris Agreement.
Progress in the past year toward COP26 goals includes a growing awareness of the effects of climate change. Science and real world losses have lessened denial. There is some strengthening of ties between nations. (There is the thought that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement actually strengthened unity among nations). 
While some progress was reported by nations there were many broken committments. At COP26 held in Glasgow last year all countries agreed to revisit and strengthen their climate plans. However, only 24 new or updated climate plans were submitted for COP27. Given the narrowing window to address climate change, based on scientific consensus and evidenced by events that occurred in 2022, the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, called this point of departure for COP27 as too little, and even more, "collective suicide. "
FLOOD NIGERIA Mother and child attempt to escape the flood water in Niger State, Nigeria, following torrential rains which have hit the region since mid-July 2018
Many Trillions of Dollars Needed
Against an Existential Threat - Who Pays?
There is a certain predictability to climate change. It is predictably happening. Devastating empirical evidence shows that some countries and their people will hurt much more than others in a relatively short period of time. The unpredictable part is who or what entities are going to pay for valid remedies to this gross inequity and, importantly, when? Furthermore, what method or mechanism will best deliver equitable and useful solutions?
Private sector engagement received greater attention at COP27 compared to COP26 regarding the remediation and recovery from climate events of more vulnerable nations through the redistribution of wealth.
The answers to questions of remedy are slow to come. Powerful self-interests guard capitalization. To date, unreasonable profits made by fossil fuel companies related to war and climate change sharply reveals the hard fact that corporate interests in gas and oil work against committments to meaningful actions.
There was a 25% rise of oil and gas lobbyists with 636 representatives attending COP27 compared to COP26. This is most likely an undercount since an unspecified number of delegates do not declare associations or dependencies on fossil fuel companies.
Shfaq Khalfan, the climate justice director at Osfam America, observed it wasn't about personal wealth. It was about where these powerful interests put their money.
An Oxfam study of 220 companies, well known to the general consumer for the most part, showed that these companies invested more in polluting industries compared to clean industries, unlike the average investor. An Oxfam report titled Carbon Billionaires, which was submitted to COP27, called for not only a wealth tax, but a tax on profits which would help push the wealthiest companies more toward clean energy investments. The wealth tax alone from the 220 wealthiest companies would yield around $1.4 trillion annually. This amount would pay for adaptation, repairs, and transitions in the most vulnerable countries.
Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), companies hold a combined $130 trillion of private capital. Its contribution could supply 70% of the cash needed for poorer nations most at risk. The GFANZ COP27 schedule is included here.
A govermental role is critical in terms of reining corporate interests. Common Dreams reports on a recently released analysis that rich countries allow multinational corporations to dodge at least $89 billion in taxes annually."
An editorial produced by 30 media outlets from 20 countries urged governments to step up to the plate and deliver on the promise of $100 billion to vulnerable countries. The joint editorial called for a windfall tax on the combined profits of the largest oil and gas companies estimated to be $100 billion in the first three months of 2022.
There was a call at COP27 to write off loans made to "those on the frontline of the climate emergency".
This kind of thinking was contrary to lobbyists' motives behind attending COP27. The corporate interest was capitalization, which grew in 2022, greatly supported by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. In fact, fossil fuel interests at COP27 include a significant presence by Russian oligarchs seeking to drum up business, including opening up Africa which has been a strategic interest of Russia’s for some time.
Also associated with Putin's invasion of Ukraine, desperation marked some of the world's richest countries seeking independence from Russia's hold. In their push for natural gas pipelines they wooed African countries with oil and gas reserves by promising new development that would allow these countries, to catch up with developed nations. This dealmaking made things considerably tougher for African activists.
This is not the attention activists sought at COP27. They had expected the venue would effectively benefit Africa in terms of loss and damages. Instead, their bid for "special circumstances" from a country that contributes less than 4.8 of emissions was largely excluded from the COP27 agenda.
The presence of these lobbyists with their mantra of greener gas and access to policymaking outweighed indigenous interests in attendance who are most affected by climate change. These interests, reported by Global South, have been effectively denied a voice because of factors such as high costs, visa challenges, and “repressive actions" by Egypt as COP27’s hosting party, and, it could be said, the dominating presence of dealmaking fossil fuel lobbyists.
Greenwashing is Insidious
 copy 2.jpg)
Maybe there is too much wiggle room. There are many ideologic loopholes in dealing with wealthier nations and fears of "greenwashing" are grounded in reality.
For instance, the co-opted catchall term "net zero", officially or in conversation, is misleading. It is an impossible goal and a largely unaccountable premise. One approach under the net zero banner involves carbon tradeoffs. The idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible and then offset any remaining irreducible emissions. One example would be trading emissions from industrial processes for carbon sinks, such as forests.
The approach has come under attack from activists who argue that some companies and governments are using the concept of net zero as a "fig leaf" by assuming they can offset emissions rather than biting the bullet and reducing them. The US is one country that likes the idea of carbon credits as an incentive to motivate large carbon producers while activists consider debt deferral payments and carbon offsets, as promoted by the US, to be lesser options to address climate change. The economics of this approach allow too many loopholes for heavy emitters well fed by engorgements of unfettered profitmaking during dire times.
There is a certain irony in applying any economic model to human behavior and climatic consequences that cannot clearly address truth to power. For instance, Microsoft planted trees as an offset. The trees burned in last summer’s California’s wildfires. No matter, Microsoft gets to keep the credits. This scenario highlights an economic reality. Climate change is a persisting and inequitable global state which demands critical emissions cuts and relevant funding schemes with accountability. It also requires bold actions in the streets on the part of activists to get that message across.
None of this is to say that the progressive COPs should not exist. There has been talk of boycotting COP28 given the experience of COP26 and COP27 in failing to hold nations and corporations to account. The question is wouldn't it be better to claim the stage?
COP Processes Are Important
Despite the slow processes and buy-ins, the continuation of COPs plays a critical role in addressing climate change. It is a mechanism to increase awareness and hopefully garner more guarantees of forthcoming funds. It represents an opportunity to build on enlightened self interest based on, at the least, the proposition that no one will escape the ill effects of climate change and that a commitment to longer term investment goals for alternative energy across the globe will produce high yields. A Bloomberg report argues that there is a greater recognition of this potential among investors.The most important benefit of the COPs is the informal language and the networking around a common cause among those who do not have a full seat at the table.
After more than 30 years, following the mandate of the Paris Agreement, this is the first time delegates officially discussed the creation of a global fund for “loss and damage”.
Still, it is slow going as COP 27 closes on the end of the Conference. For example, commitments first made by some countries amounted to $250 million for loss and damages. As of November 11 some countries including Scotland, New Zealand, Germany, and Austria committed to funding for loss and damages. The US and Egypt committed to $150 million each directed to Africa. The list of US committments in a November 11 release on COP 27 is here. The UK said it would double its original funding to Africa. However, in terms of fairness for the most vulnerable countries, with lower carbon footprints, commitments of cash from wealthier nations did not come close to the needed estimated $200 billion annual funding for climate adaptation. Furthermore current committments did not adequately address the monentary committment of $100 billion made at COP26 that fell short for whatever reason. For instance, at COP26 the US promised $11.4 billion to help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change. The US Congress approved $I billion this year.
Hard Questions: What Does Climate Change Economics Look Like?
There are a range of challenging questions about climate change economics. As some examples, how will money to countries like Pakistan with a history of corruption be handled?
What kind and amount of specific support is needed for burgeoning populations on flood plains, for early warning systems? The distribution of funds will require perpetual non-reactive subsidies driven by foresight and close communications with local resources.
Official talks about reparations tend to effectively bypass methods for accountability and assessments applied to countries and financial sectors most responsible for the cost of climate change.
In terms of accountability from nation-states one might say that political tensions can over-ride global committments. For instance, the US political structure represents a divided country. Republicans in the US represent a large constituency that includes a high percentage of climate change deniers. Will any committment made by the current President, Joe Biden, be honored by a Republican House or future presidents?
How effective is the global media in addressing climate change to different audiences?
An Equitable Financial Structure
Then there is the question of major structural changes in the name of climate change economics . What about overhauling the World Bank and the IMF, a subject that has significant agreement that these financial structures must be updated to fit today's world? How adequately will this subject be addressed in a timely manner?
It is generally understood that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank were designed for a different age and have remained unchanged while climate change is a matter of survival for vulnerable nations who face gross inequities with consequences. For example, wealthy nations essentially finance loans to developing nations and then hold much of their debt — This can be seen as a captive situation since wealthier nations exercise a large degree of control over the growth and progress of more vulnerable nations. It is a catch 22 that is heightened because of climate change.
Nigeria is one example. Like many developing nations, Nigeria borrows at far higher interest rates on average than wealthier countries. Paying that debt drains its national budgets. Like other nations its government then lacks needed reserves to address the crises of climate change, such as the kind of widespread flooding Nigeria, one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change in the world, recently suffered.
The dilemma that now faces Nigeria is its wealth of oil fields, which Russia and other nations covet. Nigeria wants to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060 using gas as a transition fuel. However, it needs investors. Historically, Nigeria has held some resistance to Soviet incursions. Russia, however, has strategically fostered its relationship with Nigeria as its a protector. The time is right, given war and climate change, for Russia, along with other wealthier nations, to capitalize its investment. On balance, Nigeria will lose and so will climate change efforts.
Enlightened Self Interest: The story of Mia Mottley
Small Carribean islands struggle with increasing vulnerability to climate change and colonizing debt pratices that have no end.
“It is totally exaggerated risk, I can tell you,” “It’s not right that some countries can borrow at 3 percent and others at 14, 15 percent.” Mia Mottley, prime minister of Barbados.
Major structural change are fundamental to reaching climate change goals. This requires a better presence from
She governs Barbados, a heavily indebted Caribbean nation that is highly vulnerable to climate disasters. She advocates for enlightened self interest and a climate change economic model. The buy-in is (1) The losses of a Caribbean nation portends the loss for all nations. (2) Supporting that, changing practices in terms of longer term investments will be profitable and equitable. This can be framed as enlightened self interest.
The vulnerable Caribbean island state, trapped between crushing debt and climatic events strongly associated with the past behaviors of rich nations, finally ran out of money. New loans had to be taken out to pay the interest on old loans. Debt relief provided by wealthier countries and nongovernmental financial interests was a trap where there was no escape. No cuts in a budget, no austerity measures would work in place of a new way of doing things.
A worsening situation in the Caribbean revealed the need for a new kind of economic model for development finance. Two hurricanes successively hit the Caribbean. Nearby Dominica was severely damaged. Similar to the burning trees in California planted by Microsoft, the storms showed that even the most heroic economic planning could be laid to waste in a moment and losers were not the large companies but the most vulnerable.
Prime Minister Mia Mottley was determined to find away to restructure Barbado’s debt. First, in a courageous move she stopped payments to the nation’s debtors. This brought financial chaos. Secondly, she worked with the IMF to renegotiate debts owed to private banks and investors. It was critical that she use IMF to her advantage to convince banks and other institutions to lower the debt load by a third and take a “haircut.” And, importantly, to include a national disaster clause. The challenge was the debtor’s ignorance of climate change as more than failed interdependencies. As an added note, it seemed IMF was learning something new from the experience.
There were costs attached to her plan. Within this framework she would have to cut the budget and raises taxes. However, in return she wanted endorsements for her economic program and she wanted to minimize deference to debtors.
Her overarching goal was to address climate change needs by challenging the rules of the global financial system which she saw was born from generations of colonial rule. Her path toward that end included financial and climate change activism on the global stage.
She had done the work to build a foundation for change for Barbados as a model in the Carribean. She started on her path which was a global stage of financial and climate activism. She meet with key climate scientists to determine Barbados future habitable environment. She laid out a plan called Roofs to Reefs to address the right infrastructure in the face of climate change. Mia Mottley became a strong voice for Caribbean countries.
Multiprong challenges to negotiations included addressing the immediacy of climate change while holding fast to her longer-term plan. Timing was important. Hurricane season was about to start in the Carribean wrecking more damage and carrying the threat of more loans that could not be repaid. Then, Barbados was hit with COVID, and more hurricanes. Now she needed quick answers. For the most part, this kind of economic reality had not reached large financial interests. Despite the promise of change, IMF returned to old policies.
She also reached a conclusion. There had to be a radical shift in how the IMF and World Bank applied resources to the most vulnerable countries.
The Prime Minister of Barbados made a big ask to IMF - establish a new climate trust based on IMF reserves where humanity is valued over generating profits in a way that benefits all.
Is there a chance that the enlightened self interest, demonstrated by Mia Mottley, can scale up toward global unification in the battle against climate change?
The winds of change...
Every day, we are seeing the power of communities resisting harmful oil, gas, and coal projects," she added. "We are seeing massive growth in the breadth and depth of the movement" Zeina Khalil Hajj, Director 350.org.
When it comes to negotiations, many organizations and activists around the globe continue to represent compelling cases for loss and damages through stories, networking, coalition building, and emergent climate economics models. These representations are gaining power.
However, the elephant in the room remains. There is a need for satisfactory answers to questions surrounding the absence of lawful compliance - including international environmental laws and regulations. Who will pay for climate change and how? Who should be held accountable? How and to what degree?
Those attending COP27 who wanted effective real-world answers to these questions in terms of truth to power were regulated to an empty parking lot 15 minutes away from where negotiations were actually taking place.
Perhaps they did not have a firm seat at the negotiating table. However, COP 27 revealed the growing capacity of indigenous interests to network and build more diverse coalitions around land encroachments, to contest enduring forms of colonial-style capitalism, and to persist with the message keep fossil fuels in the ground as some examples.
Furthermore, after more than 30 years fighting for loss and damages and attempts to raise consciousness about climate change, activists and communities are increasingly educated regarding unacceptable forms of greenwashing. Movements continue to live and echo across the planet and organizing toward new structure has become more proficient. Rallys around the effects of climate change include increasingly effective pushbacks from the ground up against capitalization that exists on the backs of others.
Ultimately, the capacity to affect the greatest global changes exists in the hearts and minds of those who have to fight with ingenuity for a place at that table, or even better set the table, whatever the injustices and ignorance they face.
1. [The value of "indigenous interests" as the term is used is a critical piece of activism. Still, in my view, it also seems important to use the term "indigenous" carefully and contextually as beyond special interests and diverse enough to be immune from an abundance of ideology and/or o-option from the top down. Perhaps this would be defined more broadly in coalitional terms as those with a local, cultural, and traditional occupation of land guided by indigenous knowledge that benefits the whole. It should be noted that, at least in America, the term "indigenous" needs to be redefined as inclusive of the staggering number of people at various income levels with lived-in lives, e.g. Appalachia in the US. where many people who have historically fought for their lands and cultures, regardless of their ethnicity, do not know that the COPs, and the associated activism surrounding the event, exists.]↩