It was last year during the COP28 in Dubai when I got to understand the complexities of the whole climate negotiations system and all its intricacies. Now, you might wonder what a COP is, fair enough. Believe me, it is still pretty challenging for me as well to understand it but in a snapshot, I will try.
Basically, COP stands for Conference of Parties. And the nations who are part of this grand gathering are called Parties because they signed both the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change. Believe me, each time that these meetings happen, there is always lot of dissatisfaction
Last year too, I heard about the discontent and disappointment from activists around the globe who were in Dubai. At the same time I also had heard a different version: that whatever was decided there was not so bad, that there also was a group of people who took the final outcomes as something like a milestone, especially in relation to the decision to include 5 magic words, “transitioning away from fossil fuels” in the final outcomes.
Fast-forward to the present, the latest COP, the COP 29 (these numbers indicate the times these gigantic events had happened) they just wrapped up in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, an important oil exporter. The fossil fuel lobby, together with the respective petro states, did a pretty brilliant job in Baku, blocking any new reference to the famous “transitioning away” statement released in Dubai.
Hence at the final plenary, climate advocates and representatives of developing countries, especially those most vulnerable to climate change, were outraged, really upset. That’s why the final moments of the COP 29 were pretty “agitated” and tense.
The atmosphere post COP 29 was somehow not dissimilar from what I read from the previous processes. The presidency [basically, the person in charge to run the show] this year was heavily criticized, so much so, the final plenary had interventions from other nations with very vocal expressions of disapproval.
Yes, like last year, if you think about the fact that the petro state was hosting the whole thing the whole thing is quite maddening. On other hand, we must get them on board for the just transition from fossil fuel and ultimately, save the world. After all, they are the major stakeholders who are responsible for the problem and also hold power and, most crucially, the capital to ensure we get rid of oil and gas.
The final outcome was an “unacceptable” financial declaration as not enough money was agreed.
This reminds me of a Taylor Swift song that says “I think I’ve seen this film before, and I didn’t like the ending”. Well, it felt like the repetition of the past COP as I wrote earlier.
We learn, hear, see and when we expect the right decisions being made from such platforms and the outcomes do not defy not only the efforts of Climate advocates but also the clearest evidence from the science itself. I feel these events underscore the fact how political the whole climate negotiations are and how special interests do, in the end, always prevail.
It is not only the COP process that is far too complex. It is the whole governance behind the famous Paris Agreement, the groundbreaking document signed in 2015 that committed the international community to reduce climate warming to 1.5 degree Celsius. The UNFCCC and the UN Secretariat in charge of trying to protect and safeguard the Paris Agreement, has its own protocols and frameworks that bind the whole complex negotiations together.
Yet the whole mechanism also makes things really difficult to understand and, consequently, negotiate. But considering the increasing threat of climate change and the world hesitating to shift away from the ‘business as usual’ model that heavily relies on fossil fuels, we cannot ignore the truth, even if it is inconvenient for some.
The gathering in Baku was supposed to be decisive, a turning point. First of all, it was planned to be a Finance COP because of the high stakes linked to what is the imperative of providing developing nations with adequate resources to cope with climate change. There was also a focus on carbon markets, another super complex aspect based on Article 6 of Paris Agreement that revolves around trading carbon.
Furthermore, it was supposed to follow up on last year’s decisions from the first ever global evaluation undertaken, what, in jargon, is called the Global Stocktake. Here basically we are talking about evaluating the actions of the countries with reference to the commitments they gave while they signed the Paris Agreement.
Finally, there were also discussions on adaptation and resilience that in simple terms are about having in place the tools to adequately cope with climate warming. For example, flood management systems, climate resilient agriculture and so on. In the end, it was quite frustrating because the expectations were high but the results were quite abysmal. The commitment of 300 billion dollars in climate finance is almost an insult to the requirements to the countries that are affected by climate change with their negligible, almost nonexistent contribution to it. In times when developing nations are asking for reparations for the damages caused by their climate pollution over the last century and more, we did not really achieve much in Baku.
An analysis in Eco newsletter published in the first day of COP mentioned Oil Change International, an international civil society organization, saying that “Annex 2 (meaning for mortals like myself it refers to some list of developed countries) Parties can raise as much as $5.3 trillion annually with changes that aren’t hard to make”. Then, as climate injustice prevails, do we need to wait till the conditions are so bad that the world is damned with irreversible natural damages?
Many negotiators around the globe come forward each year with the goal to save the planet through logical reasoning but it seems like it was and will get harder day by day. In Baku, some climate negotiators even felt threatened.
I had the opportunity to talk online with Zuzanna Borowska, the founder of Open Dialogue International Foundation (ODIF), a youth-led NGO, fostering an inclusive, equitable and most importantly open dialogue on critical issues around climate change, who has been a young passionate and active negotiator for the past few years. “The environment was filled with backbiting, betraying agreed group strategies, not following rules of the process. God, it was a mess,” she told me. “I was threatened that my badge might be taken away if I participated actively. I was questioned, I was accused but I persisted,” says Zuzanna Browoska.
After reading, hearing and listening to many people talking, complaining about the COPs and, then, I had a sort of “lightbulb” moment, a realization. Amidst these divided opinions, we also need to understand the fact that the world today is driven by capitalism and living styles of most of the people are irrefutably driven by consumerism. Thus, to really ensure the planet’s livability, we should not only talk about climate finance but also about our lifestyles.
The world is running addicted to plastics, fossil fuels and hence, the carbon footprint is not going to decrease anytime soon. This requires a systemic change more like a revolution. Unsurprisingly the negotiations in Busan, South Korea for a plastic pollution treaty were a failure and guess why? Because of the pressure by the petro states, with their influence and resources that, tragically for all of us, made a real difference but not what we need. How frustrating!
To really ensure the planet’s livability, we should not only talk about climate finance but also about our lifestyles.
At this point of time, we might let it go and disengage and tune out, resigned to the inevitability of a planet under constant assaults of climate emergency. But I reject this possibility. We should not despair. Maybe, we should still have some doses of optimism and hope. Me and those reading this piece, have a role to play because, as we gain knowledge and consciousness, we can still keep trying.
When we look at science, it seems like we are already too late but the revolutionary, groundbreaking changes like shifting to a zero emissions future, are not a one-day thing. I believe people will start to understand the criticality of the challenges ahead when they become a common talk among people. Perhaps then, people will realize that they contribute. But what could you and I do?
We can share our understanding and as the people will start learning about the perils of climate warming. With its devastating cocktail of deaths and destruction in forms of disasters which we are already experiencing, we indeed are far behind in action to save the world. Maybe, it won’t be hard for the world to get its pieces together and make new bold decisions. In the meantime, we should not let difficulties in the process hinder our commitments and desires like those of passionate negotiators like Browoska. But maybe things can be taken a little down a notch for the sake of the planet. Maybe we all need to take a breath and take a step back. Maybe we need a reset.
Certainly, the whole process of climate negotiations can be much better, simplified and streamlined. Even the experts from Club of Rome stressed the fact that a drastic overhaul of the COP process is desperately needed. We need to show determination and even outrage but we must also be patient and we must prove to be resilient. We should transform climate negotiations in a true, honest, direct dialogue. We can still save the process and we need to take this responsibility, because, otherwise, who else can take the lead? We should not cease to talk about climate. Let’s make an effort to understand why it is difficult to reach an agreement at global level and let’s make a real attempt at negotiating climate warming differently.
Swornima Khatri is a climate advocate and Co-Founder of Planet Pulse, a youth-led initiative focused on advocacy of Climate Change, Sustainable Development Goals and One health approach.
Comment