The annual exercise of intense negotiation and brinkmanship, which is effectively what recent COP meetings have become, recently ground to a rather dismal halt. Fourteen days of meetings, some formal, some less so, have generated surprisingly few headlines, with many major political figures deciding to stay away. And of course, the towering figure of the newly elected Trump overshadowed proceedings. It was he who withdrew the USA from the Paris COP agreement during his first Presidency and it is he who has threatened to do the same again, when he assumes office in a few month’s time.
What has been learned over the last two weeks? A cynic might suggest that many more people now know that the capital of Azerbaijan is Baku, a piece of information that might potentially be useful in the Christmas pub quiz! The President of that country, Ilham Aliyev, got proceedings off to a rousing start by praising fossil fuels as a “gift from God”. Just like Saudi Arabia last year, Azerbaijan’s economy is based firmly on petrochemicals. And as the rhetoric surged around the meeting hall, the inescapable background fact to this, the most recent Conference of the Parties, is that the global output of Carbon Dioxide (CO2e), continues to steadily rise. The latest figure, an increase of about 0.8% over 2023, represents another 1 billion metric tonnes. Most of this originates from the consumption of fossil fuels.1Â
Nine years ago, at the Paris COP, the principle was agreed that the richest countries, those whose economies have benefited most from burning of fossil fuels, would compensate poorer countries financially. The moral and ethical case for this is beyond debate, indeed as a report in The Guardian points out, everyone benefits from a reduction in carbon outputs. The economic cost of storm damage, floods and forest fires is costing developed countries many hundreds of billions per annum.2 The pledged COP funds should be regarded as an investment in the future of the planet.
In the final analysis, richer countries have agreed to pay $300 billion per annum but the small print suggests that this will come from a number of sources including low interest loans and private investors. The final sign off leaves behind an anticlimatic sense of bitterness; surely no-one can leave this conference with any sense of achievement? Once again the thinking has been short term and focused on financial, rather than broader aspects. How many more years will it take? How many flooded Valencias or raging wildfires will be required before politicians put the medium term interests of the planet before the votes they need to stay elected? Leadership often involves making unpopular decisions.Â
References