Climate change conferences are now an oxymoron. There is certainly hope, frenzy, anger, glitz and glamour which is a reflection of how the world politicians look at the whole thing. Fascination and mild concern. Theoretically, world leaders were in Glasgow to negotiate the mechanisms for reducing emissions. However, Real Politics shows that they were more interested in ramping up soft power, while apportioning the blame to someone else. While the outcome of the conference itself is a damp squib, there was positive optimism that climate change is now taken seriously by the masses and slightly by the politicians.
The Glasgow pact
The final text of the Glasgow pact is a woeful prayer, begging for forgiveness for the misdemeanours of emissions. The text expresses “alarm and concern”, pointing meekly at the unravelling carnage, while suggesting the need for someone to do something. It stressed that urgent action is needed as well as increased ambition. But more importantly there is no bigger ambition nor any actionable details. More regret is expressed that the current financing mechanisms for climate adaption are insufficient in meeting the worsening climate change impacts in developing countries. This is in reference to the promise made of US$100 billion dollars annually to developing countries to assist them to cope with the climate crisis. There is an acknowledgement that limiting “global warming to 1.5°C by 2100 requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions” and “invites” governments “to consider further opportunities” to reduce emissions. It “calls upon” them to “accelerate efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies,” as though this wasn’t a document drafted by those very governments; and as though phasing out all subsidies for fossil fuels wasn’t what we needed to do a generation ago.
Not much reason to be optimistic
Financing for damage and losses incurred by climate change caused by the rich and poor was blocked by some developed countries. Only the low hanging fruit, the Global Methane Pledge, an initiative of the US and the EU went through at COP 26. This is about making faulty fossil fuel structures more efficient, which is a humongous nothing in the grand scheme of things. The pledge to end deforestation by 2030 was as hollow as it sounds, while the voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions will not be enough to meet the 1.5°C target.
There is no reason for optimism about governments actually taking action and sticking to what they signed for, for example the world banned torture in 1987, but most states who signed the convention ignore it to date.
Blame India and China
Notable for COP 26 was the blame game; framing India and China as the villains in the world`s bid to reduce emissions. India had insisted in negotiations that all fossil fuels had to be phased out in an equitable manner which was quite reasonable. However, in reality this was framed by some members of the COP-26 process as India’s attempt to block text on fossil fuels, with the knowledge that these claims would not be examined critically. Whilst developed counterparts managed to obfuscate the issue, framing India as blocking the language on fossil fuels is just a tip of the iceberg with respect to the climate crisis the world faces.
In the end there was a narrow focus on coal while other fossil fuels barely got a mention. Some countries refused to shut down their oil infrastructure.
Against this backdrop, it is understandable that India and China, the world`s biggest coal producers, wanted a more general phasing out of fossil fuel, whilst the US, which the biggest oil producer zeroed firmly on coal. In addition, there were efforts to blame China, though the Asian powerhouse has taken more concrete steps to reduce emissions, than many western countries.
Despite these shenanigans by the, much optimism is to be drawn from COP 26.
Even though it was largely a failure, it would appear that the wind is finally blowing in the right direction. This is because politics does not occur at glitzy conferences but it occurs in individual homes and workplaces.
Growing Climate movement
There is a saying which goes, “Wonders shall never end.” It would appear that political leaders were on a mission to outdo each other in saying the right things. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro had to pretend like he is against deforestation. This is not because these political leaders have been overcome by humanism, nor the fact that they intend to take any concrete action. For Xi Jinping’s China and Narendra Mhodhi’s India, the shift in the direction of climate change can be attributed to growing domestic pressure. In many ways, climate activities have ramped up the pressure altering the political agenda. Partly because of these gigantic efforts, governments are just about realising the costs of the crisis, which will just come back to haunt them. Credit has to go to the Biden administration for taking it seriously as far as they have.
A gleamer of hope
Whilst the world can be cynical about promises and pledges, there is room for optimism that the climate movement has grown in leaps and bounds. Real change is possible. After Glasgow it is not careless to say climate justice movements now dominate the discourse on climate change. Much more fundamental is that change does not emanate from senior politicians and conferences. It is a concoction of opposing political forces that brews when humans gather. Practical action will be realised by radicals, organised and string movements which demand for a shift in how the society is organised. COP 26 does indicate in an emphatic way that, climate justice movement is better when it incorporates the younger generation. With this newly found vigour, the movement can truly change the work in a fundamental way.
Author
