2024-01-06
A reluctant admission, after 31 years, that we need to “transition” from fossil fuels but a “successful outcome” in delaying that process
By Chris Johansen, Green Issue Co-editor
Firstly, to explain where all of these, now annual, COPs come from. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on the current state of knowledge about climate change. This initiative stemmed from James Hansen’s testimony in that year to the US Congress that climate change is happening and will inevitably worsen as greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions accelerate. From then the IPPC, comprising a cross section of the world’s climate scientists, began regularly documenting current knowledge of the science of climate change, its consequences, possible avenues of mitigation and adaptation, and predictions of the future progress of climate change. However, these reports were inevitably lowest-common-denominator conclusions – that is, underestimates – in order to reach consensus among the hundreds of scientists involved in the project. Nevertheless, an increasingly scary prognosis for the future.
IPCC reports prompted an international treaty to be established in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as a framework for international cooperation to combat climate change by limiting average global temperature increases and the resulting climate change. To implement that convention, Conference of the Parties (COP) have been held ever since. The most notable was the Paris Agreement in 2015 where all parties agreed to limit mean global temperature rise to below 2°C, and preferably below 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. IPCC reports to that stage had indicated the catastrophic consequences of exceeding 2°C. However, as final resolutions of COPs require absolute consensus of the about 200 countries involved, we are inevitably, again, in a lowest-common-denominator situation. So, the Paris agreement was really something, although falling short of what was required to seriously address climate change.
COP 27 was held in 2022 in Egypt, a petrostate naturally with a vested interest in prolonging fossil fuel use. Indeed the event was swamped by fossil fuel supporting delegates with little in terms of realistic climate action emerging from it. It was with great disappointment to the climate-concerned that the next COP was to be held in an even more extreme petrostate, with almost its entire economy dependent on oil and gas, the United Arab Emirates (UAE). And heightening that disappointment was the announcement of the chair of that COP, Sultan Al Jaber, who was also CEO of the country’s major gas producer, ADNOC. Indeed, it was reported that his position allowed him to conclude further deals to expand the UAE’s fossil fuel customers. Greta Thunberg succinctly summed up the situation ̶ “completely ridiculous”.
If the COP 27 corridors were awash with fossil fuel delegates there were even more at COP 28 in Dubai, UAE, in November. The underlying objective of the meeting, as framed, but not explicitly stated, by Sultan Al Jaber, was to give an impression of transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems but delaying that process as long as possible by various diversionary tactics, such that the meeting could be considered as a “success”.
Considering recent IPCC reports and climate data published in 2023, documenting the unrelenting rise in global greenhouse gas emissions and the onset of serious climate change itself, one would have thought that the priority for COP 28 would be to urgently upgrade emissions reduction efforts. This year will by far be the hottest year on record, with mean global temperature for some months exceeding the 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and the average for 2023 closing in on 1.5°C. All manner of temperature, storm severity and frequency, flooding, fire, sea ice shrinkage, glacial melt, etc. records across the world have been broken in 2023. Logically (if I am allowed to use that word in this discussion), one would have thought that the clear mandate of this COP would be how to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this decade so as to hold out some hope of staying below 2°C. But no, it turned out to be an exercise in prolonging the life of fossil fuels, and even expanding their use in the short term.
The agenda of COP 28 required that there be a global stocktake of progress towards climate solutions. The global stocktake report ignored the dire physics as mentioned in the previous paragraph but focussed on a series of “successes”, like the number of countries submitting nationally determined contributions (NDCs). But they didn’t go into how far short these NDCs are compared to what is really needed to slow the trajectory of climate change nor how far short the reporting countries are of living up to their claimed NDCs.
There was hope among some climate activists that this could be the COP that would definitively state that burning of fossil fuels, by far the major cause of climate change, would need to be rapidly phased out and replaced by renewable energy. In discussions over the final output statement it was debated whether the term “phase out” or “phase down” should be used. However, neither term was satisfactory to fossil fuel interests and the final wording was "transition away from fossil fuels". No timeline for this was given. It is happening anyway, as now new build solar and wind energy is cheaper than new build fossil fuel energy, but not at a rate fast enough to meet Paris goals. Delegates from some countries most impacted by climate change, like the small island states, were out of the room when the decision was made, but they eventually conceded to sign the final document to avoid being accused of spoiling consensus.
Shockingly, although previous COPs had promoted the need for reducing greenhouse gas emissions none of them dared to suggest anything about reducing fossil fuel use. It took 28 COPs to get to a statement like "transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner”. Hats off to the global fossil fuel lobby for such an achievement, and to end up with such a wishy-washy statement at this late stage! Most of us are familiar with the term “state capture”, particularly in WA, where fossil fuel interests determine political outcomes through intense lobbying, political and other “donations”, revolving doors, media control, and so forth. Well, the history of COPs is one of “planetary capture”, for current and at least short term future profit of fossil fuel industries, irrespective of the ultimate fate of that planet.
This failure to grapple with fossil fuels is all the more amazing when it is realized that the properties of carbon dioxide were worked out in the 19th century, for example by Joseph Fourier 199 years ago and John Tyndall in the 1850s. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would be to increase global surface temperatures by 5-6°C. Current understanding of climate science indicates he was in the right ballpark. And by then most scientists were aware that burning of coal and other hydrocarbons produced carbon dioxide. But widespread denialism of consequences prevails to this day.
A major outcome of COP 28 was touted as the pledge to triple renewable energy by 2030. At current global rates of renewable energy installation this goal is likely to be reached anyway, irrespective of any consideration of climate change, due to new build and life cycle costs of wind and solar being below those for coal or gas. However, the meeting seemed to consider that this extra energy from renewables was additional to, and not replacing to any great extent, energy from fossil fuels.
There were several outcomes clearly designed to prolong the use of fossil fuels for energy production. The term “unabated” frequently preceded “fossil fuels” in COP 28 documentation, which implies ongoing acceptance of offsets to cleanse their continued use and carbon capture and storage (CCS). There seemed to be little discussion of the dodginess of offsets which are effectively used as a means of prolonging use of fossil fuels. It was pledged to triple nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050, despite the ever declining economics of nuclear energy and its continuing and now increasing security risk. But the promise of increasing nuclear energy is also merely a ploy to extend the life of fossil fuels due to the long build time for nuclear reactors, as is the “promise”, somewhere over the rainbow, of small modular reactors. And another means of prolonging the life of fossil fuels is that other promise of carbon capture and storage. That promise has been around for at least 30 years but has yet to be demonstrated as a viable operation – pure carrot in front of donkey stuff.
Another means of avoiding the elephant in the COP 28 room – the need to urgently and substantially cut fossil fuel use – was far and wide dispersion of the agenda. The COP 28 report boasted 170 initiatives emerging from this COP, double those at COP 27. Indeed all of these initiatives did relate to climate change, as now everything on Earth interacts with climate change. Things like food and water security, disaster readiness, healthcare, biodiversity and conservation, sport, fashion, entertainment and culture, and gender equity (in the UAE?). These items are either aspirations or commentary on activities happening anyway, but claimed as COP achievements. Sure, if climate mitigation and adaptation steps are taken in all of them that is worthwhile but they won’t add up to much emissions reduction any time soon. But they served their purpose of casting eyes away from that elephant standing in the middle of the room.
At least, there was a recognition that climate change is underway, with the establishment of a Loss and Damage fund, boosted pledges for the Green Fund and various other funds aimed at initiatives to increase climate resilience. Pledges of money were made, touted as very generous but falling well short of compensating climate change damage attributed events so far and well short of likely future such events. As a percentage of global GDP, military expenditure accounts for 2.4% while total climate financial flows from developed to developing countries account for just 0.01%. And just pledges made in the euphoria of a global meeting, easily reneged when donor nations are confronted with their own domestic financial challenges (e.g. confronting increased cost of living pressures). And lawyers would be lapping up the task of questioning how a particular catastrophic weather event could be attributed to climate change rather than natural weather variation.
My conclusions expressed above are based on assorted published and media reports, as I did not attend COP 28. The conclusions reached on COP 28 outcome by most scientists and those genuinely concerned about climate change are reflected above, in line with Greta’s pre-conference assessment. However, for the Chair and organizing committee of COP 28, and all of the conservative media that I became aware of (I don’t usually look at conservative media), it was hailed as a “success”. Despite the consensus outcome of “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, the meeting successfully “delayed that process as long as possible by various diversionary tactics”, as discussed above. Mike Berners-Lee of Lancaster University called COP 28 “the fossil fuel industry’s dream outcome, because it looks like progress, but it isn’t”. I would propose that the official Summary of Global Climate Action at COP 28 be submitted for the International Greenwashing Award for 2023.
A really devastating effect of the COP 28 outcome is for governments of countries that, on the one hand, recognize climate change threats and want to do something about it, and, on the other, need to placate unconvinced sections of their electorates to stay in power. Australia comes to mind. The weak output of COP 28 allows those governments to minimize their efforts in climate action and still claim that they are abiding by international standards and obligations. Oh boy!
Now how could this surreal disconnect between scientific reality and human behaviour happen, considering all of the human advancement attributable to science over previous centuries? A recent webinar, moderated by none other than Scott Ludlam, clearly explained it all. From the early 20th century oil producing companies were concerned about government regulation eating into their profits from this new black gold. They funded “think tanks” advocating ultra-free market libertarianism to prevent this happening, eventually known as the Atlas Network. This strategy continued and strengthened throughout the 20th century and into this one. There are currently some 515 such think tanks in over 100 countries around the world not only influencing governments to protect and prolong fossil fuels but promoting the entire gamut of conservative philosophy (e.g. the Institute of Public Affairs [IPA] opposition to the Voice).
Clearly the Atlas Network has overtaken the COP process, somehow getting it’s control into the hands of petrostates – Egypt, UAE, and COP 29 in 2024 in Azerbaijan (economy dependent on oil and gas), and with Australia, a high ranking global fossil fuel state, bidding to be next in line. So what hope for realistically confronting climate change, and minimizing the catastrophe that science predicts for humanity, and indeed all of Earth’s existing ecosystems? Currently, we are on track for massive profits of the fossil fuel industry for another decade or two, but thereafter goodbye Planet Earth as we now know it.
So, what do we do now then? Several possibilities come to mind:
- Just accept that fossil fuel interests have prevailed and that the advancing Armageddon of climate change is inevitable. In that case just focus on adaptation, such as moving dwellings underground to escape increasing heat and severe storms, strengthening border security to ward of an inevitable explosion of climate refugees, and so on.
- Give up on COPs and concentrate on national emissions reduction efforts, but link with other countries with concerns about climate change through international independent climate activist NGOs (e.g. Greenpeace, 350.org).
- Reform COPs, to minimize fossil fuel representation and domination, focus on urgent emissions reduction, base COP decisions on a supermajority rather than consensus (I may be deviating from Greens’ philosophy here!), improve monitoring/accountability of pledges made, and so on.
- Initiate a new international body, of countries wishing to seriously address the climate crisis. A possible model would be the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and their establishment of the of the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), as a viable alternative to existing but stalled and now largely ineffective UN treaties on nuclear disarmament. However, such an initiative requires many years, time that we do not have.
Header photo: COP smoke, by Miel.
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]