COP 25 held in Madrid has been a major disappointment. The failure of this landmark international event comes at a time when the world is faced with critical choices for bringing within limits the risks associated with the impacts of climate change.
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has clearly brought out the need for warming to be limited to not more than 1.5oC by the end of this century. There is now universal awareness and acceptance of this crucial scientific reality, and yet there are vested interests and some irresponsible governments who appear to have no concern not only for the current generation of youth but also for those who are yet to follow.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under Article 2 defined “The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”. Sadly, the UNFCCC seems so far away from meeting this ultimate objective.
Quite apart from the process by which negotiations are being pursued and the very institutional structure involved in this activity, there are three major failures that stand out with respect to COP 25.
The first relates to the level of ambition which must guide and define the submission of NDCs by governments in the next COP. Unfortunately, there was no expression, and certainly no elaboration of the expectations that would ensure a higher level of ambition for next year. As far as the language of the COP 25 statement is concerned, all that was expressed was a weak and totally inadequate statement of “revisiting reduction pledges made in Paris in 2015”. There was of course not even a mention of arresting deforestation, which in recent months has devastated the Amazon forest with the fires that have been raging, almost as though favoured by the current official policy of the Brazilian Government.
Secondly, there has been a dereliction of responsibility on the part of the rich countries and a climb down from the promises that were made as early as COP 15 held in 2009 in Copenhagen. Major contribution of finances by the developed world were promised for those that have had little or no historical responsibility for the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere and those which are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In that particular summit attended by some of the most prominent leaders of the world it was agreed that a goal for the world to raise USD 100 billion by 2020 would be pursued from a wide variety of sources. It was also agreed that new multilateral funds for adaptation will be delivered with a governance structure. While certainly a green climate fund was established as an outcome of these decisions, the level of funding provided for this mechanism is nothing short of pathetic. As a result of the developed countries reneging on the pledges made in the past, major developing countries have been reluctant to express any intent that moves towards raising ambitions across the board in all countries.
Thirdly, there has been a persistent call by several nations for new streams of finance which would compensate for “loss and damage”. Even as recently as in 2015 a fund of US$ 100 billion was promised by 2020. This has yielded no results and all that has been done is to form a working group to take up this subject in the next COP. This has led to enormous frustration on the part of the most vulnerable nations, who are already suffering from the impacts of climate change.
The current situation is grim, with every single scenario which has been developed in respect of pathways for future emissions, clearly shows that we may end up with a temperature increase, by 2100, somewhere between 3oC to 4oC. In fact, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC had stated “Global mean temperature increases in 2100 in baseline scenarios – those without additional mitigation – range from 3.7oC to 4.8oC above the average for 1850–1900 for a median climate response. As far back as 2007 the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC had brought out the desirability of peaking of emissions no later than 2020 even for limiting temperature increase to 2oC. The 1.5oC limit which has now been accepted would only make radical reductions essential if we are not able to achieve peaking by 2020. And peaking by 2020 requires major transformation of thought and action against the dismal outcome of the 25 COPs.
Meanwhile, extreme events continue to increase in frequency and intensity in several parts of the world, including in those countries which have the highest emissions of carbon dioxide. The leaders of these nations even ignore the severe impacts to which their own citizens and their ecosystems are being subjected. The raging forest fires in Australia, intense hurricanes in North America and the Caribbean, forest fires in Siberia and heat waves in several parts of the world reveal that developed country governments are insensitive to these occurrences and perhaps deliberately blind to the science which is getting to be more and more compelling.
The inevitable conclusion that one reaches after COP 25—having been held and having resulted in no commitment for even small reductions in emission—is that the process is really not working. The time has come for concerned citizens and global society to take the position that “the emperor is wearing no clothes”.
There are massive demonstrations in which children and youth have been taking part in the past few months, but, unfortunately, these are being shamelessly ignored by decision makers, even as 25000 people participated in COP 25 at a huge cost in terms of CO2 emissions.
The time has come to find an alternative approach. Connor Spreng and Daniel Spreng have come up with an interesting approach which favours transnational actions rather than state-led international commitments to deal with the problem. Transnational policies typically imply cutting across traditional state sovereignty based approaches and operate across public and private divides and seek to develop innovative approaches to solving international problems. Moreover, at the regional level, the vision which is emerging from the EU seems worthy of emulation in other parts of the world, even though there may be conflicts and major differences among countries within a particular region and a lack of institutional mechanisms by which a regional plan like the EU can be formulated and adopted.
Perhaps the time has come for those justifiably concerned about the current process to support a very different structure and completely different system by which the world can support reducing its emissions, beginning with peaking at the earliest, if not by 2020. The science of climate change compels us to do so. The future of our children and grandchildren makes it a moral imperative for us to come up with a refreshing and totally different approach before COP 26 is held. In this space an alternative approach will be presented very soon. But perhaps before that the children who are protesting all over the world should highlight the abysmal failure of the UNFCCC and the terrible let down that COP 25 has proven to be like all the COPs before this. They must reveal the truth that the emperor is wearing no clothes. After all, in Hans Christian Anderson’s true to life story it was a child who spoke the truth in contradiction to the spineless toadies who regard themselves as adults.