Little progress made at U.N. climate-change conference
We have come to the end of week one at the United
Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly known as COP27, in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, arguably the most important annual climate-change confab in the world.
This year 110 heads of state and over 44,000 people attended, including delegates, NGOs, members of the press, and the ubiquitous lobbyists for oil and gas.
At last year’s Glasgow COP26, there were international agreements concluded on deforestation, methane reduction and finance. We saw the signing of the Glasgow Climate Pact and $100 billion pledged to aid underdeveloped nations. We also witnessed 100,000 students, activists and demonstrators in the streets.
This year, we have been graced with 142 press releases from the U.N. and other agencies. We’ve seen the rollout of guidelines, protocols, advisories and recommendations, but not one multilateral signed agreement.
And representation by civil society has been squeezed to a trickle, with small pockets of protesters valiantly waiving their banners, barely getting the attention of the press or attendees. Perhaps Greta Thunberg was right to boycott this year, labeling it all a greenwashing exercise.
Equally egregious are the disproportionately large delegations from developing nations whose major exports are oil, gas and minerals. These are nations that can least afford to spend money on international junkets for the connected elites that constitute a significant portion of their representatives.
They justifiably lobby for loss and damage payments from developed nations to compensate for damage resulting from past greenhouse gas emissions.
But all the while they simultaneously contemplate how to extract as much personal wealth from the process. They aspire to intercept wealth with as much creativity as have the landlords in this COP host city or, more ambitiously, as well as their counterparts in the investment houses of the developed nations. These financiers are again placing themselves between the movement of money from where it is to where it needs to be.
Here at the conference, the secretary general has been bravely slugging away, and we are sure there are back-channel talks going on that may net some results. This was to be the implementation COP, where parties stepped up to codify and reinforce past pledges.
Meanwhile, the few protesters there are railing against excessive spending on one of the traditional evils of our civilization, militarization — warfare, defense against cross-border invasion and the protection of international trade routes that fuel CO2-bloated economies. But they do not protest the comparable misallocation of resources in all nations — idle consumption of goods not essential to survival in an era of existential threat.
None of this should be surprising to Americans who just left the voting booths telling pollsters that their top priority was not the climate crisis but rather inflation, abortion, gun policy, crime and immigration.
These voters are largely oblivious to the global climate-based crimes that are threatening thousands today and set to kill millions more in the coming years. The climate crisis will invariably slash standards of living around the world, setting off more social disorder and gun violence, conditions that will force millions more to migrate.
So, as we navigate these intransigent trends where greed, self-interest and the political status quo too often trump measures that could avert climate disaster, we expect the U.N. leaders, participating nations and delegates to overcome obstacles and set the markers required to preserve a sustainable future for humanity.
Have we seen that leadership? Sadly, no. So far, we are in the Greta camp.
We need an Armageddon moment. We need to treat the climate crisis with the urgency of imminent nuclear conflict. The potential impacts are equally devastating and existential.
We need an international atomic energy type agency for climate change, where inspectors can go in and fine polluting offenders or shut them down.
If we can set punishing tariffs and sanctions on countries like Russia and Iran, why not for companies and countries that do not uphold climate pledges?
Let’s forge a Climate Change Marshall Plan to drive climate solutions overseas.
Let’s revamp the IMF to unleash climate funding around the world.
What about a Climate Change Peace Corps, where young people enroll to help disadvantaged nations cope?
And while we’re at it, let’s double our R&D budget from 3% to 6% to prime the well for the private sector and create a moonshot, catapulting private enterprise to the fore of the renewable energy economy.
There is no time for incrementalism. We need to think big and boldly. Time to get the lead (and CO2) out. For the daily waterkeeper broadcasts from the COP27 conference and more information, see www.colliercountywaterkeeper.org.
“The Invading Sea” is the opinion arm of the Florida Climate Reporting Network, a collaborative of news organizations across the state focusing on the threats posed by the warming climate.