It’s trite but true that every single meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is “the most urgent and important of them all.”
We have long gone past the
debate over the human contribution to the challenge, and we are not talking
about a situation that’s improving. The UN Secretary General, António Guterres,
for example, has described the latest State of the Global Climate report as “a
chronicle of climate chaos.”
Urgency and high priority are
particularly the case in Sharm El-Sheikh at COP 27, because this is a time of
reckoning when it comes to a number of key pillars of an unfolding global
crisis.
The costs, of all types, of a
joint response are however not being equitably distributed and the climate
crisis is now characterised by a mix of exogenous and domestically fuelled
political, economic and socio-cultural injustices.
Even so, the conclusions of a
UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) report tabled at COP 27 find that “a
sole focus on positive climate finance flows” in itself is “insufficient to
meet the overarching purpose and goals of the Paris Agreement.”
“Finance flows,” the report
says, “must integrate climate risks into decision-making and avoid increasing
the likelihood of negative climate outcomes.”
Yes, there have been
increases in financial flows but even the SCF is proposing that mere financial
bean-counting, as instructive as it is, is inadequate to assess the real risks
being engaged by developing countries.
There is also the fact we
need to face when it comes to our “1.5 to Stay Alive” slogan – a Caribbean war
cry integrated as a main target of the Paris Agreement as a cap on
post-industrial global emissions.
The current COP will most
likely signal the failure of the campaign. Sadly, it is the scientists, not the
politicians or activists, who are most likely to lay the sombre news on the table.
Last week, The Economist
boldly declared it was “time for some realism” regarding the 1.5 degree
threshold for disaster.
The magazine urged activists
and countries to pronounce honestly on the matter so that delegates in the
halls of decision-making can be “chastened by failure (and) not lulled by false
hope.” As highly vulnerable states, we too need to transition to the next level
of advocacy and negotiation.
For, even as the developed
world experiences the occurrence of extreme weather events, there is no
guarantee it will suddenly dawn on them that, even in their respective
backyards, the matter requires the interventions of all.
It is well known that the
entire process has been characterised by the broken promises of wealthy
countries, and major emitters, on the financing of survival measures for the
most vulnerable nations.
Another reality check is that
our Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), as important as they are (and
as locked into our own commitments and entitlements as they have been) are
turning out to be of marginal value in the general scheme of things.
For one, and no matter what
some activists and politicians claim, they were never expected to more than
microscopically affect gross global emissions. Their real value resides in the
promotion of more enlightened environmental management practices which should
be par for the course in any event.
A rallying call, in these
matters, to “save the planet” sells the t-shirts and dramatises the banner
campaigns, but such activities are of more value in the process of saving
ourselves from collective suicide. The climate crisis envisages murder.
Don’t get me wrong, the beach
clean-ups and tree replanting activities are very important to the survival
game, but they have little bearing in the context of difficult political
negotiations that tap into wider global assets and address geo-political
posturing.
This is the value of COP 27
which is first and foremost a political event, meant to be guided by science.
When I attended COP 17 in Durban 11 years ago, one show-boating international
NGO had an activist rappel down a multi-storey hotel to unveil a banner. Some
of our own folks looked on jealously.
It may have helped earn media
attention, fresh funding, and applause. But that was it, even as the true
warriors infinitely more boldly engaged overwhelming odds around the conference
table.
This time around, as T&T
turns up alongside energy sector new-comers Guyana and Suriname, there can be
expected to be far more intense reality-checking and nuancing of the slogans
and catch-phrases. No single t-shirt or banner can capture the meaning.
Our pyramids of needs and
assets must however now more fully occupy centre stage in Egypt. Important
truths need to be told; reality checks explored.
