So move along now…to Azerbaijan and Brazil

Climate Scepticism

BY MARK HODGSON

My thanks to Robin Guenier for drawing my attention to the prescient words of Bjorn Lomborg written just five days ago, and predicting with uncanny accuracy the outcome of the latest COP farce:

The spectacle of another annual climate conference is ongoing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) until Dec. 12. Like Kabuki theater, performative set pieces lead from one to the other: politicians and celebrities arrive by private jets; speakers predict imminent doom; hectoring nongovernmental organizations cast blame; political negotiations become fraught and inevitably go overtime; and finally: the signing of a new agreement that participants hope and pretend will make a difference.

The article from which that quotation has been lifted is well worth a read. Inter alia, it contains three killer paragraphs that go to the heart of the issue, but which are missing from most discussions in the mainstream media of climate change and policies associated with it:

What won’t be acknowledged in the UAE—because it has never been acknowledged at a global climate summit—is the awkward reality that while climate change has real costs, climate policy does, too.

In most public conversations, climate change costs are vastly exaggerated. Just consider how every heat wave is depicted as an end-of-the-world, cataclysmic killer, while the far greater reductions in deaths from warmer winters pass without being remarked on. Yet the costs of climate policy are bizarrely ignored.

Analyzing the balance between climate and policy costs has been at the heart of the study of climate change economics for more than three decades. Renowned economist William Nordhaus is the only climate change economist recognized with a Nobel prize. His research shows that we should absolutely do something about climate change: Early cuts in fossil fuel emissions are cheap and will reduce the most dangerous temperature rises. But his work also shows that highly ambitious carbon reductions will be a bad deal, with phenomenally high costs and low additional benefits.

That clear-sighted understanding, lacking from the vast majority of policy-makers (and tens of thousands of pointless hangers-on) attending the latest jamboree, sets out very clearly what is wrong with the whole COP process – it is predicated on misguided assumptions, and it fails in its own terms to achieve anything useful. So much for the background and the predictions. How did it actually measure up in practice?

Bang on cue, I would say. The agreement that was finally signed off (at least, this is the latest iteration available) can be found here. It is the usual mish-mash that we have learned to expect – a mixture of background information (known in the trade as “recitals”) and back-slapping mutual self-congratulation; followed by non-binding aspirations. Because they are non-binding, everyone can happily sign up to them, safe in the knowledge that no enforcement procedure exists to punish them when they fail to take it seriously and don’t act on its exhortations. I suppose it’s impossible to persuade almost 200 nation states to agree on anything meaningful, so to that extent it’s difficult to complain about the inevitable fudge. However, this has happened on 27 previous occasions, so one might have thought that an understanding of Realpolitik might have dawned by now. Perhaps it has, but they can’t admit that the whole process is flawed and pointless, so on and on it goes.

It runs to 21 pages and 196 paragraphs and achieves nothing. It “recalls” on 27 occasions what has been agreed to in the past. It “underlines” the critical role of multilateralism and also “the urgent need to address, in a comprehensive and synergetic manner, the interlinked global crises of climate change and biodiversity loss in the broader context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the vital importance of protecting, conserving, restoring and sustainably using nature and ecosystems for effective and sustainable climate action”. This is stated in a non-ironic way, with no apparent understanding of the often conflicting nature of these goals. It does however realise (another underlining) that the “Parties are not yet collectively on track towards achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals”. Another three “underlines” are thrown in for good measure.

There are nine acknowledgments of various kinds, including “that climate change is a common concern of humankind and that Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the right to health, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity”. I hope that satisfies the 90,000 hangers-on, though I very much doubt if it satisfies the people whose lives have already been blighted by renewable energy developments and associated activities.

47 paragraphs are devoted to “recognizing” various issues, while five are devoted to “noting” others. A further 19 are “welcomed”, while a further nine are “affirmed” or “re-affirmed”. Four more are “underscored” (I’m not sure how that differs from underlining), and “concern”, “serious concern” or even “alarm and serious concern” are expressed on eleven occasions.

A bit of self-congratulation follows, with 19 things being welcomed. Then there follow a couple of “commitments”. This is more like it. I assumed that we were getting to the meat of some real firm and binding clauses, since that’s what committing to something usually means. Silly me. The reality is that the agreement is committing to fudge the issues.

Paragraph 6 “Commits to accelerate action in this critical decade on the basis of the best available science, reflecting equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the light of different national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty”. It sounds great, but it doesn’t impose an obligation on anyone to do anything. On the contrary, it’s a re-statement of the cop-out clause for the so-called “developing” countries, a definition that has long since ceased to serve a useful purpose, since it includes countries like China and South Korea. I suspect that they are both very happy to see this being included.

Paragraph 153 “Reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism, especially in the light of the progress made under the Paris Agreement and resolves to remain united in the pursuit of efforts to achieve the purpose and long-term goals of the Agreement”. Well, that’s nice, but again, nobody actually has to do anything as a consequence of this “commitment”. The reference to progress made under the Paris Agreement also sits uneasily alongside paragraph 24 (“Notes with significant concern that, despite progress, global greenhouse gas emissions trajectories are not yet in line with the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, and that there is a rapidly narrowing window for raising ambition and implementing existing commitments in order to achieve it”) and paragraph 25 (“Expresses concern that the carbon budget consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal is now small and being rapidly depleted and acknowledges that historical cumulative net carbon dioxide emissions already account for about four fifths of the total carbon budget for a 50 per cent probability of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C”). Still, who cares? After all, this waffle is all about throwing a bone to everyone with a bee in his/her bonnet, rather than with achieving anything.

So, why have some people being getting mildly excited? Because of paragraph 28, I suspect:

Further recognizes the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions in line with 1.5 °C pathways and calls on Parties to contribute to the following
global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement
and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches:
(a) Tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average
annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030;
(b) Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power;
(c) Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems,
utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century;
(d) Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and
equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050
in keeping with the science;
(e) Accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia,
renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and
utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen
production;
(f) Accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions
globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030;
(g) Accelerating the reduction of emissions from road transport on a range of
pathways, including through development of infrastructure and rapid deployment of zeroand low-emission vehicles;
(h) Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty
or just transitions, as soon as possible

OK, so it talks about “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, but it doesn’t oblige anyone to do so. On the contrary, it does nothing more than call on “Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches”. This is so weak as to be meaningless. Calling on someone to do something doesn’t mean that they have to do it. Taking into account their different national circumstances is a green light for “developing countries” (as rather generously defined) to ignore it, and even for other countries to seek to argue that their current national circumstances from time to time are so special, problematic, or whatever that they can and should ignore it too. Then there’s paragraph 29:

Recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition
while ensuring energy security

Any energy minister worth his or her salt can use that to claim to be complying with paragraph 28 while doing no more than paying lip service to it. Having said that, they don’t even need paragraph 29 to come to their aid, unless they want the benefit of a diplomatic fig leaf, since paragraph 28 contains no binding commitments and no sanctions for non-compliance.

The agreement even contains 14 “invitations” to various people to do various things. In a document such as this, such language is risible. It’s tantamount to saying they might like to think about it, but they really mustn’t worry if they don’t want to. The same can be said of the 31 references to “encouraging” people to take action – it’s not much stronger than inviting them to do so, and it certainly contains no element of obligation.

There isn’t even any hint of criticism for parties who have failed to comply with things they have previously been asked to do. Rather there is an expression of sincere understanding of the difficulties of doing so. Take paragraph 41:

Notes the capacity challenges of the least developed countries and small island developing States related to preparing and communicating nationally determined contributions.

Given that these are the countries that by and large make the most noise in terms of demanding financial contributions and “carbon” cuts from developed countries, is it really to much too ask that they might make a bit of an effort themselves?

Section C deals with finance, and is interesting, since it recognises the enormous scale of what is being demanded (or should I say urged, encouraged, invited…?). For instance, paragraph 67:

Highlights the growing gap between the needs of developing country Parties, in particular those due to the increasing impacts of climate change compounded by difficult macroeconomic circumstances, and the support provided and mobilized for their efforts to implement their nationally determined contributions, highlighting that such needs are currently estimated at USD 5.8–5.9 trillion for the pre-2030 period.

Paragraph 68 “Also highlights that the adaptation finance needs of developing countries are estimated at USD 215–387 billion annually up until 2030, and that about USD 4.3 trillion per year needs to be invested in clean energy up until 2030, increasing thereafter to USD 5 trillion per year up until 2050, to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050”.

Given the monumental nature of those numbers, I find it strange that paragraph 78 “Welcomes the pledges made by 31 contributors during the second replenishment of the Green Climate Fund, resulting in a nominal pledge of USD 12.833 billion to date, and encourages further pledges and contributions towards the second replenishment of the Fund, welcoming the progression over the previous replenishment”, since in the scheme of things, that is chickenfeed.

Paragraph 158 “Acknowledges the important role and active engagement of non-Party stakeholders, particularly civil society, business, financial institutions, cities and subnational authorities, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, youth and research institutions, in supporting Parties and contributing to the significant collective progress towards the Paris Agreement temperature goal and in addressing and responding to climate change and enhancing ambition, including progress through other relevant intergovernmental processes”. Is that by way of saying thank you to the 90,000 hangers-on for showing up? Or to encourage them to turn up again next year? If so, I suspect the organisers will be in for a disappointment – despite the fact that no doubt the “climate crisis” will be even more incredibly urgent next year, I have a feeling that Azerbaijan as a venue might just attract fewer people than Dubai.

I would have ended by saying “see you all again next year” but, funnily enough, I suspect we won’t.