Sharing facts, thoughts and stories to make climate change accessible

Empty green promises? A COP27 drama

‘Some government and business leaders are saying one thing – but doing another. Simply put, they are lying‘

Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General

Wow. Some serious shots were fired by the UN Secretary General at the turn of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report in April this year analysing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The report pointed to a pretty bleak forecast: that the 1.5°C warming target that all nations forged their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to ensure temperatures stay under this figure, will be exceeded in the next 2 decades unless astronomical emission cutting actions are put in place. Indeed, it’s fair to say the realists amongst the COP27’ers may now view this figure as a pipedream, turning to how we’d handle the 2°C scenarios empirically proven to be catastrophic in consequence.

But what specific climate promises have been made that, thus far, have not been executed? What words have turned into inaction or, in some cases, inverse action? Although some examples below have been given, I make no comment on the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ nations involved, merely presenting these facts and hoping this speaks to you in whichever way it may. Parts of this blog might read a bit like a Heat magazine gossip column of nations caught cheating on their pledges. So, grab some popcorn and make yourself comfy – things are about to get dicy.

NDC progress

First, it’s important to understand the NDC framework itself. These were required by all parties under the Paris Agreement, and although information sharing, data monitoring practices and 5 year updates of NDCs are all enforceable, the execution of the contributions are…not (damn). Therefore, without this legal basis, a nation’s compliance to its emission cutting targets rely ‘instead on reputational costs and peer pressure’. (Allen & Ovary, 2021). Only 46% of nations report having integrated their NDC ‘targets, goals and policies into national legislative, regulatory and planning processes’ so far. (UNFCC synthesis report, 2022). In other words for some, these are still words.

Last year’s COP had 3 overarching agreements pledged by all parties. So what were they and are they being followed through?

  • Re-submission of climate action plans. NDC climate action plans submitted prior to COP26 were analysed and alarmingly forecasted a 16% rise in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2010, leading to a projected 2.7°C warming by the end of the century. Countries pledged to come back to COP27 having updated these with more ambitious targets to really shift the dial. Only 29 out of 126 nations have done this.
  • Phase ‘down’ coal from the power grid. Yes, the controversial last minute substitute of ‘down’ as opposed to ‘out’ in COP26 that had Alok Sharma close to tears. Coal is the worst villain of the fossil fuels, estimated to contribute 30% to the overall climate problem and a crucial key to eradicate if we are to hit climate targets.  However, for some countries, in the first quarter of 2022 coal burning has gone up…and significantly so. The US confirmed it’s coal usage went up by 14%, and by 18% for India. These are the top 2 GHG emitters globally, behind China. Also, India is lobbying for this pledge to now be widened to ‘fossil fuels’ instead of just coal. For many, this is a huge setback but a difficult transition for India which sources 3/4s of its power from coal. Arguably, coal is one of the most controversial topics in current climate negotiations.
  • Stop deforestation by 2030. Putting new age carbon capture tech to one side, trees, mangroves, sea and land vegetation all act as fantastic natural carbon sinks (as well as defences against climate disasters – more on this in the next blog). The positive news with Brazil’s presidential election of Lula De Silva brings hope with protecting the Amazon and his remarks that the country is ‘ready to be a leader’ in the fight against climate change. However, that doesn’t reverse the damage already done – at its peak in 2021, 2 million trees a day were cut down, and the equivalent area of 5 New York cities was cleared in the first 2 months of 2022 [insert mind blown emoji here]. COP27 Brazilian representatives have been clear that tackling this largely illegal deforestation is their highest priority. Proof will be in the pudding.

And finally, some NDC components were contingent on financial support being made available in order to plausibly follow through. Let’s turn over that stone…

Photo by Dominik Vanyi on Unsplash. A large Indonesian coal mine.

Financial promises made to developing countries

To size the importance of this financial support, the UNFCC synthesis report breaks this down as follows:

Full implementation of all latest NDCs (including all conditional elements) is estimated to lead to a 3.6 (0.7–6.6) per cent emission reduction by 2030 relative to the 2019 level; while implementation of all latest NDCs excluding any conditional elements is estimated to result in 3.1 (0.2–6.0) per cent higher emissions.

This is definitely a politicised topic given the history here.

  • $100 Billion pledge by 2020, and still waiting. In 2009 a collection of developing countries agreed to provide this sum to support climate change initiatives in the emerging countries. However, so far estimates have placed this at around £73 billion. This figure is disputed given the shaky measurement foundations; criticisms of double counting have been launched whereby countries gave this funding to support other non-climate related activities but reported it as part of the pledge.
  • ‘Reparations’ for losses and damages. As early as the 1990s developing countries have asked to table this discussion with no success, acknowledging that they are often at the front line of environmental disasters now and most vulnerable to climate change. Reparations is a controversial term, essentially suggesting compensation from developing, high GHG emitter countries for the damage they have inflicted.  After 48 hours of negotiations at COP the agreement made was for a conclusive approach on loss and damages to be reached ‘no later than 2024’ (Sameh Shoukry, Egypt COP27 president). The narrative from developing countries is that this should focus on ‘cooperation’ and not ‘liability’. This language matters – it might be a move to avoid footing the bill for future disasters that will increase in price as they become more severe.
  • COP26 funding to South Africa not so rosy. Developing countries pledged roughly $10 billion to support the country with its climate action, particularly moving away from coal which makes up 80% of its overall power mix. This was seen as a big win but with further analysis the deal isn’t quite as generous. Estimates now place the number required to be closer to the $100 billion mark to be truly effective and what was previously positioned as grant based now only makes up around 2% of the figure. Put simply, this offering is largely a collection of loans that will one day need paying back, perhaps with interest too…
Photo by micheile dot com on Unsplash.

Phasing down Fossil fuels, but also funding them?

Contention is also brewing with these developing countries being asked not to execute on development plans for fossil fuel plants by developed nations. For several African countries particularly, new reserves have been discovered and, for many, seen as a ticket to large growth for their economy to the tune of billions per year GDP. In fact, there are 1000 current fossil fuel plant projects planned. Let’s zoom in on one to highlight some green promise cheating:

The East African Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is a project proposed to kick off in 2025, whereby the pipeline will run from its source in Uganda across Tanzania for exporting to the wider market. The primary investor behind this development? Total Energies, a French energy and petroleum organisation and one of the seven large oil companies. 

Also, Uganda is a low power consumer thus a very low emitter. In fact, its power mix is made up of 93% renewables, a number to be jealous of from the more established markets. Therefore, EACOP exports are not going to Uganda or other low consuming African countries, they will go to Europe and beyond. So, reflecting on this paradox, developing countries are both lobbying for fossil fuel developments to stop, and are at the same time, the paying customers.

Wrapping up…

Now political leaders have left COP27, week 2 is categorised by in depth negotiations to reach consensus of hot topics raised in week 1. Those at the conference also point to a shift in focus towards adaptation from earlier mitigation activities. The poignant milestone this week of the global population reaching 8 billion here does not go unnoticed. For the next generation, COP planning must look at how lifestyles need to change, food and water security upheld and adaptive technologies supported to go from conceptual to actual. It is for this reason that backtracking on initiatives like those agreed in NDCs and COPs cannot be tolerated, in essence prioritising the generations of now over the generations to come. It can be the right not only of the UN but of us, as voting citizens, to hold these actions accountable. 

Let’s hope the rather comical sewage system leak in the COP27 conference centre prior to its kick off isn’t an omen for some sh…oddy outputs that just don’t stick. 

Photo by Margot RICHARD on Unsplash.

References:

sophieroseteddy

Leave a comment