Türkiye is the venue for the 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference, which opens in Antalya next Monday, November 9. There, world leaders will once again gather to address ways of resolving a crisis that has been gathering momentum for more than three decades. There will be speeches, declarations, negotiations and, no doubt, expressions of concern about the future of the planet. Not forgetting the promises, usually very easily made and then set aside in the same manner once most of the delegates return home. Unfortunately, many of those who stay on course have the most to lose and very little if any financial, bargaining or political power.
The posturing of the current US president aside, there is no shortage of evidence that climate change is real, nor is there any serious uncertainty about its consequences. Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, devastating floods, increasingly destructive storms and rising sea levels are no longer distant possibilities. They are visible, affecting countries’ economies and people’s livelihoods. The scientific warnings have been repeated so often that they risk becoming background noise, even as the consequences become increasingly difficult to ignore.
In spite of this, the response remains woefully inadequate, especially considering that the first Conference of the Parties (COP) was held in Berlin in 1995. Since then, climate conferences have become a fixture of international diplomacy, attracting heads of government, ministers, scientists, environmentalists, lobbyists (for and against the necessary measures) and representatives of civil society. Over the years, these have produced the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and a succession of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limit global warming and assist countries most vulnerable to climate change. Yet, as COP31 looms, the same question remains. How much longer can the world continue to negotiate its way around a problem that requires urgent action?
It is not a question of world leaders (or any of us for that matter) not understanding what is at stake. Rather, it is that for the most part many are not prepared to confront the issue. Climate action requires governments to make decisions that may prove to be politically unpopular, economically inconvenient or financially costly in the short term. One of the foremost requirements is for countries to reconsider their dependence on fossil fuels. This will involve confronting powerful commercial interests and accepting that the pursuit of economic growth cannot continue without regard for the environmental consequences. To date, there have been no manifestations of intestinal or testicular fortitude where this is concerned and greed leads the way.
There is a lot of talk, of course. The latest involves claiming to be transitioning to renewable energy while continuing to approve new fossil fuel projects. That is happening right here, right now, in Guyana. And if anyone dares to suggest that this government’s claimed stance on climate change is at odds with its current actions, they receive a pompous and impassioned argument that the protected Iwokrama rainforest somehow mitigates any and all fossil fuel exploitation being undertaken. Well, try telling that to the droughts, floods, rogue waves, and severe storms that wreak havoc on the agriculture sector. It does not actually work that way. Guyana is a country whose low-lying coastal communities are vulnerable to rising sea levels and flooding.
Indeed there is a contradiction here that has no simple answer. The government says, and rightly so, that it has a legitimate interest in improving the lives of its citizens, and that the responsibility for global emissions cannot be placed on developing countries alone. It is also true that the industrialised nations which have benefited most from centuries of fossil fuel use must shoulder a greater share of the burden. That being said, however, there must be recognition that the choices made today will have consequences long after the current oil boom has passed. Another question that should be asked and answered is whether the country’s most vulnerable are actually benefiting or still falling through the cracks.
Nevertheless, the annual conferences are not entirely without value. The Paris Agreement, for example, established a framework for international cooperation that would have been difficult to achieve without the COP process. Countries that might otherwise act independently have been brought into common discussions, and climate change has become an issue that governments try to, but can no longer dismiss with impunity. In addition, there have been signs of progress in renewable energy technology and in the recognition that climate finance must form part of the response.
Unfortunately, when measured against the scale of the threat as opposed to the number of agreements reached, progress has been sloth like. If the planet continues to warm at a dangerous rate, the fact that leaders have met 31 times will offer little comfort to those who lose their homes, livelihoods or lives.
COP31 is expected to focus on implementation. That is a welcome change in emphasis and perhaps an admission that the world has spent far too much time making commitments and seems to have forgotten how to fulfil them.
There is the uncomfortable question of whether things must become much worse before leaders are forced to act. We have all seen the movie, but the threat of climate collapse is not fiction. There will be no action heroes flying to our rescue in the event of catastrophic floods or unprecedented heatwaves. It is also highly unlikely that there will be another side to which one can flee. The damage will be irreversible.
This by no means suggests that COP31 is simply another expensive exercise in international diplomacy. The world needs cooperation and this is possibly the only process by which it can be achieved. The people of the world have to work on keeping their leaders and representatives on their toes. The ballot is one tried and true method. Another is making our voices heard and finding ways of keeping the issues that matter on the front burner.
Discussion