The United Nations’ 27th Conference of the Parties, known throughout the world as COP27, recently took place over a two-week period in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm El-Sheikh. The delegates to the annual conference on climate change tried to pretend that they had made substantial progress, but they weren’t fooling anyone. COP27 was really “Cop Out 27.”
This annual international conference that brings together heads of state, ministers, environmental experts and non-governmental organizations is the result of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which came into force in 1994 after receiving 50 ratifications. Its core objective was to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. This was the 27th meeting of the Conference.
So who was in attendance this year at COP27? One group that was well represented was the oil and gas industry. Some 636 executives, lobbyists and corporate scientists paid by the oil and gas industry were part of country delegations and trade teams to ensure that whatever happened, the oil and gas industry would be minimally affected.
And it worked. Even though everyone at the conference knew that reducing our use of fossil fuels is an absolute requirement if we are going to hold down the Earth’s global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius – the level beyond which scientists warn that it will be too late to avoid catastrophic consequences – the delegates were unable to agree to any such wording in the final document.
At last year’s COP26 summit in Scotland, delegates focused on keeping the 1.5C goal alive and participating countries were asked to update their climate targets before this year’s summit in Egypt. Only a small fraction of the nearly 200 parties did so.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was blunt: “Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing. Global temperatures keep rising. And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible. We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”
Even though the final text called for more energy to be produced from renewable sources, there was a reference to “low emission energy,” widely interpreted as opening the door for more use of natural gas. Gas proponents often laud the fuel’s lower emissions when burned, but conveniently ignore the fact that over its lifetime, gas is more polluting than either oil or coal. Drilling or fracking for natural gas, transporting it via trucks and pipelines, (including compressor stations along the way) all add to its climate impact. And natural gas emissions include many toxic chemicals as well as methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
But importantly, little attention was paid to solving some of our climate problems by allowing nature to play a role. In fact, less than 10% of all climate funding goes towards nature-based solutions. According to a statement from The Nature Conservancy, which participated as a non-governmental organization, “Nature is also a powerful ally in our adaptation efforts. Habitats like coral reefs, mangroves and wetlands greatly reduce the force of storms, floods and erosion, helping protect coastal communities. Making space for nature within cities can reduce dangerous heatwaves and soak up flood waters. And investing in nature leads to cleaner air and water, healthier soils on our agricultural lands, and many other benefits for people and wildlife.”
One success claimed by the organizers of the conference was a “loss and damage fund” – a plan for the richest countries to provide funds to poorer countries that are already suffering the most devastating effects of climate change and to help with adaptation efforts. The European Union has pledged 60 million Euros for the fund – but it’s a tiny drop in the bucket when you consider the true cost some countries are facing. Pakistan alone estimates its costs from climate change to exceed $30 billion. And inadequate funding is only one of the fund’s problems.
It’s a voluntary commitment, and those kind of commitments seldom produce the promised results. It’s easy for today’s policymakers to make promises their successors will have to keep. Consider that the 194 countries who are parties to the Paris Agreement from COP21 (2015) are far behind their stated goal of achieving zero emissions by 2050. Current plans for those countries, including the United States, would actually result in an increase of 11%, rather than a decrease. This is not the kind of forward motion we need right now.
And it’s not clear how rich nations providing money to poor nations, whose populations have endured severe storms or whose homes have been swallowed up by rising water levels, will fix the problem. Critics claim it’s a cheap way to make the most polluting nations feel better about their lack of action, to assuage the guilt that comes with driving giant gas-guzzling SUVs, building homes without solar panels, or keeping thermostats above 70 degrees even when no one is home.
The real takeaway from COP27 is that it will be up to individuals around the world to take the necessary steps to stop the worst of climate change. We need to recognize that our governments have been captured by the fossil fuel industry, whose well-financed proponents are clearly more focused on the profits of the next quarter than the welfare of the world or the future of their own children.
How else can you explain the disappointing outcome of COP27?