This fall, the UN environmental meetings have failed in their goals. One country has prevented both the withdrawal from fossil fuels and the plans to reduce plastic waste in the seas, writes environmental journalist Jenni Frilander.
Jenni Frilander environmental journalist
Even last year, at the climate meeting in Dubai, people were happy that, despite the unstable world situation, a decision was made to phase out fossil fuels.
Now international UN meetings are failing and critical environmental and climate actions are left to wait.
Nature meeting, climate meeting, plastic meeting and desertification meeting.
Meeting after meeting has been fruitless, interrupted or at least failed in some way.
How did this happen?
However, tens of thousands of people are present at climate meetings and nature meetings, who are trying to curb climate change, loss of nature and the plastic problem in the oceans.
Still, it seems that no steps forward have been taken this fall. The 1.5 degree warming target is now likely to get out of control, the problem of plastic waste in the oceans will swell and the loss of nature will continue.
One state acts as a brake
What are you really freaking out about? Why can’t global environmental problems and the conditions for our existence be put on track? What unites the failure of these meetings?
One answer is Saudi Arabia.
The country has significantly put the brakes on the world’s transition from fossil fuels at climate conferences. It has systematically stalled even a small amount of progress.
At the core of Saudi Arabia’s prosperity are oil and gas. The country perceives all international attempts to undermine this basis of its livelihood as a threat.
Also at this year’s climate meeting in Azerbaijan, the CEO of an oil company chaired the meeting, and it was not even possible to talk about reducing the use of oil and gas.
As far as curbing emissions is concerned, the presidency of Azerbaijan showed no willingness to promote the issue on any negotiation track, Finnish negotiators say.
Different approaches have been seen. The oil-producing United Arab Emirates has taken a different approach to fossil fuels.
Although fossil fuels play a diminishing role, they will still have to be used for decades despite the green transition. The UAE, in its own words, wants to clean up the fossil sector and be the one to produce the last drop, and is not opposed to change.
Will the oil boss decide the fate of the entire earth?
Has the whole UN process simply come to an end? Is a different approach needed than UN diplomacy’s demand for unanimity?
The former vice president of the United States who received the Nobel Peace Prize for climate issues Al Gore wondered at the World Economic Forum that we no longer even cover up how the oil boss is deciding which direction to take climate change mitigation.
He also proposed qualified majority decisions for UN meetings instead of unanimity.
– We cannot let the oil companies tell us what is allowed and what is not, he said.
The decision-making power of a qualified majority would seem fairer than the fact that even just one country or group of countries is allowed to trample on the good intentions of everyone else.
More than a hundred countries in the world would also like an agreement to regulate plastic production, recycling and waste management.
However, the large plastic and oil producing countries were not ready to accept anything other than a well watered down agreement proposal. They oppose the fact that the plastic agreement would also extend to plastic production and regulate it.
The negotiations of the Plastics Agreement are a good reflection of how difficult international cooperation can be.
It is written into UN decision-making that all the countries of the world must be included and that decision-making is based on consensus.
Therefore, even one country or a group of countries can put a significant brake on the negotiations. The current geopolitical situation does not facilitate negotiations either.
A negotiating official at the Ministry of the Environment of Finland who closely followed climate diplomacy and the activities of Saudi Arabia as well Kaarle Kupiainen finds Al Gore’s proposal quite interesting, but.
– If we get a record that is a consensus, then it is very strong. Does it make it easier or harder if there is a qualified majority? There’s always someone left bitter on the beach.
When negotiating the state of the world, climate and environment, consensus is still being sought, and the whole world will not be completed in one meeting.
However, at least in terms of climate change, the goal has already been clear from the Paris climate agreement since 2015; 1.5 and 2 degree goals and a carbon-neutral world.
The journey there is slow and rocky.
With the current commitments, we are going somewhere between 1.9 and 2.9 degrees.