“Women and children first!”. On the deck of the sinking Titanic, legend has it that, in the midst of travelers rushing to the lifeboats in an extraordinary hubbub, the eight musicians of the orchestra continued, against all odds, to play. Such is the scene of the Conferences of the Parties (COP) which, since 1995, have brought together the leaders of 197 countries and their delegations, under the watchful eye of many observers. All around them, the indicators are turning bright red and nothing seems to be stopping the mad rush of global warming, but despite the headwinds, the show must go on. Once again, COP27, which is due to end this Friday, November 18 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, should not, except for a last-minute surprise, live up to expectations. Measures will certainly be announced, but is this enough to ensure the survival of humanity and all forms of life on Earth? Because the challenge is there.
Then comes this haunting refrain: should we put an end to the COPs? Nearly thirty years of negotiations, discussions, procrastination, for what results? The objective of a warming of 2°C is already no longer “a credible scenario”, warned the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres. Worse, in its annual assessment, the United Nations estimates that the commitments made by the States would lead to “a 66% chance of limiting global warming to around 2.6°C by the end of the century”. Because our greenhouse gas emissions would have to decrease by 30% by 2030 to meet the 2°C target. Currently, however, these continue to increase each year at a sustained rate. In 2021, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere even reached a new record… That same year, COP26 ended with tears and apologies from its president, Alok Sharma, when he presented a Pact of Glasgow disappointing after two weeks of trading.
Faced with the challenge, the COPs rarely seem up to it. “All that for that”, we sigh in his mysteries. Even the young activist Greta Thunberg did not go to Egypt this November, denouncing “an opportunity for the leaders […] to get attention for all kinds of greenwashing or communication operations to pretend to act against the climate crisis”. Everything had started well. In 1997, during COP3 in Kyoto, Japan, the developed countries signed an encouraging first climate agreement: they undertook to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5% in 2008-2012 compared to 1990. A slight step forward, certainly, especially since the United States never ratified it, but which had the merit of launching the process.
And after ? A nothingness – or almost – of almost a decade where failures follow disillusions. In 2009, the COP15 in Copenhagen recognized the need to limit the rise in temperatures to 2°C above the pre-industrial level, but it did not materialize any specific commitment. A partial victory or a partial failure, it depends. We will have to wait until 2015 and the COP21 to reach the Paris agreement, the first treaty committing all States to reduce CO2 emissions. Objective: limit warming to 2°C, and if possible 1.5°C. Here are the climate negotiations on the right track, everything is now possible. Or so we believe. Following an agreement torn after five years of tough negotiations, the vacuum is back. The “rulebook” (the guide to applying the Paris agreement, editor’s note) will not be adopted… until 2021 in Glasgow. And not without effort. Hence the impression that, from COP to COP, the same subjects come back to the table, garnering millimetric successes on minor advances.
Broken commitments and lobbying
What if we had too many expectations from the COPs? These “high masses” for the climate exist to give humanity a course. A goal to achieve. “Things” of all kinds are being created: “protocols”, “funds”, “paths”, “initiatives”… But ultimately, it is always the States that are responsible for applying the agreements. Although the United States recently adopted the largest plan ever committed to the climate, the country is still not in a position to achieve its objectives of reducing its emissions by 50 to 52% by 2030. The European Union, it is committed to reducing its emissions by 55% by 2030. Yes, but here we are, the European institutions are again dependent on national legislation. In French law, for example, this commitment has been reduced to 40%. And the head of the UN to denounce before the COP27, in an undiplomatic language, the “pitiful commitments” of the States in climate matters.
Another example of the limited interest of COP27 came to us from Bali, where the G20 was being held. In their final declaration, the world’s twenty largest economies – which account for 80% of global emissions – agreed on November 16 to continue their efforts to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C, in particular by accelerating the gradual reduction in the use of coal, the most polluting energy. This came as a reminder, if need be, that it is the most powerful heads of state who decide on the direction, and not the delegations of the 197 countries gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh. The latter are not helped by the decision-making process in these climate summits, where agreement is only reached by consensus of all parties. They are also over-solicited for two weeks by lobbies of all kinds, including those of fossil fuels. An expanding phenomenon COP after COP.
The fact, for example, that Coca Cola is the official sponsor of COP27 has been widely denounced, and some accuse polluting companies of taking advantage of these events to “greenwash” and improve their image. This contributes to blurring the message and discrediting the COPs. According to the NGO Global Witness, 636 fossil fuel lobbyists, affiliated with some of the biggest polluting oil and gas giants, have registered for the climate talks at COP27. This represents an increase of more than 25% compared to COP26 held in Glasgow a year ago. Some countries, such as Iran or Kuwait, even took advantage of the platform offered by COP27 to praise fossil fuels, highlighting the “low emissions” of gas or technological solutions to capture CO2.
However, everything is not to be thrown in one block. We don’t burn down the UN because there are still wars in the world. The COPs are there to provide a framework for negotiation, but their effectiveness depends on the will of their participants who are not bound to apply these agreements. This is the merit and the limit of COPs. It is a place where we must learn to walk in the same direction, in a polished choreography, in order to preserve a livable world. The challenge is immense, but it is not – yet – too late. Every minute counts.