#Title

Climate Injustice at Glasgow Cop-Out
Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
The planet is already 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than in pre-industrial times. July 2021 was the hottest month ever recorded in 142 years. Despite the pandemic slowdown, 2020 has been the hottest year so far, ending the warmest decade (2011-2020) ever.
Summing up widespread views of the recently concluded climate summit in Glasgow, former Irish President Mary Robinson observed: “People will see this as a historically shameful dereliction of duty … nowhere near enough to avoid climate disaster.” A hundred civil society groups lambasted the Glasgow outcome: “Instead of a multilateral agreement that puts forward a clear path to address the climate crisis, we are left with a document that takes us further down the path of climate injustice.”
Even if countries fulfil their Paris Agreement pledges, global warming is now expected to rise by 2.7 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels by the century’s end. Authoritative projections suggest that if all COP26 long-term pledges and targets are met, the planet will still get warmer by 2.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests a strong chance of global warming disastrously rising over 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next two decades. Earlier policy targets—to halve global carbon emissions by 2030, and reach net-zero emissions by 2050—are now recognised as inadequate.
The Glasgow UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP26) was touted as the world’s “last best hope” to save the planet. Many speeches cited disturbing trends, but national leaders whose countries are most responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions offered little. Thus, developing countries were betrayed yet again. Despite contributing less to the accelerating global warming, they are suffering its worst consequences. They have been left to pay most bills for “losses and damages,” adaptation and mitigation.
Glasgow setbacks
Glasgow’s two biggest hopes were not realised: renewing targets for 2030 aligned with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and a clear strategy to mobilise the grossly inadequate USD 100 billion yearly—promised by rich country leaders before the Copenhagen COP in 2009—to help finance developing countries’ efforts.
An exasperated African legislator dismissed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use as an “empty pledge,” as “yet another example of Western disingenuousness … taking on the role of ‘white saviour’,” while exploiting the African rainforest.
Meanwhile, far too many loopholes remain open for abuse, undermining efforts to reduce emissions. Further, no commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies globally—USD 11 million every minute, around USD 6 trillion annually—was forthcoming.
No new oil and gas fields should be developed for the world in order to have a chance of achieving net zero by 2050. Nevertheless, governments are still approving such projects, typically involving transnational corporate giants.
Various measures—e.g. “carbon capture and storage” and “offsetting”—have been touted as solutions. But carbon capture and storage technologies remain controversial, unproven at scale, expensive and rarely cost-competitive.
The Glasgow outcome did not include any commitment to fully phase out oil and gas. Meanwhile, the language on coal has been diluted to become virtually toothless: coal-powered plants will now be “phased down,” instead of “phased out.”
Offsets off track
Offset market advocates claim to reduce emissions or remove GHGs from the atmosphere by some to “offset” emissions by others. Thus, offsetting often means paying someone poor to cut GHG emissions or forcing them to pay someone else to do so. With more means, big business can more easily afford to “greenwash.”
Carbon offset markets have long overpromised, but under-delivered. As they typically exaggerate GHG emission reduction claims, offsetting is a poor substitute for actually cutting fossil fuel use. Meanwhile, disagreements over offset rules have long stalled international climate change negotiations. Most of the established offset programmes—e.g. the United Nations’ REDD+ programme or the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism—have clearly failed to meaningfully reduce GHG emissions.
Loss and damage?
Vulnerable and poor nations have argued for decades that rich countries owe them compensation for irreversible damage from global warming. In fact, no UN climate conference has delivered any funding for losses and damages to countries affected. Rich countries agreed to begin a “dialogue” to discuss “arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimise and address loss and damage.” Representing developing nations, Guinea expressed “extreme disappointment” at this ruse to delay progress on financing recovery from and rebuilding after climate disasters.
Developed nations account for two-thirds of cumulative emissions, compared to only three percent from Africa. Carbon emissions by the wealthiest one percent of the world’s population were more than twice those of the bottom half between 1990 and 2015! Low-lying small island nations—from the Marshall Islands to Fiji and Antigua—fear losing much of their land to rising sea levels. But their long-standing call to create a Loss and Damage Fund was rejected yet again.
South Pacific island representatives have expressed disappointment at the lack of funding for losses and damages, as well as the watered down language on coal. For them, COP26 was a “monumental failure,” leaving them in existential peril.
Climate injustice
According to the UN secretary-general, “over the past 25 years, the richest 10 percent of the global population has been responsible for more than half of all carbon emissions, and the poorest 50 percent were responsible for just seven percent of emissions.”
The World Bank estimates that, if left unchecked, climate change will condemn 132 million more people into poverty over the next decade, while displacing more than 216 million from their homes and land by 2050. Meanwhile, poorer countries—who have the least amount of contribution to the cumulative GHG emissions—continue to suffer the most. To address climate injustice, rich countries, who are most responsible for GHG emissions and global warming, must do much more. Their finance for developing countries ought to be much more ambitious than USD 100 billion yearly. Financing terms should be far more generous than the existing ones. Also, funding should prioritise adaptation, especially for the poorest countries most at risk.
Anis Chowdhury is adjunct professor at Western Sydney University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram is a former economics professor and a former assistant secretary-general for economic development at the United Nations.
Copyright: Inter Press Service
Carbon emissions by the wealthiest one percent of the world’s population were more than twice those of the bottom half between 1990 and 2015