A series of COP-outs- A fossil fuel fiasco or a turning point for climate action-

A series of COP-outs: A fossil fuel fiasco or a turning point for climate action?

By Somit Dasgupta

A lot has been said (and written) about the decisions taken in COP28, especially about the language on transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just and orderly fashion so as to achieve net-zero by 2050. One wonders if this rather bland statement is really a significant step forward as far as climate change is concerned. It is true that fossil fuels have been mentioned for the first time, since, in the earlier COPs, only coal had been mentioned and the expression used was ‘phase-down’ instead of ‘phase-out’.

Surely, they were not present there in such large numbers to ensure their own demise! It is just the otherwise. Countries debate a lot before arriving at the final communique in COP and the developed world does not concede an inch if they view something that is inimical to their interests, no matter how selfish they may be. The fact is that even after accepting the final communique, they refuse to act on it or engage in subterfuge and statistical jugglery.

One is referring to the issue of transfer of resources to the tune of $100 billion a year. Though on the table for each successive COP (including COP28) for more than 10 years, it is not happening. Though OECD data may indicate that a sum of about $80 billion was reached last year, it is only statistical jugglery. The fact is that the developed world is not interested in parting with any money despite the fact that they have used up, and still continuing to use most of the carbon space available to limit the rise in the earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees centigrade.

Quite as expected, the approach of the developed world to the loss and damage fund is also on similar lines. There is too much brouhaha that the fund was operationalised on the very first day of COP28. Operationalising a fund whose coffers are almost empty is no big deal! Till today, only about $800 million has been pledged! As against this, the communique of COP28 itself admits that about $5.8 trillion is needed. Moreover, the finer issues are yet to be decided, for example, what actually constitutes a loss and damage, who will be the beneficiaries etc.

What, however, has been decided is that there will be no legal requirement for any country to contribute to the fund and further, any contributions made cannot be viewed as reparations. Thus, the developed world has no accountability though they are responsible for the climate issues being faced by the least developed countries especially the small island states. It would be interesting to know that the world’s largest historical polluter, the US, has pledged a meagre $17.5 million (out of $800 million) to the fund.

This is nothing but an insult to the millions of poor people facing the wrath of climate change, challenging their lives and livelihoods. To draw a comparison, readers may like to note that under the USA’s Inflation Reduction Act (2022), a budget of $750 billion has been drawn up out of which a little more than 50% would be spent on climate related activities. The plan is to roll out liberal tax credits for activities which are seen to be climate friendly, purchase of electric vehicles being one such example. A liberal tax credit of $7,500 will be given for purchase of a new electric vehicle and it will be $4,000 for an old vehicle.

If there is anything which comes to the fore in climate change discussions, it is not reduction in carbon (or greenhouse gas emissions), it is hypocrisy at its very best. To prove that, one needs to go back to the subject of coal. The developed world has strongly advocated the phase-out of coal. It is countries like India and China who objected and the term ‘phase-out’ during COP27 and it was then diluted to ‘phase-down’.

Even during COP28, there was an attempt to make coal-based generation more difficult by insisting that all new coal plants should have an in-built carbon capture mechanism. After objections from India, China and South Africa, this clause was dropped. The West targets coal because their dependence on coal is limited as they have access to cheap gas. It would be interesting to learn that in the US, only 20 % of their electricity is generated from coal whereas for the UK, the corresponding figures is a mere 1.6%. Since India does not have access to cheap gas, it has no alternative but to rely on coal, at least for the time being. The West has never called for a phase-out (or even phase-down) of oil and gas because they are highly dependent on them for their industrial and transport sectors. Incidentally, the USA itself is the largest producer of oil and gas today.

To sum up, people are losing faith in the meetings of the COP. These annual jamborees (which are getting increasingly bigger in size) are doing little service as far as climate change is concerned. They are, of course, giving a boost to the local tourism and hospitality industry and the next beneficiary will be Azerbaijan where COP29 would be held. Rest assured, the hoteliers in Azerbaijan would be an extremely busy lot today making preparations for the next gala affair!

(The author is Senior visiting fellow, Icrier, and former member (economic and commercial), CEA) Views are personal.