COP, or the ‘Conference of the Parties’, attempts yearly to negotiate policies to effectively remedy climate change. With it’s full name as ‘Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, it brings together all member-states to “stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.
This all sounds a bit ‘sunshine and daisies’; but is it really that simple? How can a coalition of states effectively come together to mitigate climate change when they are already, and increasingly, at each other’s throats over issues of national security, governance and climate commitments?
Major (minor) achievements
COP boasts a long list of achievements since its inception: rising sea levels – signalling the imminent submergence of Bangladesh – increasing yearly average temperatures by nearly a whole degree – indicating the eradication of thousands of wildlife species and habitats – and fostering the growing devastation and impoverishment across much of sub-Saharan Africa.
I guess Rome wasn’t built in a day.
In all seriousness, yes, proposals are made to cut emissions, and promises are made to take steps in the right direction, but their recurrent failure to address the climate crisis serves as a glaring indictment of the conference’s ability to achieve their main prerogative.
Corrupt players or a rigged game?
It is easy to feel disillusioned by the blatant signalling and empty promises spewing from the mouths of the ‘elite’ who represent our nations – those more concerned with maintaining a ‘milk-the-planet-dry’ status-quo than promoting a serious reconsideration of a renewed climate trajectory.
However, it is as much the fault of the system in which COP operates as it is the fault of the delegates and representatives, who are apathetic to climate concerns, that limits its ability to effect change. Sure, there are those who fundamentally despise climate-positive approaches and who will do everything in their power to destroy the “woke mind-virus” that threatens to divorce them from their oh-so-precious internal combustion engines (in their eyes even the concept of electricity is a liberal ideal). However, the system is not set up to succeed. In fact, it may be set up to fail.
Throw stones if you fancy, but some good intentions may be there—if perhaps hidden and immobilised within the opaque, red-taped, infinitely complex, and bureaucratic governance structures of COP, which are designed, or at least manipulated, to hinder collective action.
COP’s contradictions
Arguably, the biggest pitfall in the COP process lies in the inability of the body to penalise dissent from climate ‘pledges’, and disincentivize countries from dragging their heels. Even the richer countries are guilty of this sin, as they have failed to commit to the $100bn in climate financing promised to poorer countries, as agreed in the 2015 Paris agreement at COP21.
When imposing climate action, there are also consistent failures to account for the systematic wealth and infrastructure inequalities between regions. Take Africa – the continent most affected by climate change and the smallest contributor – being left to tackle their piece of the climate change pie without adequate subsidisation. This approach places undue responsibility on Africa to address the climate consequences of Chinese industrialisation, driven by the exploitation of its natural resources. Paradoxically then, these fiscal pressures then place further reliance on fossil fuels as a cheap, conventional energy source, and carbon-intensive industries like agriculture and mining.
It’s this ‘one size fits all’ approach that often characterises the ineffective nature of bureaucratic international organisations which, time-and-time again, fail to carefully consider the unique needs and capabilities of member-states, particularly emerging regions, as they advocate for sweeping reforms across the globe.
‘God-given oil’
Anyway, let’s look at the here and now—surely COP29 made strides? Not really.
This year, Azerbaijan hosted COP29, and their President – surrounded by world leaders who had travelled from far and wide to discuss climate talks – kicked off by stating natural gas was a “gift of God” and that he was inculpable for bringing it to the market.
As you can imagine, this wasn’t received very well. The UN has since stated that the COP climate talks are “no longer fit for purpose” and need an urgent overhaul. This isn’t exactly an understatement, considering that other COP member-states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even Azerbaijan, have been accused of detaining climate defenders. The only upside to Egypt’s COP27 was the entertainment derived from Biden’s gaffes – the probable result of him being as old as the Pyramids around him, and his post-nap grogginess from COP26.
Nevertheless, having wandered out of frame of too many media appearances, his team must have finally misplaced him since Biden did not attend COP29. Instead, a team of delegates were selected in his place to represent the US on the world stage.
Among the delegates, over 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to COP29, dwarfing the presence of delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations combined. By allowing lobbyists into the conference, COP risks prioritising corporate profits over global environment needs, and undermining climate action by facilitating corporate ‘greenwashing’.
Sadly, COP seems like a dead-end. Whatever the terminal prognosis—be it corrupt politicians, shady lobbyists, or COP’s structure quelling change before it can begin—COP29 seems like another nail in the climate’s coffin.
