What COP 27 Might Have Been
Is change possible? What will it take?
Three major initiatives, proposals and financial solutions that could change the shape of our climate future were proposed at COP 27 in Egypt last month. Each was cautiously embraced by world leaders and the status quo.
There emerges a dual consensus evaluation of the outcome of COP 27, the recent global climate conference held last month in Sharm-el-Sheikh, the Red Sea resort in Egypt that otherwise thrives on tourist visitation to its astonishingly beautiful coral reefs, ironically a biodiversity hot-spot increasingly vulnerable to climate change. As the delegates discussed and equivocated, one wonders if they had a chance to step outside the air-conditioned meeting halls and hotels to bear witness to a country that receives 0.1 inch of rain per year, or to a vital natural phenomenon that is what remains critically at risk to unresolved policies and actions.
The conference’s success seemed defined by the creation of a Loss and Damage concept with an accompanying fund to distribute grants to developing nations without the resources to afford climate mitigation action, but, after the fact, it was unclear which nations would contribute how much if anything at all. Like much of the rest of the agenda, the outcome remains fluid and unresolved. That China, one of the two greatest global economies and consumers of fossil fuels, primarily coal, was continuing it farcical claim that it is a “developing nation,” and thus a possible beneficiary, remains the single most absurd political argument imaginable. Who benefits? Who pays? One awaits next steps by other governments. The United States has appeared strategically silent. Saudi Arabia in overtly against. The energy lobbyists were active in the shadows.
But what else might COP 27 have accomplished?
First, there was a proposal for a multilateral treaty to control fossil fuel development and emissions, the root cause of much of climate-induced consequence, as if comparable to a weapon of mass destruction. Given the preponderance of delegates representing the oil-producing nations and the fundamentally self-interested energy companies in opposition, this initiative was a non-starter. But what if not? What if there had been the courage and resolve to confront the most critical climate issue at its core? What if the world could transform its understanding of suicidal reliance on fossil fuels into political resolve and global action to confront this root cause of an obvious, socially destructive process that is corroding and corrupting our natural world and all of us who share it? Can you imagine a world free from the geopolitics and subversion of oil?
Second, there was the Bridgetown Initiative, proposed by Mia Mottley, the Prime Minister of Barbados, who put forward a radical plan of specific actions to reform the global financial architecture to respond to the critical impact of climate, augmented by pandemic, war, and market volatility.
The initiative first called for “provision of emergency liquidity through the International Monetary Fund to return access to unconditioned rapid credit, temporarily suspend interest charges, and re-channel unused Special Drawing Right to those in need…” A necessary second step suggested investment beyond the liquidity crisis, engaging the World Bank and G 20 nations to enable further debt suspension of Multi-Development Bank loans, and to shift risk restraints to expand lending in support of UN Sustainable Development Goals, especially in climate-vulnerable countries. A third step was a call for activation of major new private sector investment and a new mechanism for raising reconstruction grants for nations facing climate in other low-interest, long term instruments to accelerate transition to low-carbon technology and economy. Included in the initiative was the concept of a tax on corporate profits, now at record highs, to be included in the financing of the “loss and damage” fund and other grants.
Ms. Motley’s detailed proposal was moral and strategic, but was only cautiously embraced. As usual, any call for change requires a shift in focus, political and financial transition from one value calculation to another, the inclusion of equity and social return as part of a new economic equation. A call for change is just a prelude for a call to action. A call to action can only be met by meaningful steps taken. COP 27 was not short on calls for change; but it could not respond to specific calls for action beyond cautious generalities. The last word on COP 27: what it might have been? Thank you, Prime Minister Motley, for your courage and conviction. Change can be done, but only by the convinced and willing.
PETER NEILL is founder and director of the World Ocean Observatory, a web-based place of exchange for information and educational services about the health of the world ocean. He is also host of World Ocean Radio, upon which this blog is inspired. World Ocean Radio celebrates 15 years this year, with more than 645 episodes produced to date.
Do you prefer to listen? Find us on YouTube.
