Has there ever been a grimmer backdrop to the world’s most concerted attempt to avert global warming?
COP29 — the annual conference for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — is taking place this year in Baku, Azerbaijan, one of the birthplaces of the modern oil industry and, according to civil liberties group Freedom House, among the most oppressive societies on the planet.
Leaders from China and the US, which account for about 45 percent of the planet’s carbon footprint, will not be attending the conference, which runs until Friday next week. US President Joe Biden is, in any case, the lamest of lame ducks after the Republican sweep in last week’s US elections. Almost every other major economy in Asia and the Americas will also be absent, thanks to the APEC summit in Peru this week, while the leaders of Germany, France and the European Commission are also staying home.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
There have been other tough summits. COP28 in Abu Dhabi foreshadowed this year’s event by resembling a trade fair for the oil industry. Still, it happened in a far more benign political environment, before the anti-climate wave seen in recent European and US elections.
The 2009 event in Copenhagen collapsed in disarray, but 15 years ago, the world had more wiggle room to avoid disaster. About a quarter of all emissions since 1850 have happened since Copenhagen. We have only seven years left of polluting at current rates to retain an even chance of keeping warming below 1.5°C.
The wavering global commitment is particularly worrying because the coming 12 months would be vital for setting the next decade of climate policies. The latest set of Nationally Determined Contributions — plans by countries to show how they would reduce their emissions up to 2035 — are due to be delivered by the end of February. So far, only one nation has submitted its latest blueprint: the United Arab Emirates.
It is common for both climate denialists and campaigners to present such targets as meaningless verbiage. However, just as elected politicians are surprisingly good at keeping their manifesto promises, governments are pretty serious about achieving their greenhouse goals.
The Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 pact that is widely seen as a byword for the meaninglessness of such agreements, was actually pretty successful. Signatories cut their emissions by 22 percent between 1990 and 2012, far better than the 5 percent they were aiming for. Economic collapse in the former Soviet Union’s sphere of influence was a major factor in that outperformance, but Western Europe and Oceania, by and large, hit or exceeded their goals.
The main reason Kyoto failed to rein in global emissions was that it did not cover emerging nations, something remedied in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The national plans that form one of the main mechanisms of that deal also have a decent record. In 2017, forecasts indicated that without climate policies, global emissions would hit 65 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030. That figure is now expected to be 57 billion tonnes.
This is still far too high to avert catastrophic global warming, but it falls only about 2 billion tonnes short of the main targets governments have set for themselves. The problem is that those objectives result in emissions about 14 billion tonnes higher than we need to keep the world on track for even 2°C of warming. Implementation of climate plans is not the problem — it is their insufficiency to address the scale of the crisis we are facing. It is politics, not logistics or physics, that is stopping us from tackling climate change.
That is what is most worrying about the listlessness and pettiness on display in the world’s response to COP29. Politics has always had a decisive impact on the trajectory of global emissions, and right now we are pointing 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Need one piece of absurdity? The US has more restrictions on importing Malaysian solar panels made with Chinese materials than it has on importing Indian diesel made from Russian crude oil.
Direct global subsidies for fossil fuel use last year was US$620 billion, roughly nine times the US$70 billion that was spent encouraging consumers to switch to clean power, according to the International Energy Agency. Even in the EU, supposedly the paragon of green politics, fossil fuels received more direct support than renewable power in 2022.
Factor in the way that coal, oil and gas do not have to pay for the damage they do to human health and the climate, and the support they are getting from governments is 10 times higher.
Clean power has won the technical and financial arguments that made it look a non-starter a couple of decades ago. However, the roadblock thrown up by wrongheaded politics is far from being lifted. If you are hoping that Baku would provide a solution to these problems, you are looking in the wrong place.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change and energy. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS