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.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
RSS