COP27 – Hope for the Future?

‘The world should be sprinting to rid itself of its fossil fuel addiction as if lives depend on it, because they do, but it is jogging on the spot’ – Damian Carrington, The Guardian Environment Editor

To drive through Europe this summer was to drive from one area of drought or fire risk to another. As I drove through France to return home from holiday, each region we drove through had a fire warning in place, and in certain areas, there were fires encroaching on the motorways. For Britain, however, one of the most striking events of the summer was watching as the mercury rose above 40C for the first time. For many European countries this had become a fairly standard occurrence, but not so for us. So unusual were the temperatures in Britain this summer that our railway lines buckled under the heat – our infrastructure is simply not built to withstand 40C. I don’t need to impress upon you the dangers of climate change; we are, of course, all well aware.

Most of us look on such diplomatic summits as the recent COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh with a feeling of impotent irrelevance. All we can do is watch each time as excitement, anticipation and hope builds in the run up to a conference like this, only to be mildly disappointed in a last-minute change which may significantly hamper efforts, such as last year’s wording change from the “phasing out” of coal to its “phasing down” at COP26 in Glasgow. Like this year, the excitement around COP26 grew and grew, especially in a post-pandemic environment, where thoughts could once more be turned toward climate change. By the end, though, it somehow felt dissatisfying. In essence the excitement which builds up before each of these summits leads us to hope that this crisis will be solved in one summit – of course, that is neither true, nor possible. Nevertheless, there were commitments to return to several issues at the future COP27 conference. The COP26 group did sign the Glasgow Climate Pact, but the main issue continues to be getting key polluters such as China, Russia, India and the US on board.

A crucial aim of each of these conferences is to work toward limiting global warming to 1.5C. Currently global temperatures have risen by 1.1C since the industrial revolution and, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we are well on our way to exceeding that 1.5C goal. At even 1.7C or 1.8C, however, it is estimated that half of the world could be forced to endure potentially lethal temperatures and humidity. It is easy to feel powerless in the face of such statistics. Nonetheless, there was a clear increase in commitment to that target amongst diplomats and politicians this year, which is important to note.

So, what progress was made in Egypt? I may have painted a nihilistic picture, but, in reality, some important agreements were in fact made. The most important of these was the creation of a ‘loss and damage’ fund for those countries most impacted by climate-related disasters. This fund goes towards rebuilding trust and feelings of solidarity between developing nations, who are often at higher risk from such disasters, and richer, more developed nations, who, through their emissions and historic infrastructure expansion, are responsible for the current global warming. In effect, this is the main result of the conference; however, other similar agreements, such as that of 2009, have not been followed through.

Not every topic on the agenda has had as much success. One key theme of the conference was emissions, particularly that of carbon dioxide, after the disappointing change to the wording of the Glasgow Pact from COP26. It had been agreed that the discussion on emissions would continue in Sharm el-Sheikh with the hope that further progress could be made. Alok Sharma, the MP who presided over last year’s summit, has warned that the agreement reached on emissions this year does not go far enough, saying ‘Emissions peaking before 2025, as the science tells us is necessary – not in this text’. His reference to the need for emissions to reach their apex in 2025 is the most shocking as we hurtle headlong into 2023, only two years away from that deadline. Another controversial aspect to the conference was the steep increase in the presence of the fossil fuel lobby. The number of lobbyists, more than 600, was up 25% on last year at COP26 in Glasgow and added up to more than the combined delegations from each of the 10 most affected countries, which includes Pakistan, Bangladesh and Mozambique.

Furthermore the conference underlined the vital impact of democracy on the fight against climate change, particularly in the form of Brazilian president-elect Luiz Ignacio Lula Da Silva, who has been described as the superstar of COP27. Although he is facing controversy at home in Brazil and will be leading a very divided nation, Lula has said that he is committed to protecting the Amazon. He wants to reach zero deforestation in the Amazon by 2030, which would be a challenge, considering that is only seven years away, but it would be phenomenal progress. This is a complete change of direction to that of his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro and is fantastic news for the fight against climate change. The Amazon is and will be one of the most important tools we have in our arsenal against the coming climate disaster. A second example of the importance of the ballot box in this fight is President Biden’s success in the recent US midterm elections. By keeping a Democratic majority in the Senate, his Inflation Reduction Bill is much less likely to be blocked or diluted in any way. This being the case, their goal of cutting carbon by 2030 is still attainable, which, with the US being one of the biggest polluters, will be a huge boon for global collaboration. This shows the importance of winning over the big polluters and their potential impact in the fight to slow global warming. With the protection of the Amazon in sight and a US administration more amenable to working for the climate, instead of denying climate change even exists, we will be in a much stronger position than ever before.

How should we describe COP27 then -- as a success or as a failure? I’m not sure it is as simple as that. In such a serious and complicated issue, a dichotomy will only serve to exacerbate tensions and lead to a defeatist mentality. As we have seen at the last two climate conferences, such summits rarely seem as though they have been a resounding success, however, success, while not made in every area, will have been made in some, such as this year’s ‘loss and damage’ fund, or the victory of democracy in Brazil. But by no means should we lose hope. Indeed, we cannot lose hope, for if we lose hope, we will stop fighting – and that is something we cannot afford to do.

Image courtesy of the Office of the President of the United States via Wikimedia, ©2022, some rights reserved.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.