By LUIZ CÉSAR MARQUES FILHO*
Papua New Guinea boycotted COP29. In view of the “empty promises and inaction”, it preferred to adopt the “empty chair policy”. If COP30 follows the same path of inaction, may more countries follow this courageous example.
The 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), held within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – signed over 30 years ago – provides yet another proof that this United Nations (UN) treaty aimed at containing the climate emergency is an unburied corpse. COP29 was a Zombie COP. It is no secret that this treaty has long been a dead letter.
Back in 2021, at COP26 in Glasgow (Scotland), I wrote about it: “If I’m not mistaken (and I would very much like to be mistaken), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, born in 1992, is dead. It died in Madrid in 2019, and its burial was in Glasgow. The Seventh Day Mass will be in Egypt in 2022 (COP27), and the one-year mass will be officiated in the United Arab Emirates in 2023 (COP28), one of the oil capitals. […] COP28 will be almost like a macabre ritual of the final victory of fossil fuels. By then, greenhouse gas emissions will be well above the levels reached in 2019.”
I returned to the topic in 2022, writing about COP27 in an article entitled “The Climate Framework Convention is Dead. What Now?”. The article stated that the treaty had not only died, but was stillborn, because it had not taken into account the predictions of the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1990.
Let us remember what the IPCC said then[1]: “Based on current model results, we predict, in IPCC Scenario A (business-as-usual) of greenhouse gas emissions, a rate of increase in global average temperature over the next century of about 0,3 °C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0,2 °C to 0,5 °C per decade). […] This will result in a likely increase in global average temperature of about 1 °C above the present value by 2025 and 3 oC before the end of the next century”.
As early as 1990, the IPCC correctly predicted: (i) The rate of warming per decade following 1990. In fact, global average warming (land and sea combined) increased at a rate of 0,22oC per decade between 1991 and 2023 and 0,33oC per decade between 2011 and 2023. Furthermore, between 2011 and 2023, oceanic warming alone increased at a whopping rate of 0,26oC per decade and the average global warming over land (surface atmosphere) alone has increased by 0,5oC per decade.[2]
(ii) Average global warming should cross 1,5oC by 2025. In 1990, average global warming was already about 0,5oC. Therefore, the forecast of warming of about 1oC by 2025 “above the current value” took place in 2024. In fact, in 15 of the last 16 months the average temperature was more than 1,5oC above that of the pre-industrial period. Spot on!
The signatories of the Framework Convention ignored this verdict. As a result, in 2023, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions increased by 1,3% compared to 2022, reaching a record 57,1 billion tons.[3] And between 2015 (Paris Agreement, COP21) and 2024, CO emissions2 increased by 8%, as shown in Figure 1.
Thus, if COP26, COP27 and COP28 were already posthumous rituals of the Climate Agreement, COP29 really seems like a Zombie COP, or a Revival from Alfred Jarry’s pataphysics, the “science of imaginary solutions and the laws governing exceptions”, which inspired the surrealists of the 1948 generation. Moreover, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilhan Aliyev, is reminiscent of Ubu Rei, the protagonist of Jarry’s play of the same name (1896), when he repeats, at the opening of the COP, that “oil is a gift from God”. But there is a passage in his speech that is not at all surrealist, in fact quite realistic, which the European press reported more discreetly:
“Two years ago, Azerbaijan and the European Commission signed a declaration of strategic partnership in the field of energy. This was not our idea, but the European Commission’s. […] They asked for our help and we gave it. […] Two years ago, when we signed this declaration, two European countries were receiving our gas. Today, there are eight. Eight of the ten countries to which we export our gas are European. The European Commission also asked us to double our gas supply to Europe by 2027.”
Azerbaijan is known to be the historical birthplace of oil, but its production is currently marginal. According to Worldometers, it is the 24th largest oil producer in the world, producing around 850 barrels of oil per day (0,7% of world production), less than half the production of Norway (2 million barrels/day) and 17 times less than the United States, the world's leading producer (almost 15 million barrels/day). And if it continues to be a petro-state today, this has to do with the growing demand of its European clients, who pose as leaders of a fictitious energy transition.
COPs and the real world
Fictional, no doubt. In 2023, Article 23 of the outcome document of COP28 in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) stressed the need to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, in order to achieve the goal of net zero emissions by 2050, in line with science”.[4]
It is grotesque that the first mention of the term “fossil fuels” occurs more than 30 years after the signing of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. And it is all the more grotesque because there is nothing concrete to substantiate this COP28 declaration. Above all, nothing is said about ending government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. According to Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2023 governments spent around US$1,3 trillion on direct subsidies for fossil fuels. That said, she adds: “If we take into account indirect subsidies, the fact that we do not price carbon and the health impacts of pollution caused by fossil fuels, we are talking about a total of US$7 trillion.”[5]
Let’s return to the real world. Here, Donald Trump’s United States will once again withdraw from the climate convention. The defection of the world’s second largest emitter of GHGs is obviously bad news, but its impact is more psychological than effective, because its presence at the COPs has always hindered negotiations more than it has helped. The phrase of former President George Bush (senior), in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, remains very relevant today: “The American way of life is not open to negotiation. Period.”The American way of life is not up for negotiations. Period.”).
Furthermore, by the end of 2023, the current US president, Joe Biden, had approved almost 50% more oil and gas exploration licenses on federal lands than Trump did in his first three years in office.[6] The real world is also what the latest report from Global Oil & Gas Exit List (Gogel), which includes 1.769 companies responsible for 95% of global oil and gas production.[7] In 2023, oil and gas production reached a historic record: 55,5 billion barrels of oil equivalent (bboe), thus surpassing the pre-covid-19 production level.
In short, the real world is this: despite 29 COPs, we are increasingly moving towards fossil fuels. COP28 in Dubai committed to mobilizing a (ridiculous) $702 million per year for the “Loss and Damage Fund” of the poorest countries. Meanwhile, oil companies are spending an average of $61,1 billion on exploration annually.
The data shows that 578 companies intend to explore 239,3 billion barrels of oil equivalent (bboe) of new resources over the next one to seven years. The seven companies with the largest near-term expansion plans are Saudi Aramco (19,6 bboe), QatarEnergy (17,8 bboe), ADNOC (9,5 bboe), ExxonMobil and Gazprom (9,4 bboe each), TotalEnergies and Petrobras (8 bboe each). Almost two-thirds of the industry’s near-term expansion plans exceed the International Energy Agency’s scenario for net-zero emissions by 2050.
At an energy conference in Houston last March, Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser said, “We should abandon the fantasy of discontinuing oil and gas production” (“We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas.”). Nasser was referring to the COP28 declaration, which was, moreover, conveniently “forgotten” in the final document of COP29, as well as in that of the G20.
Rich countries will pay dearly for their impudence
A great analysis regarding the current climate situation was proposed by José Eustáquio Diniz Alvez, with the title: “1,5oC is deader than a door.”[8] The article is based on a phrase spoken at the opening of COP29 by António Guterres, UN Secretary-General: “This year of 2024 has been a master class in human destruction” (“This year has been a masterclass in human destruction.”).
In fact, COP29 brought the novelty of destroying even appearances. It was the COP of money, of the new alphabet soup, this time NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal), or New Quantified Collective Goal. This involved a new quantification of the transfer of resources from rich countries to poor countries, in order to increase the chances of making the decarbonization of their economies viable. In this sense, COP29 was a time of boldness on the part of rich countries and of more explicit confrontation between North and South, so that, in the end, there was no mutual applause, with the usual hugs and pats on the back.
Poor countries rightly considered the prevailing proposal from rich countries “an insult” and a “blatant violation of climate justice.” After the final gavel and the applause of relief, Chandni Raina, representing India, exclaimed: “India does not accept this proposal in its current form. This document is an optical illusion.” She was applauded by the representatives of Cuba, Bolivia and Nigeria. Not surprisingly, Marina Silva declared that “COP29 was a painful experience.”
As noted by Claudio Angelo of Observatório do Clima (Climate Observatory), rich countries “are clearly here to get out of debt.” And given that the ridiculous $300 billion a year by 2035 that has finally been agreed upon will come largely in the form of loans, he rightly pointed out that “having climate finance as currently proposed will only further trap these countries,” already mired in debt.[9] For starters, rich countries should simply cancel them.
The assessment of COP29 made by Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s special envoy and spokesperson for the Africa Group, could not be clearer: the final proposal was “too weak, too late and ambiguous. […] When Africa loses, the world loses”.[10] Yes, the whole world is losing, and not least the rich countries. Alissa Kleinnijenhuis rightly points out that when it comes to resource transfers, “scale is the name of the game.” Well, the rich countries have not understood what is at stake: “Paying poor countries now to help them decarbonize or facing escalating climate damage at home.”
The impact of GHG emissions, and therefore of global warming, is felt globally. Thus, the increase in these emissions from some poor countries is already being felt north of the Mediterranean (Valencia is a good example) and will be felt even more. Europe is the continent that has warmed the fastest since 1980. By 2022, the average annual warming there will have reached 2,3 ± 0,2 °C compared to 1850-1900 (Copernicus/WMO).[11]), almost double, therefore, the average global warming on that date.
It doesn't hurt to remember the European Environmental Report 2024[12]: “Europe is the fastest-warming continent in the world. Extreme heat, once relatively rare, is becoming more frequent as precipitation patterns change. Torrential rains and other extremes are becoming more frequent, and catastrophic flooding has been recorded in several regions in recent years. At the same time, southern Europe is expected to experience significant rainfall declines and more severe droughts. Such events, combined with environmental and social risk factors, pose major challenges across Europe.”
Kleinnijenhuis also points out that the previous commitment to transfer $100 billion per year by 2020 was only achieved in 2022 and, more importantly, “only $25 billion in the form of investments without repayment obligations. The rest was mainly provided by private financing and loans”.[13] Bank interest rates from banks in rich countries are the lifeblood of the climate business…
Will COP30 be able to resurrect the Framework Convention?
Papua New Guinea boycotted COP29. Given the “empty promises and inaction”, it preferred to adopt the “empty chair policy”. Justin Tckatchenko, the country’s foreign minister, described it as “a complete waste of time”:
“The last three COPs have gone in circles, failing to deliver tangible results for small island states. COP29 will be no different. So PNG will not be participating at the political level. The international community has shown a complete lack of respect for countries like ours that play a crucial role in mitigating climate change. We are tired of being marginalized. The promises made by major polluters are nothing more than empty talk. They create impossible barriers to accessing the crucial funds we need to protect our people.”
Finally, a country has had the courage to say that the emperor has no clothes. In this game of rigged cards, everyone pretends to negotiate what has already been decided and promises what they will not fulfill. Why would they fulfill it, if there is no global governance capable of imposing sanctions on transgressors? Peter Wadhams, an Arctic expert, reinforces this perception: “The [British] government can affirm its commitment that in 30 years it will reduce our COXNUMX emissions.”2 by 80%. He can quote whatever number he wants in this commitment, because he has no intention of fulfilling it.”[14]
In 2015 (COP21), Brazil committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 2030% by 37 compared to 2005. Figure 2 shows the reality.
In 2021, emissions increased by 12,2% compared to 2020 and in 2022 they increased even more. In 2023, they began to decrease, but are still above those of 2007 (and note that the accounting of Brazilian emissions does not take into account methane emissions from hydroelectric plants nor, if I am not mistaken, emissions released by fires). At COP28, Colombia signed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Brazil preferred to accept the invitation to join the expanded version of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+) and therefore deservedly received the Fossil of the Day award, awarded since 1999 by the Climate Action Network (CAN). And, as if this embarrassment were not enough, on December 13, 2023, the day after the end of COP28, the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) promoted the obscene “End of the World Auction”.[15]
Is there reason to believe that COP30 will represent the miraculous resurrection of the Climate Framework Convention? If this miracle does not happen, if COP30 continues to be hijacked by oil and agribusiness, if the lobbies do Big Oil and Big Ag continue to sit at the negotiating table, the most likely (and desirable) thing is that more countries will follow the courageous example of Papua New Guinea. We will see…
* Luiz Cesar Marques Filho He is a professor at the Department of History at Unicamp. Author, among other books, of Capitalism and environmental collapse (Unicamp).
Originally published on Journal of Unicamp.
Notes
[1] Cf. JT Houghton, GJ Jenkins & JJ Ephraums (eds.), Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990, p. xi.
[2] See NOAA, Global Time Series
[3] Cf. United Nations Environment Programme, Emissions Gap Report 2024, “No more hot air…please”.
[4] See Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement Fifth session, United Arab Emirates, 30/XI to 12/XII 2023. First global stocktake 28(d): “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science. "
[5] Cf. “Countries waste money subsidizing fossil fuels, says IMF director”. ClimateInfo, 1/III/2024.
[6] Cf. Ben Lefebvre, “Biden administration oil drilling permits outpace Trump”. Politician, 30 Jan. 2024.
[7] See Global Oil & Gas Exit List
[8] Cf. José Eustáquio Diniz Alvez, “1,5ºC target is deader than a door”. Colabora Project, November 25, 2024.
[9] Quoted in Adam Morton, Fiona Harvey, Patrick Greenfield & Dharna Noor, “Cop29: wealthy countries agree to raise climate finance offer to $300bn a year”. The Guardian, 23 Nov. 2024.
[10] Cf. Laurence Caramel, “COP29: an agreement 'trop faible, trop tardif et trop ambigu' for l'Afrique". Le Monde, 24 Nov. 2024.
[11] Cf. Copernicus, Climate change impacts scar Europe, but increase in renewables signals hope for future”, 19/VI/2023.
[12] See European Environmental Report (EEA Report 01/2024), “European climate risk assessment”.
[13] See Alissa M. Kleinnijenhuis, “Why it's in rich nations' interests to fund climate finance”. Nature, 13 Nov. 2024.
[14] See Peter Wadhams, Scientists Warnings.org, 11/XII/2018.
[15] Cf. Luiz Marques, “From the Amazon summit to COP28: the Brazilian government’s denialism”. Left margin, Boitempo Magazine, 42, 2024.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
