Why The Glasgow Conference On World Climate Failed
- Brainz Magazine
- Mar 11, 2022
- 6 min read
Updated: Mar 26
Written by: Roberto R. Bravo, Executive Contributor
Executive Contributors at Brainz Magazine are handpicked and invited to contribute because of their knowledge and valuable insight within their area of expertise.
The Glasgow Climate Conference COP26 that ended on 13 November closed with little more than lip service. No doubt under the gloomy shadow of influential economic lobbies (see The Climate Change: The Denialist View), and also reluctant to taking unpopular measures that could lose them votes ― a move that political opposition in Western countries would readily use for their benefit, as did in every opportunity during the current global pandemic ―, the world leaders attending the Conference opted for a tepid declaration of intent involving no change of the current economy, while appearing to respond to environmental groups and the not-yet-so-pungent demands of a population that is slowly growing aware of the climate problem. So, words but little action. In short, the politicians present at the Conference ― and those absent as well ― are less concerned about the dire state of the world's climate than about their image in the eyes of the electorate.
Why this failure? In the past, economic changes have been made based on public health or environmental reasons, such as the removal of tetraethyl lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline because of its toxic effects, or, more recently, the ban on the general use of chlorofluorocarbons, the main gases causing the ozone depletion of the atmosphere. The phase-out of CFC has often been cited as the most successful global agreement on environmental protection. But the ban has not been total, as certain uses considered "essential" are being maintained, and it was achieved after a long process of discussions and litigation that lasted more than 20 years, starting in the 1970s, when scientists first raised the alarm, to the Montreal Protocol that banned CFC gases in 1987 but was often disregarded, to more agreements amid a number of advances and setbacks due mainly to resistance from manufacturers, to finally setting the end of production for 1996. Tetraethyl lead has an even longer history from the first scientific warnings of its toxicity in the early 1920s to the first ban in the United States in 1973, 50 years passed. But its use continued in many countries even after 2000. And today, more than 90 years after its introduction, it is still used in aviation. These are just two examples. If some companies are ready to exert such a fierce and cunning resistance for so long to whatever they consider a threat to their interests, using everything from blatant lies to all legal and non-legal tricks (there is plenty of evidence in multitude of cases) only to continue profiting from certain products (or processes, such as fracking, or polluting spills, and these are just two other examples) that have been proven to be harmful to human health or the environment, think of a whole lobby of powerful sponsors putting pressure, half in the shadows, half openly at times, on politicians in the main industrialised countries...
Also add, in this case, the discontent of virtually the entire electorate. Because the major changes to be adopted today in terms of energy use, environmental cleanliness and conservation, recycling, decontamination, and the considerable reinvestment projects required, would disrupt, on the one hand, the economic schemes of most large companies and financial emporiums interested in maintaining the current model and, on the other hand, the habits of the general public who would have to adapt to the multiple domestic and social consequences of these changes in their daily lives ― with the resulting discomfort of both sectors of the electorate. Thus, in their self-serving, cowardly and short-sighted view of reality, politicians chose to maintain an economic model that will benefit no one when the planet is scorched ― including us.
The announcements made in Glasgow ― not agreements, since they are not binding and no country is obliged to comply ― repeat once again the "urgent" need for international cooperation to reduce methane and CO2 emissions, reduce the use of coal as a fuel (not eliminate, courtesy of the representatives of India and China*, countries that plan to continue using it in considerable proportions), slow down (not stop) the process of deforestation worldwide (which Brazil, after long years of brutally destroying the Amazon, has finally accepted, at least in words, counting on the financial compensation it receives and expects to continue to receive from international funds ―and doing so, incidentally attracting the sympathy of a growing sector of the electorate), and the need to increase money for climate change mitigation, including rich countries' contributions to developing countries to help them adapt their economies to new energy needs (although previous commitments in this regard have admittedly not been met), and other declarations of that sort. Instead of firm pacts, the 71 points of the draft joint statement emphasise and re-emphasise (sic) the seriousness of the global climate situation, but instead of adopting measures, they simply "invite", "encourage" and "urge" everybody to act against global warming, including a call to non-governmental organisations, indigenous peoples, as well as local, voluntary, youth, women's, and even gender equality groups (… anything to do with climate?). It seems that political leaders did not want to leave anyone out of a global commitment that they themselves tried to evade. Faced with the imminent danger that threatens us all but which they, because of their office, should be first to confront, they opted for the false resort of procrastination. And so, the final declaration calls on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to submit its next report to the next Climate Conference (COP27) in 2022.
The most optimistic point among the "successes" of the Conference to a clearer statement to limit the rise in global temperature at 1.5ºC, or the unequivocal identification of carbon as the main cause of the current temperature increase, or the call (and the apparent commitment of some countries) to put up aid to developing countries (despite the fact that, as has been said, the previously agreed aid is not being provided), and to a number of minor agreements, such as an unexpected joint declaration by the US and China for climate cooperation over a decade ― as if there were plenty of time ―, or the agreement among 11 countries (out of almost 200 in attendance) to put a future end to oil exploration and extraction, and various declarations to stop ― within up to 20 years and even more in some cases! ― the use of coal and the sale of fossil-fuelled engines and vehicles. Goals both too vague and too far away. Clearly, the representatives of the various countries would not accept any option that could alter the current state of their economies: for example, the proposal to abandon the use of petrol and diesel engines in the short term was not accepted by the main car manufacturing countries, such as the United States and Germany, and the repeated recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions give wide latitude to the "different circumstances" of each country, which leaves open the option of prolonging them indefinitely.
In a more realistic attitude, UN Secretary General António Guterres, in his final declaration, did not conceal his disappointment: "These are welcome steps," he said diplomatically, "but they are not enough... We did not achieve the goals [intended] at this Conference". And although he insisted on the urgent need to continue struggling to combat climate change, for now expectations are shifted to the following year.
Meanwhile, the planet continues to warm up.
Reference:
* These countries finally sent delegates to the Conference, as also did Brazil
Robert R. Bravo, Executive Contributor Brainz Magazine Besides his long experience as a researcher and lecturer on Ethics, Logic of Science and Philosophy of Language in Universities of Spain and Latin America, Roberto R Bravo writes and teaches on management skills in the areas of language and argumentation, coaching, leadership, and conflict management from a philosophical standpoint. Member of the editorial board of some academic and non-academic journals, he has published a number of essays, short stories, books for children, and translations. He is currently working on several books, both fiction and non-fiction.
