COP 27 is not doing enough to reduce emissions
Here are my top five priorities:
I mentioned in my first blog that I had a mixture of feelings when arriving at COP; cynicism and hope. As COP 27 came to an end, after an extra unplanned day, did I still feel like that? Here are my reflections of the event:
The event itself is impressive. It is attended by some fascinating, smart, passionate, dedicated people from all over the world, from all walks of life, doing some amazing things. It’s clear that Climate change is still on the world leaders’ agenda with 120 heads of state attending, even at this tough time of economic and political instability. Some difficult negotiations were successfully concluded, and some remain too vague, like how we will actually reduce emissions. Positively, there does appear to be good levels of common understanding and a momentum at a senior enough level to be able to catalyse the world and make change happen.
But leaders in government and industry are not doing enough. For the sake of the planet and future generations, they have to do more.
Despite the best efforts of all the previous COPs, the science and visible evidence indicates that progress is far too slow. A flurry of major U.N. reports published in recent weeks delivered a grim assessment of how close the planet is to irreversible climate breakdown, warning there is “no credible pathway” in place to cap global heating at the critical temperature threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius. We’re moving too slowly.
What are the critical things to do right now?
In one of the panels at COP, I was asked to think about the few critical things the world needs to do to make dramatic progress. Listening to the scientists and applying a transformation mindset to where we are, these are the top 5 things that I think are fundamental priorities. I’d be fascinated to know others’ thoughts.
There is a Pareto type 80/20 rule everywhere, and that is no different regarding global polluters. Look at the worst companies and the worst countries for instance:
Reducing these emissions should be the focus for immediate action. No ifs, no buts, no ‘it is too difficult’. If countries and companies can half their impact by 2030, we can reduce global emissions by a third in just 7 years. If I had to choose between the two, my focus would be primarily on companies as they are the biggest single contributor to the G20 numbers too.
All my experience working to change behaviours at large corporates tells me that to make any significant impact, we have to approach change in a systematic way. Companies need:
‘Climate Success’ platforms like 51 to Carbons Zero’s are designed to enable companies and public sector organisations to do this.
Having 120 heads of state at COP 27 is a really good sign. However, they need to back this up with legislative action and fines for non-compliance, even in the context of the challenge of austerity and lower economic growth. It is unlikely that companies, cities, and governments will reduce emissions quickly enough without regulation as their main driver remains maximising shareholder value/GDP. Regulation exists in some geographies but differs around the world. It’s changing all the time and a summary of global regulation is contained in a separate article available on request.
None of the current regulations or frameworks include accountability and governance, which any transformation leader will tell you is vital to achieve real change. A ray of light coming from COP 27 was the UN Expert Group Report (described in detail in a previous blog) for the first time touches on accountability. I would like to see governments adopt this and build it into formal legislation. If they do this we would undoubtedly accelerate the achievement of point 1 in this action list. We should pressure our politicians to adopt it.
There are many parties involved so I have just provided just two examples here.
Geopolitical inclusion: The United Nations flagship event has to be truly global. China, India and Russia are three huge polluters (26.4%, 7.1% and 5.1% respectively) but are not at COP 27 with any significant presence. Policy makers, business leaders, investment bankers, city mayors and academics have to develop a ‘common mental model’ of the issue, solution set and priorities. To do that they must work together and come together at events like COP. Geopolitical differences must come secondary. If global governments could collaborate more on common legislation, including a carbon tax, they would be able to hold the biggest global polluters to account.
Fossil fuel representation. An analysis of attendees showed that more fossil fuel industry delegates (650+) attended COP27 than any national delegation from the African continent, despite the talks being described as the “Africa COP.” Campaigners described the numbers as a “twisted joke” and argued that it was time “to kick Big Polluters out! No more writing the rules or bankrolling the climate talks” (CEO, 2022).
While the emotion is understandable, excluding such an important lobby cannot be a sensible way forward. The world needs to rapidly replace fossil fuels as an energy source with viable alternatives, but fossils fuels have an immediate role to play and are part of the picture. In addition, the brilliant R&D minds in Oil and Gas companies have to be part of the new technology solutions. We should not exclude Fossil fuel representation at COP, we have to welcome it.
Financing. As I write this blog on Sunday 20 November, COP 27 has just concluded on this. The G20 have agreed to continue to finance developing countries. What was agreed builds slightly on what was achieved in COP 26 where $100bn in funding was agreed and, positively, over 80% of it has been paid. As a reminder, we need to fund developing countries for two reasons:
Observers to the negotiation reported China and India in particular arguing about their contribution to the fund even though they are the number 1 and 3 top country polluters in the world. Apparently, they argued they identify themselves as ‘developing countries’. The US agreed only when they negotiated that it was not a legal obligation to pay. Saudi Arabia changed some of the formal text to include the funding of ‘low carbon emission sources’. However, let’s not dwell on this, momentum for climate funding has been maintained since the breakthroughs in COP26 and that is a good thing. It is the right thing to do and will help develop trust.
Implementation. Agreeing finance is a vitally important step, but with a transformational hat on, how the funding is used is critical and this therefore has to be a key area of focus in the Climate Financing area. If we don’t get it right, countries will see the fund as a waste of time. Currently, the efforts to track the $100 billion are focused on counting how much money has actually flowed and where, not what impact has been achieved. This presents a couple of issues.
So global governance of Climate projects, executed through a task force with teeth, operated out of a multi-national agency like the UN, is vital in ensuring climate finance is effectively spent.
One of the more surprising elements for me personally was my recognition of the importance of the youth movement. There was an enormous passion from ‘young’ (teens/20s) from across the world at COP. Their talks had a powerful narrative, were refreshingly honest, they didn’t take any prisoners, they weren’t paying lip-service to senior leaders or the establishment. It was humbling, and these youth, as future leaders of the planet, give me massive hope.
I attended a session on financing the youth movements in order to amplify their message. Youth movements such as the UN’s Youth in Action, Fridays for Future, UKYCC, and GAYO will shape the thinking of millions of future leaders across the globe. As they move into leadership roles they will have a significant impact in accelerating behaviour change across politics and industry. This type of funding has much more merit than I ever considered. I really hope both state and philanthropic funding can help amplify the voices of activist youth. Luisa Neubauer in particular was hugely very impressive.
In one session someone was kind enough to ask me; ‘if you were to return to COP in, say, 4 years’ time, what would you want to see?’. Here’s what I said:
At COP 27, we experienced a lot of chest beating, political statements, wonderful innovations, some encouraging progress on a number of fronts (e.g. climate finance, advisory frameworks), a lot of commercial showing off, too many oil company lobbyists, some quite obvious false promises and a noticeable lack of trust (e.g. between global north vs. south; old vs. young, fossil fuel companies vs everyone). All in all, some progress, but too slow, with little trust, and not enough collaboration globally.
Fast forward to COP 31 in 4 years’ time, what would be brilliant to see? First of all, let’s recognise that in 4 years we’ll all be deeper into the climate crises, we’re not going to get away from that. We’ll have at last realised formally that the 1.5c target is impossible. I’d love to see COP 31 operating in an environment of greater trust and collaboration between parties. It should talk more about the outcomes we have achieved, need to achieve, and how to overcome the barriers in our way. And we will see significant progress in all 5 of the points raised above.
If this happens, we’ll definitely be on the right road.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Carbon emissions transparency: I travelled to/from Gatwick in a hybrid vehicle, economy air flight, staying at an eco-hotel (says it’s aiming for carbon neutrality by 2028), hired an electric scooter in Sharm, will eat vegetarian, have offset the flight and hotel.