Many of the statements by developed country leaders at the COP26 summit in Glasgow are at odds with their actual climate policies and what they say in other settings. Ultimately, its shortsighted strategy benefits no one, including the powerful corporate interests whose immediate financial interests it serves.
NEW DELHI – Many people around the world already consider the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow a disappointment. That’s a massive understatement. World leaders, especially in the developed world, still do not understand the severity of the climate challenge. Although they acknowledge its seriousness and urgency in their speeches, they mostly pursue short-term national interests and make conveniently distant “net zero” emissions commitments without clear and immediate commitments to act.
To make matters worse, the statements of many wealthy country leaders in Glasgow are at odds with their actual climate strategies and what they say in other settings. So while the G7 leaders at the summit issued disappointing green commitments for several decades into the future, they were also spending some of their time allowing and enabling more investments in fossil fuels that will generate additional production and greenhouse gas emissions in the medium term.
For example, could the real government of the United States stand up and declare itself? In his recent speech in Glasgow, President Joe Biden said that “as we view the current volatility in energy prices, rather than presenting it as a reason to backtrack on our clean energy targets, we should view it as a call to action. “. In fact, he said, “high energy prices only reinforce the urgent need to diversify sources, double the deployment of clean energy, and adapt promising new clean energy technologies.”
But just three days later, the Biden administration claimed that OPEC + is jeopardizing the global economic recovery by failing to increase oil production. He even warned that the United States is willing to use “all the tools” necessary, such as freeing up part of its strategic reserves, to reduce fuel prices.
This is one of the most blatant recent examples of climate hypocrisy on the part of a leader in a developed country, but it is by no means the only one. And the duplicity extends to the COP26 proceedings itself, where negotiators from developing countries are apparently discovering that advanced economies’ positions in closed-door meetings are quite different from their public positions.
Rich countries, which are responsible for most of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions to date, are wavering over far-reaching commitments to provide climate finance to developing countries. They are also resisting a proposed operational definition that would prevent them from manipulating what is considered climate finance. And they still treat climate change adaptation as a separate stream and refuse to provide financing to prevent, minimize and address the losses and damages associated with climate change in the worst affected countries.
The pledges declared by COP26 also reveal the double standards of the developed world. A group of 20 countries, including the United States, pledged to end public funding of “relentless” fossil fuel projects, including those that run on coal, by the end of 2022. But the ban applies only to international projects, not nationals. Significantly, the United States and several other signatories refused to join the 23 countries that separately pledged to halt new coal power projects within their borders and phase out existing coal infrastructure.
But even if the promises in Glasgow had been stronger, rich country governments, in particular, face a major credibility problem. They have previously made too many empty climate promises, undermining the interests of developing countries that have contributed little to climate change. Advanced economies have made emission reduction commitments that they have not met and have reneged on their guarantees to developing countries with respect not only to climate finance but also to technology transfer.
The climate finance commitment is now 12 years old. At COP15 in Copenhagen, advanced economies promised to provide $ 100 billion per year to the developing world, and the 2015 Paris climate agreement made it clear that all developing countries would be eligible for such financing. This amount is trivial in relation to the need of developing countries, which is in the trillions of dollars, and also in comparison to the enormous sums that rich countries have spent on fiscal and monetary support for their economies during the Covid pandemic. 19.
But the developed world has failed to deliver on even this relatively modest promise. In 2019, total climate finance channeled to developing countries was less than $ 80 billion; the average amount each year since 2013 was just $ 67 billion. And this figure vastly overstated the actual flows of developed country governments, because bilateral public climate finance (which should have been provided to the developing world under the Paris agreement) averaged less than $ 27 billion per year. The rest came from multilateral institutions, including development banks, and private finance, whose mobilization the governments of rich countries sought to take credit. Compared to this paltry sum, global fossil fuel subsidies totaled an estimated $ 555 billion a year between 2017 and 2019.
Similarly, the rich world’s green technology transfer promises have become mere declarations. Developed country governments allowed domestic companies to hold on to intellectual property rights that block the dissemination of critical knowledge for climate mitigation and adaptation. When countries like China and India have tried to foster their own renewable energy industries, the United States, in particular, has filed complaints with the World Trade Organization.
This myopic strategy ultimately benefits no one, including companies whose immediate financial interests it serves, because it accelerates the destruction of the planet and the revenge of nature against what now appears to be terminally stupid humanity. Student and activist marches in Glasgow against this shortsighted approach are important, but they are not close enough to force governments to change course.
The problem is that powerful corporate interests are clearly intertwined with political leadership. People around the world, and especially in the Global North, must become much more vociferous in insisting on meaningful climate action and real change in economic strategy that resonates beyond national borders. Only that can end the green hypocrisy of the rich world and save us all.
The author
Jayati Ghosh, executive secretary of International Development Economics Associates, is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a member of the Independent Commission for International Corporate Tax Reform.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2020
Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx