COP27: official acknowledgement that we are living through climate change, not planning to avoid it?
By Nicole Clucas, Principal Consultant and Jeremy Cohen, Senior Partner
As COP27 approaches, the impacts of climate change have never been more apparent. The hottest European summer for 500 years, rivers running dry in China, the brutality of Hurricane Ian, and floods in Pakistan affecting 35 million people. These are just a few of the events providing the backdrop to the event in Sharm El Sheikh in November. More than ever, the COP narrative will be that we are living through climate change, rather than planning for a climate-impacted future.
There is an ever-increasing urgency for rapid actions that will drastically reduce global temperatures. But COP27 is unlikely to provide this. Expectations are that this will be the most acrimonious COP since the Conference Of the Parties first came together to tackle climate change in 1995 in Berlin.
There could be a material COP agenda. Glasgow’s pledges to strengthen emissions reduction targets have not yet been fulfilled. G20 countries are responsible for about 80% of global GHG emissions. Those countries proudly announced at COP 26 that their emissions reduction plans were sufficient to meet the 1.5C target (they are not). There are also increasing demands for rich countries to provide a fund to help countries recover from ‘loss and damage’ from extreme weather events. The EU and US have – until now – blocked this issue from COP 27, as they did for COP 26. That pressure from the developing world is growing and the dispute over the agenda itself will define the opening of COP27.
Following the money is a good indicator that the 1.5 degree path is ‘done’. The Glasgow Climate Pact committed developed countries to - at least - double the finance for adaptation in developing countries by 2025 but wealthy economies have so far failed to deliver on their promise of $100 billion in annual climate finance. More fires and floods, more fights for compensation.
The agreement in Glasgow to ‘phase down’ coal will also be a hot topic. The war in Ukraine has built a new sense of urgency to transition away from non-renewable energies. However, governments will need to balance long-term commitments to climate change with the short-term requirement to reduce dependency on Russia, which has already seen an increase in coal and oil use in the short term, and booming hydrocarbon investment. As energy has run short, many governments have indicated that votes will determine priorities, and 2050 is well after the next election.
Geopolitical tensions will be on full show. The war in Ukraine means that the Russian delegation will be isolated but looking to “score points” through sidebar agreements. The Chinese will be looking to flex muscle through agreements that leave the U.S. isolated, having abandoned climate negotiations with them over Taiwan. The United States and the West will be looking for some moral high ground, but this will be significantly offset by the aforementioned lack of funding (and blocking the issue from being on the formal COP 27 agenda) to address “Loss and Damage”.
The physical backdrop to the COP negotiations is Egypt, a country with a historically bad human rights record; and that’s putting it mildly. Protests are forbidden without state approval, press freedoms are extremely limited, and the internet is under state control. Civil liberties groups are planning to attend COP 27 and test the Egyptian government’s commitment for a free and open COP. Egypt, for their part, are keen to use the event to present the country as one of Africa’s leaders and whitewash their human rights record. A metaphorical powder keg.
For corporates, there’s much that can be said from the side-lines – carefully weighed policy commentary at the right time, from the right person or people, with clear accountability for real actions. But for those companies looking to tie their brands and their Net Zero targets to COP 27, our advice is to steer well clear of this one.
COP 27 will shine a light on the obvious tensions between climate action, energy costs and short-term needs, abatement, new technologies, hydrocarbon investment, and adaptation. More than ever we need affirmative bold actions that will help us adapt to the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, these talks are not going to lead us to those solutions that society so obviously needs to hit the brakes on the climate-train-in-motion.
If you’re looking for optimism, the UN COP on biodiversity in Montreal in December looks genuinely promising. If you want hope for tackling climate change, however, you may want to turn off your newsfeed in November.