November 2023 (English version) : Good COP or Bad COP?
Extracted (English Version)
"While we fuel the fire, we invite you to watch a ping-pong match."🏓
As COP28 kicks off in Dubai, this question might encapsulate the reality behind current policy talks around climate change. How to sift through this thick smoke? This is the main question that we will be tackling in this issue.
Enjoy the read and many thanks to all of our new subscribers! Don't hesitate to send us your comments, remarks and suggestions.
In-depth💡- The COPs: How Publicity Stunts Divert Attention from Anti-Climate Policies
A Bit of History….
To understand the derailment, let's revisit the international discussions following the release of the first IPCC report in 1990. Initially, the aim was to encourage states to commit to implementing CO₂ emission reductions necessary to limit global warming, considering the concept of climate justice.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in effect since 1994, post-Rio Earth Summit) incorporates climate justice in its preamble. It notes that "the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries," (…)"per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."
Thus, only developed countries committed to reducing their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000, with Article 3.1 mentioning principles of operation "on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."
However, in 1997, the United States, ahead of Kyoto, refused to commit to emission reductions if developing countries didn't do the same. A last-minute agreement was signed by Al Gore, with the U.S. securing the establishment of a carbon market among states1 for more flexibility in meeting targets. A 5% reduction in emissions by 2012 compared to 1990 was agreed upon for developed countries, with differentiated targets by country.
But George Bush, elected in 2000, decided not to ratify Kyoto. The European Union then made generous concessions to Russia, Canada, and Japan to preserve the agreement, which came into effect in 2005 with a five-year delay. At that point, it covered only a third of global emissions.
Despite insufficient goals to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, some countries only achieved them due to severe economic crises. Moreover, the carbon market mechanism proved counterproductive, with Russia's surplus (-40% vs. a stability goal) being massively resold at low prices2. This allowed many states to meet their commitments without truly decarbonizing. Additionally, no sanctions were imposed on those not meeting their commitments. For instance, Canada, experiencing a boom in oil sands and a 30% increase in emissions, preferred to leave the protocol in 2011 rather than be held accountable.
At the COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, despite Obama's program proposing binding targets for the largest emitters (US, China, India, EU, and Russia), the China vs. USA confrontation condemned the agreement to failure. While there was mention of the 2°C goal and the promise of $100 billion per year to finance the transition in developing countries, no timetable or reduction target was established. For many, this failure foreshadowed the abandonment of the top-down approach to effort-sharing based on a common global goal.
The COP21 in Paris in 2015, seen by many as a success, endorsed the principle of voluntary commitments by states (a "bottom-up" approach) without obligation or sanctions, and without any mention of a sharing of efforts. And like a running gag, Trump, freshly elected, promptly announced the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2017.
In conclusion: history seems to demonstrate that COPs boil down to a game of ping-pong, appearing to make progress on the surface, while changing the status quo as little as possible. Successive COPs gave the impression of raising ambitions while losing their binding nature and neglecting the principle of climate justice. Each state is free to set its goals, regardless of whether the sum of these goals is insufficient and promises are vague and distant in time. Thus, each state is strongly encouraged to stick to a common denominator that minimizes efforts.
🏆 We already know who are the losers and the ones not playing ball
If ping-pong still interests you, we can try to understand how skewed the game is. The below graph from think tank EcoEquity illustrates the glaring gap between the "fair" share of emission reductions for each major country or group of countries (in green) and their current promises (NDC = Nationally Determined Contribution). The concept of a "fair" share involves a combination of responsibility factors (historical emissions since 1850 and 1950) and the capacity to invest in the transition (linked to GDP thresholds).
Comparison of mitigation fair shares (green band) and NDC pledges (red lines). For reference, 2030 projected emissions levels are also shown (grey bar) as indicative illustration of the level of effort required for full decarbonization (all figures in tonnes of CO2eq per capita of mitigation below baseline in 2030)
The green bar corresponds to the emission reduction pace necessary for a "just" decarbonization, i.e., a pace that compensates for some historical emissions, not just current emissions (in white). Thus, we see that the United States and the European Union would need to triple their reduction rates to align with climate justice principles. For Japan, the effort would need to be multiplied by 15. In contrast, we see that the commitments of China and India are in line.
The major losers are island states and the poorest countries, on the front lines of climate disruptions and with minimal contributions to historical and current emissions.
As a reminder, the promised $100 billion per year to support their transition and adaptation likely have been paid (with a two-year delay), but OECD Secretary-General Matthias Cormann notes that "by 2025, it is estimated that developing countries will need about $1 trillion per year for climate investments, rising to about $2.4 trillion each year between 2026 and 2030." We are far from that target.
🔎 Where are we on the initial global goal?
According to the Climate Action Tracker independent research group's report, the current policies of Paris Agreement signatory states would place the climate on a trajectory of +2.7 degrees Celsius (if maintained, which is uncertain).
It is revealing to see that there are still dimensions where transition indicators are moving in the wrong direction, sometimes due to anti-climate policies. The recent State of Climate Action report shows that:
Out of 42 progress indicators toward the transition, only one has progressed in line with goals (the share of electric vehicles in individual car sales).
Six are progressing too slowly, for example, the share of solar and wind in electricity generation.
Twenty-four are progressing much too slowly, for instance, the reduction in ruminant meat consumption.
Even more alarming, six indicators are moving in the wrong direction: the share of cars in individual trips, and especially public financing of fossil fuels, which has almost doubled since 2020.
We witness the triumph of the "at the same time" logic: public policies display a green discourse while massively supporting the old world.
🌡️Halftime score: Climate: +1.1°C / Humanity: 0
The latest IPCC report is unequivocal: to aim for 1.5°C by the end of the century, we would need to achieve a -43% emission reduction by 2030 compared to 2019. The UN recently assessed data and commitments from Paris Agreement signatory states, and by 2030, we would be at... -2%.
In this large-scale prisoner's dilemma where everyone seeks to minimize their contribution to collective efforts, we will all end up losers.
To change the course of things, a significant portion of citizens would need to become aware and express that these efforts are acceptable and desirable, and that they are ready to plan them in line with the concept of climate justice.
Did you like this article? If so feel free to share with your friends, colleagues, family you name it !
From Knowledge to Action 🙋♂️-
Citizen Engagement in Support of Effective Collective Actions
Does the date of April 22, 1970 ring a bell? This day marked the first Earth Day ever organized in response to the devastating oil spill in California. At that time, no less than 20 million Americans, of all backgrounds and political affiliations, had demonstrated in the streets and on university campuses.
53 Earth Days and 6 IPCC reports later, citizen action for the climate seems to have significantly weakened, and ESG is caught in the turmoil of political polarization.
✨ Glimmers of Hope ✨
Despite this grim assessment, powerful individual levers can be used to support collective action. In an enlightening article, Julia Steinberger, an economics professor at the University of Lausanne (who has embraced this quote of famous French writer Rabelais, "Science without conscience is the ruin of the soul"), details the example of Guillermo Fernandez, an ordinary family man and computer scientist with no prior activist history. In 2021, he went on a hunger strike after reading an IPCC report. His demand was simple: the organization of a meeting between IPCC authors and Swiss parliamentarians. After 39 days, he succeeded.
Let our readers rest assured! The idea here is not to advocate mass hunger strikes but to demonstrate how the success of certain individual actions can influence collective outcomes. Some examples:
Climate litigation
Over the past five years, the number of ecology-related lawsuits has doubled. Among the implicated actors:
👉 States
The first legal action was led in the Netherlands by the Urgenda Foundation. In 2019, The Hague's court made a historic judgment3, recognizing for the first time the obligation of a state to comply with greenhouse gas reduction goals. Since then, the Netherlands has implemented more ambitious climate plans and reduction targets.
Two years later, the French state was found guilty for failure to meet climate targets, following a complaint filed by four associations4.
In Belgium, 11 individuals initiated the "Climate Case," eventually supported by 60,000 citizens5
In the United States, a group of 16 youths achieved an unprecedented victory this summer. A Montana judge declared unconstitutional a law prohibiting the administration from considering the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions for permit approval.
👉 Companies
Shell Case - In 2021, a Dutch court ordered the multinational to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030. This victory set a precedent.
Greenwashing - Recently, numerous legal actions have condemned misleading advertisements. For example, Dutch airline KLM pulled a campaign encouraging customers to "fly responsibly." Also, Arla Foods was prohibited by a court from using the term "net-zero footprint" for the sale of its products.
👉 Outcomes
Among the flood of climate lawsuits, many are unsuccessful. The length and complexity of the procedures are major hurdles. Moreover, laws to strengthen corporate responsibility in ESG matters remain for the most part-relatively not restrictive6.
However, these lawsuits also have numerous impacts:
Legal evolution. Corporate responsibility for "Scope 1 and 2" emissions is now widely accepted. Regarding "Scope 3" (indirect) emissions, the Shell case judgment could be a major development in jurisprudence.
Financial losses. A 2021 study by the London School of Economics, analyzing the consequences of over 100 climate lawsuits, demonstrated that convictions negatively affected stock prices.
Media coverage. Legal actions often provide a powerful platform (justified or not in some cases), bringing climate issues into the spotlight. Other means can complement this approach.
Petitions
A proven tool for awareness, petitions increase the reach of climate causes, complementing legal actions that can be too technical to generate mass engagement. For instance, the vote on the "Affaire du Siècle" against the French state was the most popular petition in the history of France, with 2 million signatures. At the European level, the "ECI" forum allows citizens to invite the Commission to propose new legislation in areas within its competence. To date, 9 requests have been submitted to the Commission after reaching the one-million-signature threshold.
Other examples: This summer, the last-minute vote of the European Parliament on the Nature Restoration Law was rescued by strong citizen mobilization, with over a million signatures and numerous op-eds that pressured MEPs.
A petition initiated by Bloom, an NGO working to combat deep-sea trawling, gathered 900,000 signatures and prompted several major retailers to stop selling deep-sea fish.
Get involved
Is there a cause close to your heart? Get typing!
The list of live petitions on the ICE website is available here.
The platform change.org compiles local citizen initiatives.
Sociological studies converge: if at least 25% of a community's population changes its behavior and norm perception, the group will follow. The sum of our individual commitments will be the foundation of a shifting society!
Did you enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to subscribe to receive the next issues!
PS - we are trying to keep the content open to many readers and languages 🙋🏽🙋. When subscribing, you will automatically be signed up to receive both the French and English versions of this newsletter. To stop receiving one of the two versions, go to the settings page www.substack.com/settings, section "Notifications" and uncheck the box of the version you no longer wish to receive. (Screenshot below)
Footnotes:
Under the Kyoto Protocol, three flexibility mechanisms were established to assist countries in meeting their objectives: the International Emissions Trading (IET) system facilitating the sale of unused quota surpluses between states, the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism enabling the purchase of carbon credits, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allowing for the generation of reduction credits from projects in developing countries. https://academy.sustain-cert.com/topic/after-kyoto-protocol/
The Russian Federation managed to sell 238 million tons of CO2 equivalent. The price of CO2 varied in each project, but generally remained below $10 per ton.
Source: Dalloz. The court ruled that the Dutch emission reduction targets were insufficient in relation to the Constitution, EU standards, the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the international law obligation to do no harm, and the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement principles of equity, precaution and sustainability. The judge referred to the legal frameworks related to the fight against climate change, including the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, the Doha Amendment and COP decisions, to determine the precise commitments of the Dutch state.
This procedure was initiated by the militant association "Notre Affaire à tous", which practices a contentious approach coupled with prospective law actions, notably in favor of a constitutional reform aimed at integrating climate and planetary limits into Article 1 of the French Constitution. According to the verdict, the French state had until December 31, 2022 to make up for the 15 million tonnes of CO2 emitted in excess between 2015 and 2018 in relation to its own targets, contained in the National Low-Carbon Strategy. The NGOs behind the Affair of the Century are considering the next step: demanding the payment of financial penalties.
Despite a conviction in 2021, the Belgian government has not met its targets: a new procedure is envisaged.
For example, the French law on duty of care creates an obligation of means but not of results (the European text is more restrictive).