The Technical Conundrum: Shifting Climate Change from Politics to Progress

By Ali Syed

In 2023, the world experienced its hottest year, surpassing the worst-case scenario temperature of 1.5°C set by the UNFCCC in the Paris Agreement of 2015, as reported by the World Meteorological Organization. Major countries have either postponed their Net Zero emissions targets to a later date or are struggling to meet their originally intended goals. Moreover, major economies are deadlocked in discussions on proportionality, historic emissions, per-capita emissions, or financing imperatives. This results in surpassing temperature milestones sooner than expected—those that must be avoided. Consequently, multilateral climate forums usually end with an illusion of movement while achieving little.

In this article, I want to suggest that we might be approaching the urgent issue of climate change with the wrong solutions. It’s like asking a plumber to repair a car exhaust. Politicians focus on politics, and while their skills may work for local issues or immediate global conflicts, they might not be the best fit for addressing climate problems. Complex issues like nature and the emergence of events like COVID-19 go beyond the capabilities of regular politicians attempting to negotiate deals in multilateral forums for personal or political gain. Hence, in my view, it’s crucial to downplay the importance of multilateral efforts, and the next paragraph will explain why.

In the name of international cooperation, billions of dollars are spent organizing conferences that, ironically, become significant contributors to excessive consumption and emissions. As per the available documents, during the COP 14 summit in Poznan, Poland, the Polish government took firm measures to reduce its carbon footprint by transporting 200 of its staff members from Bonn, Germany to Poznan, Poland by train or bus. While measures can be implemented for intra-continental travel, they become challenging for overseas venues. The total carbon emission for 8000 participants at the COP 14 summit was estimated at 13,000 tons of CO2, with a budgeted expense of $35 million. If we use the estimates of COP 14 as the median and calculate the overall emissions and expenditure of all COP summits, we have the following figures. Before delving into these, it’s important to note the conservative nature of our estimates. The most significant COP summit was COP21 in France, resulting in the Paris Agreement, a landmark achievement for establishing a framework and roadmap for decarbonization. The total expense during COP21 was €170 million and it garnered controversy due to funding from major fossil fuel companies. In terms of attendees, the most recent COP28 summit in Dubai, UAE had 83,884 in-person attendees, ten times more than our median in calculation. 

Moving to the calculations, the total cost of all 28 COP summits is estimated to be (28×35*) $980 million, and the total CO2 emissions would be (28×13,000**) 364,000 tons. This means we spent almost a billion dollars on conferences that have achieved relatively little compared to the milestones they set. Moreover, the emissions generated around the fanfare are comparable to the emissions capable of powering the annual electricity consumption of 1525,600 homes.

In business, Return on Investment (ROI) is often employed to assess investment returns and pinpoint capital flow inefficiencies. The increasing challenge of reaching a consensus on climate change is closely linked to funding imperatives, widening the global North-South divide. To make negotiations more effective, establishing a common minimum climate program is crucial, beginning with goals for widespread renewable energy installations. Lessons from successful multilateral agreements, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), can be utilized to make climate forums more effective. Universalizing, legitimizing, and Incentivizing carbon trading is a key move for states and industries to achieve carbon neutrality and profitability. Market predictability is vital for creating a secure environment for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives, and countering anti-ESG propaganda is crucial to the successful implementation of ESG measures.

Industries should be the focal point, and exaggerated public discussions should be avoided to prevent ennui. Engaging with sources, implementing offset measures, and holding multinational corporations (MNCs) responsible are crucial. Research by the Climate Accountability Institute in the US indicates that just 20 companies have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totaling 480 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965. Most importantly, it is crucial to identify key vectors, such as agriculture, steel, and cement industries, and the adoption of new technologies. Expanding managed (new) forests, especially by protecting and planting mangrove and cannabis plants, is crucial for cost-effective Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) initiatives. Fostering market support for startups with proven technologies will reduce carbon emissions in polluting industries. Embracing nuclear technology for a transition away from fossil fuel energy is the elixir for rapid decarbonization. However, exercising caution in introducing new punitive taxes, such as the European carbon tax, as it may lead to more geopolitical altercations in the world with increasingly disrupted supply chains. Taxation measures should be carefully tailored, avoiding blanket clauses and recognizing the diverse demands and development needs of different countries, as much as respecting their sovereignty.

The author is a consultant at RIS New Delhi.

Tweets: @Alinyst

Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.