How the fight for what’s right has held back progress on climate change



Our planet is changing. Our journalism too. This story is part of a CBC News initiative called Our changing planet show and explain the effects of climate change and what is being done about it.

The party was great, at least for those who arrived early.

The first diners – let’s call them developed countries – ordered advancements and luxury goods regardless of the atmospheric price. Perhaps at first the cost was not clear.

Others joined the table, hungry for their turn and for a taste of the same. Why should developing countries refrain from using fossil fuels when some have gorged themselves for more than a century?

But now there is without a doubt, it’s time to pay.

From Sunday in Glasgow, the Conference of the Parties (COP) will meet for the 26th time in three decades to try to decide how to split the bill.

What is right – a concept so fundamental that toddlers and chimpanzees having opinions on this – has been far from straightforward when it comes to global climate change negotiations. Allegations of injustice were part of the failure of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and one of the arguments used by President Donald Trump when the United States temporarily left the Paris Agreement.

  • Do you have questions about COP26 or climate science, politics or policy? Send us an email: [email protected]. Your contribution helps inform our coverage.

This time, although the science behind man-made climate change is clear and the damage accumulates, especially in parts of the world the less responsible, success depends on the agreement of the rich and polluting countries.

“Equity is always in the eye of the beholder,” said Prof. Saleemul Huq, director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, who has attended every annual meeting of the COP since its inception. in Berlin in 1995.

“When I hear these arguments [about fairness], I hear from slave owners … deciding who should sell their slaves or free their slaves first, “said Huq.

“If you don’t sell your slaves or free your slaves first, why should I do it?” No one asks the slaves.

The impacts of climate change, including sea level rise and flooding, have been felt around the world for years. Here, a mother carries her baby as a child wades through a sea-flooded street in the Mayangan village of Subang, Indonesia’s West Java province, July 16, 2010. (Beawiharta / Reuters)

A “bellicose forum”

The understanding that some countries are more responsible than others for climate change has been part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from the start.

This framework, promulgated in 1994, includes a listing rich and industrialized countries – the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States and Canada among them. These “Annex I” countries are expected to do more, “taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities,” according to the document.

“They accepted that they were the biggest polluters,” said Huq, who advises the caucus of least developed countries to the COP negotiations.

“The practice of this has become problematic. “

The framework did not include rules for this to happen, so for the decision-making body of the UNFCCC – the COP – to make decisions, all 197 countries involved must agree.

“We need unanimity. And of course, that’s a recipe for the lowest common denominator,” said longtime Guy Saint-Jacques. former diplomat and Chief Negotiator and Ambassador of Canada for Climate Change from 2010 to 2012.

In the absence of a formula for determining fairness, the sharing of the responsibility pie has been a key sticking point since the first COP in 1995.

“That’s really one of the challenges,” said Simon Donner, climatologist and professor of geography at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and a member of the Canadian Association of net-zero advisory body.

“There is a legitimate disagreement over what the fairest system would be because there are so many different things to consider.”

One approach would be to shift the burden on developed countries, which have both produced and benefited from historic shows – let the rich early customers start footing the bill.

The Kyoto Protocol tried this, requiring major industrialized countries to meet emissions targets, but not developing countries like China, India or Brazil. The United States never ratified it, and Canada committed but then withdrew in 2011 under the Conservatives, arguing “all major emitters“were not included.

“I concluded from my involvement in the negotiations … that it has become a bellicose forum where it will never be possible to reach a meaningful agreement,” said Saint-Jacques.

The United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which contributed to its downfall. Twenty years ago, American students demonstrated their support for US President George W. Bush against the deal as delegates negotiated how to implement it in Bonn, Germany on July 18, 2001. (Reuters)

The breakthrough of Paris – and problem

The Paris Agreement aimed to learn lessons from this failure.

“One of the many breakthroughs of the Paris climate agreement,” Donner said, “has been the idea that each country submits its own voluntary contribution and sets its own emissions target,” known as of nationally determined contribution or NDC.

“The hope was that it would shame countries to set tougher targets.”

From left to right: Laurence Tubiana, special representative of France at COP21; Christiana Figueres, head of the UN for the climate; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon; the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius; and French President François Hollande react during the last plenary session of the world conference on climate change in Paris in 2015. (Kiara Worth / Earth Negotiations Bulletin IISD)

While this has gained buy-in – including from China and India – it’s a bit like everyone at the group dinner is putting what they think they have to into play. You might run out, and that’s what has happened – until now.

The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, but countries’ NDCs to date put the planet on track for 2.7 – which the UN calls a “catastrophic” path.

A key element of COP26 – with security promised-but-not-delivered funding rich countries to help the poorest adjust – puts pressure on countries to strengthen these plans.

“This is really what Glasgow is going to be,” said Huq. “We have to do a lot more.”

WATCH | Officials temper expectations ahead of COP26:

That on Earth38:07Trust, Fairness, and the Broken $ 100 Billion Promise

Rich countries have broken their pledge of $ 100 billion to help developing countries tackle climate change. This week, find out why confidence is the ‘most relevant currency in climate negotiations’ and what can be done to restore it. 38:07

Eye of the beholder

Despite all the attention to the upcoming marathon negotiations in Glasgow, the real pressure is arguably what leaders are getting at home – if the public demands climate action and is willing to pay for it.

A 2017 The study attempted to assess how people perceive fairness, using an ultimatum game played online with real, albeit low, stakes.

Each participant, who was crowdsourced using Amazon Mechanical Turk, was assigned a certain level of responsibility for climate risk and an amount of in-game currency. They met another random player, the one proposing a financing plan for climate change mitigation and the other responding.

If they could come to an agreement on who pays what, they would avert disaster and get a real cash payment in the range of a few dollars. Otherwise, they would risk a climate catastrophe that would wipe out wealth.

A screenshot of the experimental ultimatum game in a 2017 study published in Climatic Change. The actors, with different financial means (experimental monetary units, or ECU) and responsible for climate risk, were paired up to reach an agreement – or not – on climate change mitigation. (Anderson et al. 2017)

The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, found that players made a lot of remarks about what they thought was “right”, but with a more careful eye on the other player’s record.

“The applicant paid a lot of attention to what the respondent had done… in Paris.

“We definitely tend to downplay our own role. At least that’s what experience has suggested.”

And now?

Despite our human failures and the turbulent history of the COP negotiations, many observers are still optimistic about current attempts to tackle what Donner calls “the greatest collective action problem in world history” .

He will seek parallel or post-Glasgow solutions, including alliances to reduce coal use and efforts in the financial sector led by the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, Marc Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.

Saint-Jacques, who has lost confidence in the UNFCCC process, sees potential in an idea that has been called “climate club“large issuers jointly enacting their own policies, including carbon tariffs on trade.

Students organize a Fridays for Future climate strike as environment ministers meet ahead of the Glasgow COP26 meeting in Milan, Italy on October 1. (Flavio Lo Scalzo / Reuters)

While Huq notes that the fate of COP26 is primarily in the hands of the biggest polluters – particularly the leaders of the United States and China – he is backed by public pressure to act led by young climate activists. Anderson agrees.

“I feel more optimistic now than I was,” she said.

“OK, this generation is not going to put up with the same mistakes that the rest of us could have happily accepted.”

Officials temper expectations ahead of COP26

Ahead of the COP26 climate change summit in Scotland, some officials including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US Climate Representative John Kerry are tempering expectations about what will be achieved amid disagreements over what to do do and how fast. 2:10



Leave A Reply