With barely a few days to go before the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, two things have happened. First, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched Mission LiFE (Lifestyle For Environment) on October 20 in the presence of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. It is a global action plan, listing potential lifestyle changes for climate-friendly behaviour.
Second, in contrast, there was a debate on “climate change and security” in the UN Security Council (UNSC). A draft resolution on the same subject in UNSC in December 2021 was fortunately defeated through a Russian veto, with India voting against the draft. The 2022 debate was yet another attempt by developed countries to go outside the comprehensive UNFCCC architecture to evade its principles and commitments and disrupt the balance, among other things, between mitigation, adaptation and financing to the detriment of developing countries.
Last year, India’s explanation of the vote called them out. “Ironically, many of the UNSC members are the main contributors to climate change due to historical emissions. If the Security Council indeed takes over the responsibility on this issue, a few States will then have a free-hand in deciding on all climate-related issues.” But the reasons for trying to “cannibalise” UNFCCC are clear if one looks at the status of implementation of climate pledges by developed countries.
COP27 comes at a time when both developed and developing countries are desperately searching for energy security in the face of unilateral sanctions, the coronavirus pandemic, escalating new and old conflicts, and burgeoning humanitarian needs draining donor funds. For once, the West is also feeling the pinch. Many European Union (EU) countries, such as Germany, Austria, France, Italy and the Netherlands are returning to coal plants. The export of coal to Europe is surging. Bank lending to fossil fuel companies increased by 15% this year. The EU decided that even natural gas is green energy for its “green” taxonomy. Fossil fuel producing countries such as Norway and the United States (US) are raking in money. The EU is on the verge of a recession. The US is faring better by pumping out oil from its strategic reserves, passing the Inflation Reduction Act and urging the Gulf to meet the significant shortfall in the world supply. However, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries-plus (OPEC+) cut down on production, defying the US. China, too, seems to be losing the appetite to “lead” climate action.
The IEA Coal Market Update 2022 predicts that coal demand will likely increase next year to a new all-time high. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fourth Assessment Report points out that to limit the global temperature rise below 2°C, Annex I parties must reduce emissions by 25%-40% in 2020, but did a mere 12.6%. Developed countries seem sure to miss their Paris 2030 targets.
An outcome of the 2021 Glasgow COP26 was the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) agreement. But with the developed world struggling, they will shift the burden of mitigation on to the Global South, non-State actors, multilateral financing institutions and “market forces.”
The $100 billion per year by 2020 pledged at COP15 by developed countries is far from being reached. The Green Climate Fund has few resources left. We are witnessing innovative accounting rather than innovative financing. The best-case scenario claimed is $80 billion. But if one takes out double accounting, inflated calculation due to the inclusion of the project cost rather than climate-related only and the cost of mere “developmental” projects, the figure is less than $40 billion. Still, COP27 can agree to urgent rechanneling of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to developing countries. But it shouldn’t end up repeating what happened during Covid-19 in August 2021, when $650 billion SDRs allocated by the IMF, the largest in its history, went mainly to developed countries based on a country quota within the IMF.
The gap is even more stark when it comes to equal funding for adaptation vis-à-vis mitigation. IPCC AR6 2022 points out that “less than 20% has been for adaptation”, and hardly half has been disbursed, undercutting the main ask of the Global South. IPCC also says that “loss and damage,” which refers to losses that developing countries cannot adapt to, is not addressed. Can COP27 operationalise the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage or at least the financing facility in the face of procrastination by developed countries? It shouldn’t become a “Lost and Damaged” COP! The last thing developing countries want is to be left at the mercy of market forces.
While the world is pinning its hopes on renewable technologies coming good, both on technological and affordability fronts, there is little to enthuse them so far. The corporate world ought to ensure the viability of renewables to run large economies.
India stands as a beacon of hope by adopting robust, upgraded Nationally Determined Contributions, driving down prices of renewables, launching Mission LiFE and spearheading both the International Solar Alliance and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure.
With floods and extreme climate events in the Indian subcontinent and Small Island Developing States, Egypt has called COP27 “Implementation COP”. It’s the last chance before the “global stock take” in 2023 to assess progress on climate action. Developed nations must not backtrack on their Paris pledges but commit to “Global Net-Zero”, which means “Net-Negative” by 2050, and set pathways for climate financing. The Global South should not fall, yet again, for the “divide and rule” policy of the North.
TS Tirumurti was Permanent Representative/ Ambassador of India to the United Nations in New York (2020-22) and a former climate change negotiator
The views expressed are personal
