I would say that this year, it will end with better news, but I am afraid that this is not the reality in many aspects. In this case we will focus on the climate problem. Better said at the climatic summit that concluded in Katowice, Poland. It had a duration of thirteen days and it is very clear that there is a lot of talk about the problem, about the possible solutions but at the end of the day nothing is achieved.
At this time, the objective of COP 24 was to agree on a road map, which would serve as the basis for the 197 signatories of the 2015 Paris Agreement to achieve the goal of avoiding an increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius in global temperature. before finishing the present century.
The past
To have a little more information, it must be established that it is the Paris Agreement. It is an agreement within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that establishes measures for the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) through the mitigation, adaptation and resilience of ecosystems for the purposes of Global warming.
“We ought to move forward in the work on the final COP24 document,” COP24 President Michał Kurtyka
Well, at last the document drafted during COP 24, important annotations were made as the common rules that all nations must comply with when reporting on their individual advances in the fight against climate change.
The objective of this document is to give credibility to the processes and generate greater confidence in the actions. The other specific issue is that it recognized the urgency of allocating more resources for the financing of climate actions, especially those needed to mitigate and reduce the effects of global warming.
This sounds wonderful. The problem is that nothing changes. Everything remains on paper and never takes place.
One of the biggest obstacles is that getting the resources to achieve these changes is not easy. The question is whether these resources will be obtained, especially when several of the richest countries, which at the same time are the biggest polluters, are the most reluctant to make contributions or to commit themselves to the actions that are needed.
At the Katowice Summit it was confirmed that the fight against climate change is more political and economic than solidary and realistic. Not only is the United States Government that has decided to deny to do in order to defend its economic interests.
Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also delayed the decisions because they did not want to include the scientific report in which the Panel of Experts of the UN warns about the serious consequences that the planet will suffer if the greenhouse gases are not reduced and Global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Brazil announced that it will not host the COP 25 next year. It also demanded greater compensation for the contribution of the Amazon to the reduction of carbon dioxide.
“It’s not the technology that’s missing, it’s not the science that’s missing, it’s the commitment.”
On the other hand, there is the newly created Coalition of High Ambition formed by the European Union and 14 nations, including Chile, Mexico, Canada and New Zealand. Colombia is not part of the coalition. This group has decided to assume the banner against climate change.
Some things to keep in mind is that COP 24 presented a geopolitical scenario with actors such as the US president. Donald Trump or the elected leader of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro. However, the 197 countries of the pact managed to establish the basic rules (and essential) to implement the Paris Agreement from 2020.
One of the points of greatest friction revolved around a scientific report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A text that the UN itself requested three years ago to explain the impact of global warming.
The United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait refused to accept the report because it implies increasing actions in the fight against climate change. And, obviously, they would be affected monetarily.
The 2nd day at COP24 in Katowice began with the launch of the People’s Demands for Climate Justice. They demanded several things.
1. fossil fuels should be kept in the ground.
2. people-first solutions to the climate crisis
3. all developed countries must honour their finance obligations to developing countries.
The results
So, unfortunately, we can affirm that companies, cities and social groups have become actors who are recognized for their role in fighting climate change.
The World Bank announced $ 200 billion in investments in this regard; and five banks (such as ING, BBVA or Societé Générale) and 17 sports organizations (such as the IOC or FIFA) also announced that they will guide their activities to help in the fight against global warming.
The European Union has the endorsement, in addition to having approved a long-term decarbonisation strategy to achieve a balance of zero net emissions in 2050. It is its kick-off to end the era of fossil fuels.
The commitment to renewable energies (80% of electricity), energy efficiency (consumption must be reduced by half) and transport electrification (which contributes a quarter of emissions) are three fundamental pillars.
This is a lot of information. A lot of critical information to process and it is critical to understantd what wasn’t achieved during the Polish conference.
As if it was something not to be dealt with was how countries will step up their targets on cutting emissions.
That is a critical issue that was somehat ignored. The problem is that we have about one decade left to bring emissions under control and halve them, which would help to stabilise the climate.
What is coming
So after the meeting finished and once again documents where drafted and words spoken. What are the next steps? What will actually happen?
The UN will meet again next year (2019) in Chile and begin work on future emissions targets.
But the most important moment will take place in 2020, when countries must meet the deadline for their current emissions commitments and produce new targets for 2030 and beyond that go further towards meeting scientific advice.
The positive side, if you can affirm that, is that they agree on the way in which they will measure, review and compare the contributions of each country in the fight against emissions of greenhouse gases, with scientific methodology. All countries should submit a biennial report on their emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, their future plans to continue reducing emissions as well as how they adapt to climate change or the impacts they have suffered.
