Written by Jessica Kleczka
The 27th Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change took place in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt this year. Despite being proclaimed the “COP of implementation”, COP27 has been widely condemned as a disappointment. Hosted in Africa, the continent most vulnerable to climate change, this year’s global climate conference failed to mitigate emissions and therefore further climate breakdown around the world. While one historic win - an agreement on loss and damage - deserves recognition and indeed celebration, the overall picture is not good enough. But have world leaders in Sharm-el-Sheikh truly given up on the Paris Agreement?
The lack of ambitious action at this year’s climate conference can be traced back to several factors: geopolitics, location, and weak leadership. Russia’s war on Ukraine had caused gas shortages worldwide, causing governments to push through domestic gas reserves - even where renewable energy would be the cheaper and more timely option, as new oil and gas often takes many more years to build. This geopolitical turmoil allowed leading oil- and gas producing nations to undermine negotiations, and significantly water down agreements.
Having taken place in a military dictatorship where protest is outlawed and activists risk being imprisoned, COP27 has been criticised as one of the least inclusive ever. Available accreditation for civil society had been restricted, and astronomical hotel prices in the holiday resort Sharm-el-Sheikh meant that many people working with grassroots groups and smaller NGOs were prevented from attending. Protest was severely restricted even on UN grounds, with Fridays for Future strikers prohibited from naming specific countries or politicians.
Lastly, Egypt disappointed with its lacklustre leadership and inadequate transparency. COP27 president Sameh Shoukry didn’t show a lot of interest in securing an agreement, commenting that it was “up to the parties to find consensus” and only ramping up negotiations when they had already run overtime. Meanwhile, Germany warned its delegation of Egyptian spies at the conference, activists were having their phone screens photographed by security staff and voiced concerns around digital security, and imprisoned activist Alaa Abd-el-Fattah’s sister was harassed by an Egyptian MP during a press conference.
COP27 did, however, conclude with one major victory: the first ever agreement on loss and damage, meaning that richer, higher-emitting countries will pay damages, or “climate reparations”, to poorer countries who are least responsible for the climate crisis but suffer the worst impacts. After being blocked by historic emitters such as the US, UK and EU, loss and damage was hailed as a breakthrough and huge step towards climate justice by small island nations who had spent years campaigning for the deal.
At this point, nothing is set in stone just yet. The details of the loss and damage mechanism will need to be negotiated at COP28 in Dubai, including who will contribute and who will receive money. One major point of contention is China’ position, a country which is now considered a major world economy and whose per capita emissions are now comparable to European countries, but is reluctant to contribute to the fund as a nation which is highly impacted by climate change. Whilst the agreement itself is cause for celebration, there is still a lot of work to be done, and conversations to be had leading up to the next conference.
Arguably, COP’s failure to come up with more ambitious emissions targets that would allow us to keep global heating below the safe threshold of 1.5°C, was largely influenced by the huge presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the conference. A staggering 636 oil and gas representatives were present at COP27 - that’s up more than 25% compared to last year, and outnumbering any one frontline community affected by the climate crisis. The result? Private interests outweighed groups encouraging a rapid fossil fuel phase-out through the sheer number of delegates.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the final agreement signed by the parties failed to call for a phase-out of all fossil fuels -which was requested by 80 countries, including the UK, India and the EU. Instead, we are left with the weak demand of “phasing down coal and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. There is a cruel irony in agreeing to a loss and damage mechanism whilst failing to curtail and subsidise the very industry which causes most loss and damage. Currently, the world is on track to produce double the amount of fossil fuels that would be compatible with 1.5°C, and many countries with huge renewables capacity like the UK are pushing through new oil and gas, whilst governments receive generous donations from the fossil fuel industry.
The UK, which likes to call itself a ‘climate leader’, is set to approve the biggest undeveloped oil field in the North Sea, Rosebank, which would emit as much CO2 as the world’s 28 lowest-income countries, or 700 million people, do in a year. Only a few weeks ago, the UK’s Net Zero Strategy was deemed unlawful by the High Court for its failure to quantify emissions reductions. Our leaders are saying one thing on the international stage, only to pursue business-as-usual upon their return. Clearly, COPs are not working as they should.
While the COP27 agreement failed to introduce new and more ambitious emission reduction targets, it is not entirely accurate to say that world leaders “killed” the 1.5°C target at the conference in Egypt. Earlier this year, the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report already warned that we are very likely to overshoot this threshold in the next decade, but can bring temperatures down again if ambitious policies are implemented. In principle, this hasn’t changed. But every day we waste, that overshoot moves closer and 1.5 becomes less achievable. Recent analysis shows that we currently have a 50% change of breaching the Paris Agreement target in the next eight years. But it’s important to note that it wasn’t COP27 that closed the window for 1.5 for good - but the next few years will be crucial.
As many climate activists have stressed during the climate conference: The most important thing is not what happens in the two weeks during COP, it’s what happens in the fifty weeks between the conferences. COPs have rarely led to transformative policies, and many of the wins we have achieved in recent years were driven by people on the streets, organising in the background, suing their governments and building a public mandate. It was people who pressured the UK government into declaring a climate emergency as the first country in the world. It was people who paused the Cambo oil field. It is people who are leading climate conversations in their communities, nationally and internationally, constantly pushing for better.
While COPs are often crushingly disappointing, despair is not an option. Giving up on 1.5 would mean giving up on the lives of thousands of people in the most affected areas around the world. It would mean playing into the hands of the fossil fuel interests who do not want us to act. Because they know we are their biggest threat, and that we have the power to take away their social licence and end this destructive industry once and for all. In order to do that, we must overcome our differences and act collectively, building bridges and strong coalitions. We have done it before, and we can do it again. Together, we can stop new fossil fuels and achieve what COPs will never be able to do: Build a better world rooted in community, solidarity and collective liberation.
Cover photo: Marie Jacquemn
