Dilution of goals ails global climate action

AS a one-time chief negotiator on climate change for India (2007-10), one has watched with growing despair the continual dilution of goals directed towards tackling an existential crisis for humanity. To properly assess the outcome of the recent climate summit at Belem (Brazil), a lesson in climate history may be in order.

Since the high point of universal collaborative intent enshrined in the historic UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992, the trajectory of the annual multilateral negotiations among the conference of parties (COP) to the Convention has been a decidedly downward attrition process.

I was present at Rio when the UNFCCC was adopted by acclamation, and the optimism was palpable. Yet within just a few years, one faced a systematic and cynical effort on the part of developed nations, led by the US, to eviscerate the UNFCCC and transform what was to be a legally binding agreement into a voluntary ‘pledge and review’ set of commitments.

This was achieved through the unilateral trashing of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, which was adopted in December 1997 and in which 37 industrialised countries negotiated binding targets for absolute reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions. This would result in an average of 5.2% reduction in total emissions as compared to the 1992 level.

These binding targets were to be achieved in what was known as the first commitment period (2008-13) after which there would be a second commitment period (2014-19) in which further reductions would be negotiated.

During this 10-year period, developing countries would not be required to accept reductions in their emissions. At the end of this grace period, it was likely that both developed and developing countries would commit to reduce their emissions but in accordance with the principle of equitable burden-sharing. The Kyoto Protocol had strict compliance procedures. If at the end of the first commitment period a country had a shortfall in achieving its target of reduction, then not only would it have to make up for the shortfall in the second commitment period but also have to add 30% more to its new negotiated target as a penalty.

The US, which had signed the Protocol, declined to ratify it. Then, several industrialised countries like Canada, Australia and Japan unilaterally violated the treaty, far surpassed their respective emission targets and refused to adhere to the treaty’s compliance procedure — and got away scot-free. Could one imagine a developing country being allowed to violate an international treaty it was a party to in this brazen manner? Why were they not held to account? This set the stage for serial non-compliance with commitments by developed countries.

The Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 was perhaps the last occasion when developing countries, in particular India, China, Brazil and South Africa — the so-called BASIC group — tried to hold the line against the erosion of the UNFCCC principles. But thereafter the process of attrition has continued apace. A much-diluted Paris Agreement was adopted by consensus in December 2015. This was made possible by China abandoning the BASIC group and reaching a bilateral agreement with the US, which safeguarded their narrow interests while sacrificing the global good.

China was allowed to keep increasing its emissions to reach a level comparable to the US. More importantly, China reinterpreted the crucial Common but Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities (CBDR) principle by adding the words, “in accordance with national circumstances” to the original wording in the UNFCCC. This hollowed out the CBDR principle since it could now be interpreted differently by parties according to what they claimed as “national circumstances.” This was a mortal blow to the equity principle.

China did not consult its BASIC partners before taking this major step but neither did these partners hold it to account. China got away with a serious violation of the UNFCCC. The US-China agreement became the template for the Paris Agreement. The developed countries had succeeded in co-opting China in their evisceration of the UNFCCC.

The Paris Agreement was greeted with intemperate hype a decade ago. Then French President Francois Hollande said, “In Paris, there have been many revolutions over the centuries. Today is the most beautiful and most peaceful revolution that has just been accomplished — a revolution for climate change.”

Since then the US has walked out of the Agreement for the second time under President Donald Trump. It is committed to the revival of the fossil fuel industry and calls climate change a hoax. The world’s largest economy is missing in climate action and this will inevitably influence the economic calculus of other countries, which may see climate action as putting them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the US.

The just-concluded 30th COP in Belem was billed as the “COP of Truth” and the “COP of Implementation.” But the truth is that even the much-diluted commitments of the Paris Agreement have not been achieved nor can one say that the stage has been set for their implementation in the post-COP30 period. The year 2024 was the warmest on record, with temperatures rising 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels. Whatever fresh commitments have been submitted so far for the next global stocktake put global warming on a path to reach over 2.5-3°C by the end of the century.

A UN Special Report has already warned that even a 1.5°C rise could lead to irreversible and catastrophic consequences for the global ecology. We have already passed that turning point. Yet COP30 promises a “Global Implementation Acceleration” to underscore the “Belem Mission to 1.5°C.” But how?

The conference adopted the Mutirao Decision, which resolves to limit “both the magnitude and the duration of any temperature overshoot.” But how will this be possible when it is acknowledged that the “carbon budget consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal is now small and being depleted.”

If truth be told, in a divided and fragmented world, climate is not a priority.