The COP-out in Madrid

Dinesh C Sharma

Science Commentator

The silver jubilee of any event is supposed to be a landmark, and something to remember, particularly if it is an event that has been held every year. But this is not going to be the case with the Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which concluded its 25th edition in Madrid last week. Climate talks, as the conference is popularly known, are supposed to chart out a global roadmap to save the planet from catastrophic impacts of unbridled temperature rise in this century. Scientific evidence, as reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is pointing towards rise in temperature and impacts like greater frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. This evidence, however, is not matched by action due to climate politics and industrial interests in fossil fuels.

A lot of hopes were pinned on the talks, which ironically had ‘COP of Action’ as its tagline, and a clock ticking fast towards ‘midnight’ of climate disaster as its logo. The meeting was crucial because it was supposed to finalise the rulebook for the Paris Agreement (adopted in 2015) which is supposed to take effect in 2020. In the end, the Madrid meeting proved to be COP of inaction as no agreement could be reached on key issues on the table — action relating to the Kyoto Protocol before the Paris Agreement comes into force, mechanism to deal with carbon credits to offset emissions, and providing support for ‘loss and damage’ to the vulnerable and poor nations affected by climate disasters.

Despite spilling over its scheduled duration of two weeks — making it the longest session of climate talks so far — Madrid meeting failed to arrive at a consensus on any major issue. Some may argue that it is better to end up with ‘no deal’ rather than a bad deal, but Madrid showed that carbon emitters want to stall any real action that could lead to a reduction in emissions.

In the past quarter century of climate talks, there have been many twists and turns, including a few significant ones, but a firm plan for the reduction of greenhouse emissions has evaded the word. The Kyoto Protocol, agreed to under the UNFCCC, can be counted among the gains of talks during the past two decades. It was the first legally binding international instrument under which developed countries agreed to reduce emissions in a time-bound manner. Less developed ones such as India were left out and allowed to continue emissions to meet the development imperative. Under Kyoto, a system of carbon credits and ‘clean development mechanism’ (CDM) was devised, allowing developed countries to emit and buy offset credits from countries which emitted less. It created a carbon credit market without any sizeable cut in emissions. One of the contentious issues on which Madrid talks failed was the future of the carbon credits and CDM as the world moves towards a new climate governance system under the Paris Agreement. Many countries insisted that they be allowed to carry forward credits to the new regime. The carbon market system, in any case, has many loopholes, including double accounting.

While collective action to reduce emissions in a legally binding manner, barring the failed Protocol, is a distant dream, given the difference that keep emerging, climate talks in the past decade have spurred some action at national level. It was in response to decisions taken under the UNFCCC that countries were forced to draw up climate action plans. The system was formalised later in the form of an instrument called NDCs (nationally determined contributions) which listed actions countries had to take voluntarily to reduce emissions. Every member state had to submit NDCs to the UN and report progress every year. This system has forced countries to look for climate solutions and implement on their own.

Developing countries need funds and technology to fulfil commitments, but there has been no agreement on the same. The Green Climate Fund — established to provide climate funding — has hardly made any headway. Rich countries are diverting existing bilateral and multilateral development funding for climate finance. At Madrid, big polluters also did not commit to enhance their NDCs, while India said it would update these commitments only in 2023, as originally required. India claimed that it was on track to achieve the promises it made under its NDCs and demanded action from the developed countries on the promises they have made. On another issue of compensating poor countries, all that the meeting did was to ‘urge’ developed countries and other parties in a position to scale up finance towards ‘averting, minimising and addressing’ loss and damage. This fell short of the demand for a separate funding mechanism for addressing ‘loss and damage’.

The successive climate talks have seen how rich countries and other leading polluters strategise to protect their business interests and concerns relating to development. The US is not even part of the Paris Agreement and is against any legally binding treaty on emission cuts. On the other hand, demand for greater action from countries like India and China — whose emissions are growing.

The logjam in talks means no concrete action to limit carbon emissions, which could bring the world to the brink of catastrophic impacts of warming. Heatwaves, floods, sea level rise are all apparent impacts. The current decade is likely to be the warmest ever in records. The year 2019 is all set to be the second or third-warmest year on record. Yet the road from Madrid does not hold any promise as of now.