As vulnerable nations face existential threats, the upcoming UN CoP 30 summit in Belem confronts the critical question: can global leaders finally rise to the climate challenge, or will inadequate commitments continue to imperil humanity?
Frequent and destructive climate events from heat waves to wildfires to drought to heavy downpours causing landslides and flooding across the countries in recent months have disrupted lives and livelihoods resulting in loss of GDP growth everywhere. World leaders have rolled out some actions against Trump’s tariff imposition on imports, but none have come up with proper action against his attack on environment. Top economists Catherine L Kling, Stephen Polasky and Kathleen Segerson have called peers around the World to push back against Trump’s consistent attack on environmental laws by educating public through local, national and international NGOs. Environmental catastrophes are on course to reduce economic efficiency and are threat to people all round including Americans.
Some of the key reversals by Trump are — withdrawal from Paris climate accord, removing well established effects of climate breakdown on public welfare in any consideration in federal policy, ending research funding on environment and climate, executive order “drill baby drill” prioritising fossil fuel energy, reducing investments and regulations that tackles presence of lead and other chemicals in drinking water.
His 24th September speech in UNGA, “Climate change is the biggest con job ever”, “Renewables are a joke, they don’t work” did not match with the views of many World leaders in the audience. Reacting to Trump’s observation in UN GA Ilana Seid, an ambassador from island nation Palau said that she did not expect anything better from Trump and warned that not acting on climate change will “be a betrayal of the most vulnerable”.
Trump called coal as ‘clean’ in his address, “Never use the word coal, and only use the words, ‘clean, beautiful coal’. Sounds much better, doesn’t it?” He also called carbon footprint ‘a hoax made up by people with evil intention’. Responding to this observation Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler said that the term was coined by Oil companies and it may have been designed to shift the responsibility for combating climate change away from corporations to individuals. After Trump reentered White House, Rhodium group forecast reveals that US emission cuts is slowed down by half the rate achieved in last two decades, and is projected to mis Paris targets.
China, the highest emitter of greenhouse gases, in UNGA address during recent discussion on climate crisis has also announced its future plan to cut emission. The country has planned to cut emissions between 7 per cent and 10 per cent by 2035, whereas it is feasible to achieve at least 30 percent cut that is also absolutely necessary to slow down warming of the planet. Experts have made scathing response to this and said that the planet cannot stay within relatively safe temperature bounds, and climatic catastrophes and Sea level rise would continue to threaten the humanity.
However, Xi Jinping in his oblique reference to US said, “Some countries were not rising to the climate challenge. The international community should stay focused in the right direction. [Countries] must live up to their responsibilities. The rights of developing countries must be fully respected.”
China’s enormous power has come from willingness to go for polluting industries (Silicon wafers, rare earths etc), which form the bed rock of modern industry and economy. AI, computers, mobiles, EVs, missiles, defense equipments etc all depend on product of polluting industries. If some of these are unavoidable, burning of fossil fuel must be avoided. If the two largest economies America and China compete with them in not decarbonising themselves, the vulnerable countries like global south and island nations are under threat to vanish from the face of the earth.
Kaysie Brown, associate director for climate diplomacy and governance at E3G think-tank said, “China’s 2035 target falls critically short of what is needed. It’s neither aligned with China’s economic decarbonisation, not its own 2060 carbon neutrality goal. Without stronger near term ambition, China risks undermining its claim to upholding multilateralism and its clean economy leadership, and sending mixed signals to global markets.”
Year on year basis Chinese coal consumption has been surging. In 2024 the country’s coal consumption has been 4.2 billion tons and this year it is on course to reach 4.5 billion tons. Coal sector in China enjoys strong political support within Xi’s government. New coal fired power plants are still being developed, despite a promise made in Glasgow CoP 26 in 2021 to ‘phase down’ fossil fuels. Of course the resolution “phase down” of CoP 26 was modified to “transitioning away from fossil fuel” at Sharm El Sheikh in CoP 27 in 2022.
European and Middle East countries are at war. Ukraine and Russia have been targeting at each other’s energy infrastructures. Refineries, oil & gas pipelines, nuclear power plants and coal-fired plants are targeted, leading to additional greenhouse gas emissions.
If oil & gas stocks are hit by drones and missiles, it comes under flame and obnoxious gases are released that increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Both Iran and Russia have to run their war machine by selling oil and gas and when the stocks go in flame, they have to drill more to meet the demand.
The economy of the countries involved in war including America and European Union are based on war. A sizable portion of the GDP is from defence manufacturing and sale of fossil fuels. These are highly polluting industries and more the wars prolong, warmer is the planet that brings frequent and destructive climatic catastrophes. Can World leaders put their might to stop wars to restrict warming of the planet?
Annual climate summit of United Nations, CoP 30 is scheduled in Belem, a Brazilian city on Pacific coast in mid November. UN climate chief Simon Stiell has been frank enough to admit that the commitments to be made in Belem will fall short of emission cuts needed to contain global warming within 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels that has been committed ten years ago in 2015 in Paris.
The task before CoP 30 would be to show how those inadequate national targets can be stepped up to ensure that Paris agreement is fulfilled. Further, CoP 29 at Baku failed, as developed countries did not commit adequate finance for adaptation and climate resilience in global south. Can leaders be more considerate this time?
The writer is retired Head of Karnataka Forest Force and presently teaches ‘Economics’ in Karnataka Forest Academy