COP26: Too Much Talk Reduces the Paths to Walk On
The future relies on the condition that these leaders will uphold their promises, and it seems that the world is depending on that “if”
As the world faces the issue of global warming, leaders all over the world try to address this developing problem through the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCC), commonly referred to as COP26. However, it still fails to achieve its purpose for humanity and the environment, as it seems the discussion was too far-fetched from reality and barely scratches the surface of what is the issue at hand.
The conference happens annually but due to the pandemic, the 26th summit was delayed for a year and only took place last October 31, 2021, and ended on November 13, 2021. COP26 concluded with an agreement to follow the set goals written in the Glasgow Climate Pact (GCP), which indicates three cores: Mitigation, Adaptation, and Finance. However, despite the good nature of this conference and of the pact itself, there are a lot of nuances that they failed to address, especially in the context of developing countries such as the Philippines.
Science: Behind and in center stage
An important goal set by the Conference of the Parties (COP) for this year’s UNCC was to maintain the 1.5°C temperature of Earth. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed that any more than this would cause catastrophic disasters all over the world. Currently, humanity is experiencing much worse calamities compared to how it was before, bigger typhoons, more frequent volcanic eruptions, and stronger earthquakes are the effects of global warming.
With this, COP26 values the significant role that science plays in mitigating the harms of climate change. Aside from maintaining the temperature of Earth to 1.5°C, other key points that the Glasgow Climate Pact made on mitigation include halting and reversing deforestation, reducing methane emissions, switching to electric cars, and phasing down coal power.
While there seems to be no issue in halting and reversing deforestation and reducing methane emissions, the opposite can be said to the remaining two. Switching to electric cars has gained criticism, as doubts were raised on whether this will truly be an appropriate solution in addressing the surplus emission of carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, unlike the first two key points where COP26 unanimously agreed to execute actions to achieve these goals, the decision of phasing down coal power is divided due to countries and industries that are extremely dependent on the use of coal.
Admittedly, electric cars do not emit carbon dioxide as conventional cars do, which is the top reason why GCP is speeding up the switch to electric cars. However, the main issue in this proposed mitigation is how the cars are actually “charged.” Considering that electricity is also produced through burning fossil fuels, this hardly differs from the conventional cars that convert chemical liquid fuels to kinetic energy. Unless companies that produce electric cars completely run on renewable energies, this barely counts as a mitigation plan for climate change.
The use of coal across the world constitutes a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, and it is considered to be the number one contributor to climate change. If this continues, the goal of keeping the rising temperature of Earth at 1.5°C will not be feasible. To maintain this, there must be an immediate halt in the construction of new coal power plants, expedited efforts on the use of clean power, and the retirement of existing coal fleets which is estimated to be globally achieved by 2040. With this, a total of 85 countries have committed to a coal phase-out. However, the ultimate decision at the end of the conference was to merely phase down, instead of phase-out, due to the opposition of China, India, and other coal and oil producers. In addition, the Glasgow Climate Pact emphasized the need to include in this phase down the consumption of fossil fuels in the energy sector. Yet considering the massive contribution of coal power and fossil fuels to the emission of greenhouse gases, the question now is: Will the decision to phase down be enough to truly mitigate climate change?
COPs before were highly criticized for not listening to science despite clear evidence that shows the causes and possible consequences of the abusive use of natural resources. But this time, as the current COP listens to scientists behind the study of climate change, the same experts must be placed at the forefront, by allowing them to take part in decision-making and in proposing solutions for the world. The time for science to take center stage is now, especially in dealing with the climate crisis.
What makes the Philippines vulnerable?
The Philippines being part of the Pacific Ring of Fire, and being a developing country are the main reasons why it is extremely vulnerable to global warming.
It constantly experiences natural calamities that have taken numerous lives. Advancements in science and peoples’ initiatives paved the way for disaster response, adaptation, and mitigation. However, as time goes by, the frequency and magnitude of the disasters the country encounters are not proportional to its preparedness to face these calamities. As a consequence, this leads to severe damages to properties, livelihoods, and families.
As a response, the Philippines is among the 80 countries that are part of the GCP-proposed National Adaptation Plan (NAP) which aims to protect the most vulnerable from climate change. Executing the plan in the country takes the form of the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) which is aligned with the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (NDRRMS) plan, and the Philippine Development Plan (PDP).
Financing this effort in the country comes in two folds: first, in helping the country rebuild itself after facing a calamity, and second, in providing subsidies for innovation to pursue the use of renewable energy. The country’s delegates for the UNCC were led by Carlos Dominguez III, the country’s finance secretary. Dominguez pushed for the allocation of funds for the poor and vulnerable countries. The Philippines has been a representative for developing countries to push for the provision of financial aid to help in achieving their nationally determined contributions (NDC). Ideally, this collective effort would result in a greener, healthier, and safer environment for everyone in the world.
However, issues regarding adaptation and finance still prevail due to the failure of the UN to recognize the relevance of socio-political issues in the countries that ultimately affect how these goals are being met.
In discussing adaptation, the aftermath of disasters remains a problem due to the lack of operational relief, the slow response of the government, and ultimately, insufficient budget. Contrary to what most people think, the Filipino narrative of resilience is far from true. Rather, this image of resiliency rationalized the exploitation and abuse that the people are so accustomed to. Filipinos are essentially left to fend for their own. And the refusal of the government to allocate more funds for research and development concerning the environment is a major reason why the country struggles to attain a healthier and more sustainable environment.
Even if the financing was provided for the country, the issue regarding the improper use of funds persists due to graft and corruption. However, in the Philippine context, the nuances that are yet to be addressed in terms of adaptation and finance lies in the ability (or inability) of our leaders to translate these plans into actions. The manner in which government policy is formulated and implemented contributes the most to the country’s degree of vulnerability.
Promises are not enough
Quoting COP26 president Alok Sharma, “We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But, its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action.”
The future relies on the condition that these leaders will uphold their promises, and it seems that the world is depending on that “if.”
If we are to put our future on the premises of these hollow promises then we are left to constantly hang by thread, consequently leading this world to damnation. Words do not always translate into deeds, and the moral conscience of leaders is not always guaranteed to cater to the needs of humanity and the environment.
This varying moral conscience is specifically harmful due to the existing term limit of government officials in some countries. This term limit drastically changes the prioritization of the interests of the country depending on the officials participating in the decision-making body of the COP. Standardized solutions must therefore be implemented by the UN while allowing leaders to make adjustments according to the socio-cultural and socio-economic context of their countries. Through this, countries, especially developing ones, may obtain a clear guide for the implementation of environmental policies.
The conference must not only be a platform of discussion but a generator of action. Clear mechanisms on how climate change should be addressed must be put in place. While conceding the fact that the economic status of countries relies mostly on big business, the number one polluters in the world, this should not dampen our sense of urgency for we are living on borrowed time. The UN has the power to enact sanctions and initiatives and this could have been utilized, not just to encourage, but to task governments to push corporations toward more sustainable means to produce products and services. Sustainability does not have to translate to revenue loss, especially when we have technologies that could potentially counter this while resolving our growing environmental problems.
However, nothing more has come from the recently held conference save for mere encouragement, acknowledgment, and recognition. After this, what happens next? There have already been numerous conferences regarding climate change but we are yet to see results. Our sense of urgency should be at its peak right now, yet we still sit comfortably on our chairs, discussing solutions with hardly any execution, taking our time without noticing how much of it is left for us. Promises are not enough to guarantee us our future. Setting standards and rigorously implementing a reward and penalty system are possible ways to ensure that leaders will push for projects relating to the preservation, if not the improvement, of current environmental conditions.
