EXPERT REACTION: COP27 - what has it achieved?

The approach that the EU has taken and agreeing to a loss and damages (L&D) fund if other major polluters such as China and Saudi Arabia, despite not considered developed countries, implement genuine emissions reduction targets was quite clever.

I reckon this was probably one of the announcements that moved the discussion on a L&D fund forward and at the same time put pressure on other major emitters. It emphasised that the highest priority should be to avoid L&D in the first place.

The L&D fund is not operationalised yet and although a breakthrough, in the grand scheme of things probably a small win. Many questions remain unanswered that will be a challenge to agree on: what does it mean to “address” L&D? Who decides which country gets assistance first? How is money being distributed and how much? These are only a few questions that will undoubtedly be on the table at COP28.

The COP27 climate summit dealt with important topics such as the need to boost low-emissions energy and offer financial assistance to nations already exposed to loss and damage.

However, what COP27 did not question is the economy itself. The majority of commercial and government-driven sustainability initiatives worldwide are still subscribed to outdated neoclassical growth theory and thus aim primarily for efficiency gains. Examples include anything from water-efficient shower heads and energy-efficient LED lights to more efficient building designs and smart cities.

However, economists have long known that the relative reductions of efficiencies are nice but do not yield the absolute (“net”) reductions the IPCC demand in order to keep global warming in check. So while many of us feel we are doing “our part” for the environment, economic concepts such as the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, Jevons paradox, Rebound effect confirm that efficiency is good to drive sales but not to fight climate change.

The big industry players attending COP27 are prone to 'technological solutionism' and 'greenwashing' approaches to climate action. Commercial tactics such as planned obsolescence and denying people the right to repair contribute to an increased demand for unregulated mining of cobalt and rare earth metals at the cradle and an increasing amount of e-waste at the grave of supply chains.

Commentators have long pointed out that, 'neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals' and 'a hipster, vegan, green tech economy is not sustainable.' And they are right: Looking at more inclusive assessments based on absolute numbers such as Earth Overshoot Day and Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics confirm that most actions proposed at COP27 are sadly not good enough to avoid the planetary ecocide.

The COP27 climate negotiations delivered mixed results. On the positive side of the ledger, loss and damage is now on the agenda, it is acknowledged that the climate change and biodiversity global crises are interlinked, and the importance was stressed of climate justice in the transition to low emission and climate resilient development and that this requires effective social dialogue and participation of all stakeholders.

On the negative, it remains a major sin of omission (and one that leads to ongoing sins of emission) that the most important mitigation strategy – the rapid phasing out of all fossil fuels for clean energy sources – remains muted in the plan and the reality of what needs to happen is shrouded in mealy-mouthed words.

One interesting decision for Australia is recognition that limiting global warming to 1.5° C requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in GHG emissions of 43% by 2030 relative to the 2019 level. Australia’s current mitigation target is 43% by 2030 relative to the 2005 level. Achieving this revised target will require a fourfold increase in Australia’s emissions in the coming eight years. Are we up to the challenge?

"The positive outcome of COP27 is a commitment from the affluent countries to help poor nations cope with the increasing costs of climate change. After decades of posturing, that is a most welcome development.
  
The disappointing news is that there was no progress at all in reducing the emissions of the greenhouse gases which are causing the problem. Most of the affluent countries have not fulfilled the undertakings made at the Paris COP. There is no sign of the scale of change which would be needed to limit the increase in average global temperature to two degrees. While helping the world’s poorest countries to cope with the damage being inflicted on them is welcome, it would be much better to reduce that burden by slowing the rate of climate change. As has been consistently the case since the climate change convention was formulated thirty years ago, most governments continue to put short-term economic goals ahead of their long-term responsibilities.”

Addressing the growing loss and damage from climate change was the key step forward at COP27. Even though the decision is light on details, it is a start to organising the process. However, COP27 falls short of expectations in other areas.

Whilst recognising the science behind the IPCC reports, the COP27 text did not reflect the clear conclusion by the IPCC that GHG emissions need to peak and start declining before 2025 if the Paris Agreement temperature goals are to be achieved.

The text also markedly weakened the Glasgow COP26 language to accelerate the phasing out of coal by instead referring to the phasedown of unabated coal power, thus leaving a major loophole for coal producers which could significantly delay emission reduction.

Similarly, the clear Glasgow statement to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels is now ambiguous with reference instead to inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Who and how decides what is an efficient or an inefficient subsidy ? And what is the phase-out date ? This is another loophole that is likely to delay emission reduction and which will channel monies to fossil fuel producers instead of directing them to other uses such as the new loss and damage fund.

COP27 reflected the findings of the recent IPCC reports by confirming the growing gap between the current levels of climate adaptation and those needed. However, apart from urging a bit of re-framing and more finance, this crucial but somewhat neglected dimension of climate action was once again kicked down the road until next year.

Whilst the outcomes of COP27 are a step forward, and a shift toward addressing those countries most affected is at the forefront, the issue of energy security and a reliance on hydrocarbons, especially coal, has been overlooked.  The current energy crisis sees the world step back to its greatest emitter, rather than using the crisis as an opportunity for rapid transformation whilst building resilience. Until this is addressed, other measures are unlikely to attain real impact.

I was at COP 27 and I see a divergence of action deepening between states and non-state actors. Nation states are being barricaded into zero action by states that are essentially fronts for large fossil fuel enterprises. They do not allow even the use of ‘fossil fuels’ or ‘oil and gas’ to be mentioned in documents or dialogue.They have prevented any further progress on mitigation therefore.

They did not and could not stop the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund which is the main thing coming from nation states. However, the non-state entities have formed an association (over 1000 are represented) and came out with a powerful report called ‘Integrity Matters: Net Zero Commitments by Businesses, Finance Institutions, Cities and Regions’. It is an amazing report setting out powerful directions for how to do net zero transparently, scientifically and seriously. One of the Expert Group behind this report was our own Bill Hare. The baton has been passed to business, universities, cities and households to get on with the task of decarbonising the future. Global and local markets can undermine these incredibly dangerous companies and their puppet states that want to drag us back from this transition.

The hope is shifting to what we can do now.

"At Glasgow COP26 civil society and Indigenous Peoples across the world participated in representing their advocacy groups, from ‘Just Transition, the inaugural representation of Peoples with Disabilities, Gender Equity, representatives from the UN Local Communities & Indigenous Peoples, Youth and much more. Unfortunately because of the intense and ongoing negotiations at COP27 we have not heard these Voices, and this is devastating in relation to assessing and summarising the more broader discussions and representation of vulnerable peoples, nature-based solutions, climate change adaptation & mitigation and global progress on climate change science, both western & Indigenous Science.

We can celebrate an agreement on Loss and Damage this year, through the negotiation and leadership of the COP President and the collaborating Parties, however as we know many Nation States Indigenous Peoples will miss out because of the longstanding issue of Indigenous Communities that live in the global north such as Australia, however Indigenous Australians are living as a global south as a developing nation of unceded  First Nations, Dr Marshall observed."

“Sadly and ironically, whilst progress on establishing a “loss and damage fund” is a step forward, COP27 has failed to institute measures that will make that loss and damage less likely. Instead it has illuminated a world of nation states which are currently unable to agree to the measures to meet their own target of keeping global heating to 1.5 degrees, or even 2 degrees C. National interests, most notably of the oil exporting countries, have kept the language vague, and evaded the need to rapidly abandon the use of fossil fuels. The preparation for  COP28 next year needs to begin now, with a goal of greatly strengthened mitigation outcomes and establishing levels of funding sufficient to support adaptation to cascading climate impacts. Time is not on our side.”

By agreeing on a fund without details and the 1.5C target remaining without the commitment to phase-out fossil fuels we technically accept to pay for future damages rather than avoiding them

Six years ago, 196 countries adopted the Paris Climate Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2, and preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The main purpose of the climate conference COP27 is to ensure that this goal will be implemented. The scientific consensus is that the global energy sector must decarbonize within one generation. The climate negotiations in Sharm El-Sheikh are a real disappointment as the COP27 declaration fails to call for a binding phase-out of fossil fuels.
 
Furthermore, industrialised nations failed to deliver $100 billion in climate finance annually by 2020, which was part of the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 – and even more funding is required for developing countries to accelerate their energy transition. In the meantime, the four largest oil companies made a profit of over $50 billion in the third quarter of 2022 alone.
 
The decarbonization of the global energy supply within one generation is technically and economically feasible - we have clearly demonstrated that. The implementation of the energy transition fails due to the financial interests of a few. The slow pace of climate negotiations is a crime against our children.

An important outcome of COP27 has been the publication of the report of the High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Commitments. The chair of the Group, former Canadian Minister Catherine McKinnon, said: ‘Right now, the planet cannot afford delays, excuses, or more greenwashing.’ UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres launched the report, emphasizing that ‘we must have zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing.’
 
This high-quality report released at COP27 will provide inspiration for law enforcement, law reform and public policy in drawing red lines around the practices of greenwashing, gaslighting, and astroturfing. This study has also highlighted the need for law enforcement action over greenwashing in Australia by key regulators such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Advertising Standards Board, and IP Australia.

This report should provide encouragement for stronger regulatory measures in Australia to combat greenwashing by non-state actors under consumer law, advertising standards, intellectual property, and corporations law. This report will also provide impetus for the civil society campaigns to push for comprehensive bans on fossil fuel advertising, sponsorship, and promotion.

Cop27 has shown that the fossil fuel industry and their country backers still wield considerable power. Their outsized presence in Egypt at this year’s meeting has left a large black footprint on the cover text. The commitment to 1.5 degrees is anaemic, the mitigation work programme watered down, carbon markets left with some dark corners for shady deals, “low emissions” recognised alongside renewable energy as energy sources of the future (going against the guidance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the failure to tighten Glasgow language on coal phase down to include other fossil fuels.
 
But the agreement on “new funding arrangements for assisting developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change” is a sign that the sun is finally setting on their power and a new era of accountability for climate change is dawning. The text of loss and damage is ragged at the edges, a little lost itself and damaged after chaotic negotiation process but its inclusion - when just two weeks ago having the item on the agenda was itself a victory- is nothing short of miraculous. All kinds of issues remain to be fleshed out – who will pay (rich nations or also China?), which countries can receive funds, where funds will come from (the text refers to “including sources, funds, processes and initiatives under and outside the Convention and the Paris Agreement”), and the monumental task of operationalization to be taken up by a committee due to report back at the next COP.

Even so establishment of the fund is important recognition by rich nations that they will have to pay for the impacts of the climate crisis on poorer nations. With the moral justice of vulnerable nations’ cause endorsed, expect to see legal accountability follow as courts - international and domestic - are increasingly engaged with questions about legal duties of governments and corporations to deliver climate justice to those most in need.

Cover decision reaffirms the Glasgow Pact, but the weaker language that was part of such a large compromise last year on coal ‘phase out’ remains. Nevertheless, renewable energy has a stronger focus, along with the establishment of a just transition work program. The new inclusion of loss and damage – via the establishment of the Santiago Network – was a source of intense and vigorous negotiations through the COP, and a hard-won battle. Clarity on the potential loss and damage fund is still to come.

In an interesting move, there has also been a call to transform the global financial system in order to deliver climate funding, which aligns with Minister Bowen’s critique of the World Bank’s current relevance late last week.

In a new win, there is now a reference to the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is a nod to this right being recently recognised by the United Nations General Assembly just in July.  The noting of the interlinked crises of climate change and biodiversity loss is a welcome step, with hopefully more potential practical work areas to come in the Biodiversity COP next month.