What is in this call to “transition away from fossil fuels” that appeared at the eleventh hour from the hat of Sultan al-Jaber’s presidency at the United Nations climate conference (COP28)? Movement, certainly, even a passage or even a mutation, with a little luck. But nothing that really comes close to an “exit” from fossil fuels as hoped by several States, scientists and environmental groups that we could place on the side of the climate lucids (of which we are).
No “exit”, therefore, but still words that count. Historical and essential, let’s say it, even if pronounced on tiptoe. COP26 made it possible to register a cautious “reduction” in the use of coal. Attempts to extend this elastic language to oil and gas failed last year. They are finally there, not without showing a malleability that opens up to clever conjuring tricks.
We are far from the ardent wishes expressed by the Secretary General of the UN, António Guterres, who believes that “the time has come to demonstrate maximum ambition and maximum flexibility”. The paragraph devoted to fossil fuels modestly speaks of a shift in “energy systems”, which must take place “from the current decade”, in a “fair, orderly and equitable” manner with the aim of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.
How ? In particular by “tripling” renewable energy production capacity, “doubling” our gains in energy efficiency by 2030 and accelerating the reduction of coal. Very good, but how, concretely? As you please, we read between the lines.
We recommend that everyone go their own way, drawing left and right, as they wish. This à la carte buffet includes more alternative low- or zero-emission technologies, more carbon storage and more nuclear power. Ottawa also took the opportunity to add its voice to the twenty countries wishing to triple the capacity of this controversial sector worldwide by 2050. Long national conversations are to be expected.
This flexibility is not bad in itself. Every country has its challenges after all, including ours, which remains among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG). But even the most naive understand that we still leave enough rope for States to hang themselves. The island states are right to shudder, as they are already on the battlefield.
Yes, the text recognizes the need to reduce global GHG emissions in a “rapid and sustained” manner, in order to stay on track with the most ambitious objective of the Paris Agreement, namely limiting global warming to 1, 5°C. But we are already seeing a thousand circumvention tricks popping up which will benefit those who prefer climate mitigation to muscular means to quell the crisis.
Save the planet, yes, but not at the cost of “ruining” our economies, they say in substance. In doing so, they lose sight of the fact that the climate crisis is fueling another devastating fire. In Fatal Fuels published last month, Amnesty International recalls that an increase in the number and intensification of extreme weather events can only fuel an unprecedented human rights crisis.
We must rejoice at the expected realization of a fund to compensate for climate losses and damages in vulnerable countries. But it’s still too timid. There is a collective intelligence to stimulate. Above all, there is cooperation to be built to make the economic system more open to the principles of sustainable development and adaptation strategies. We must more prosaically redirect money in the right direction.
We do not emphasize enough the need to provide decision-makers and citizens alike with a self-defense guide against greenwashing, disinformation and the countless legal and regulatory tricks imagined to torpedo our common efforts, starting with multilateral forums. like the COP.
Because this is also the sinews of the war. The only viable solution remaining, in a world as divided as ours, is a functional, constructive, visionary multilateralism. We see it in our heartbreak over Gaza and Ukraine, we cruelly felt it during the pandemic: this multilateralism is under attack everywhere on the planet and on all fronts. It is not under the aegis of the UN alone that it will regain its splendor.
The COP also needs a serious assessment. We must accelerate the making of decisions bringing concrete effects. More than anything, we must refuse to let it become more rigid under the weight of its own complexity. Climate change is accelerating – the year 2023 will be the hottest in history, according to Copernicus – the COP, and more broadly States and their multilateral bodies, must accelerate the pace to keep pace with this feverish pace.