The harshest criticisms expressed before the COP27 were right: after two weeks of tense negotiations, one wonders if these major events are used for anything other than to organize diplomatically the collapse of the world.
No sooner had the conference opened than there was already a dispute over whether it was still realistic to maintain the objective adopted in Paris in 2015, namely to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C. From the outset, a purely symbolic dilemma: admit defeat to reflect the magnitude of the disaster or cling to the current objective while insisting on what takes us away from it.
At the point where we are, strategic optimism does not change much; Above all, we must look at what we are actually doing. Current commitments to reduce greenhouse gases made by States lead us towards an increase of 2.4°C by the end of the century, and the real rate of emissions predicts an increase of 2.8°C . It does not matter if we choose to see the glass half full or half empty.
Still, we found a good catchphrase to convince ourselves of having made a leap forward in Sharm el-Sheikh. While the question had been swept aside out of hand in Glasgow, now we are announcing with great fanfare the creation of a fund to help poor countries absorb the damage already caused by climate change. It is true that this is a concrete step towards greater climate justice, also signaling the relevance of international institutions to correct inequalities in the face of climate change – on paper, at least.
It is not for nothing that we have been calling for the creation of such a fund for 30 years. The question was already on the table when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in Rio in 1992. Unsurprisingly, the countries of the global North were not in a hurry to implement a concrete reparation, so much so that it was not until the Warsaw COP in 2013 that a compensation mechanism was developed.
As environmental journalist Amy Westervelt recently recalled in her podcast Drilled, the negotiator of the Philippines, Yeb Saño, had then imposed the question on the agenda by launching a hunger strike. His country had just been ravaged by the typhoon Haiyanone of the most powerful tropical storms on record — a cataclysm directly attributable to climate change that claimed thousands of lives and caused unprecedented property damage on the island.
Saño addressed the conference attendees in a voice broken with emotion. Referring to the devastation and suffering caused by Haiyan, he declared: “We must tackle the issue of loss and damage head on, it is today a reality throughout the world. At the end of his seven days of fasting, the representatives of the rich countries had finally agreed on the creation of a mechanism to support the countries of the global South in repairing the damage caused by climate change, accompanied by a commitment to inject 100 billion dollars to support vulnerable countries.
The promise, however, remained a dead letter, which was basically very practical, since the countries of the global North can today present the creation of a compensation fund as a great leap forward. On closer inspection, we understand that they are above all revisiting a broken promise to better conceal the shameful maintenance of the status quo on the issue of hydrocarbon exploitation.
It was the elephant in the room at COP27, an elephant parading proudly, as more than 600 fossil fuel lobbyists registered for the conference, according to calculations by Global Witness. This is a marked increase from the Glasgow conference. We tell ourselves that the more critical the situation becomes, the more ardor must be redoubled to position the industry among the “agents of change”.
As such, the federal Minister of the Environment, Steven Guilbeault, seems to have blithely fallen into the trap. Criticized for having invited a consortium of oil sands companies to the Canada pavilion, he retorted that, on the contrary, it is in the name of democratic principles that the industry must have a say. Obviously, decades of greenwashing have paid off: the fox has put on his nice clothes and the doors of the henhouse are thrown open for him.
If the oil sector is so keen on having a seat around the table, why limit itself to giving it a role as an extra? Since the poison has already spoiled the sauce, we could formalize the thing by inviting the big players in this industry to make commitments.
While the question of who will pay for the fund to repair the damage caused by climate change remains unresolved, there seem to be people on this side with bloodstained hands and deep pockets. Reparation for their historical crimes could be their swan song. All it takes is a little political courage.