Sunday opens the 27e UN Climate Conference (COP27), in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Time passes, fractions of a degree add up to expected global warming and the diplomatic ceremonies follow one another in an imperturbable circle. Amazing how the seriousness in the execution resists the progressive extinction of hope.
The frantic chain of disasters of all kinds makes us quickly forget it (the last year gave us no respite), but the repetition of the ritual recalls the bitter note on which the discussions ended last year, in Glasgow . We will remember the volte-face by India and China, which had demanded, at the last minute, a modification of the final text of the agreement in order to remove the moratorium on the exploitation of coal in favor of a simple commitment to reduce its use. The mountain was giving birth to a mouse, which brought conference chairman Alok Sharma to the brink of tears. “I am deeply sorry,” he told reporters.
The West hastened to designate India and China as rogue mega-emitters, relegating to the background the timidity of agreement on points linked to the historical responsibility of rich countries in planetary emissions. It is very convenient to be able to roll eyes at India and China so as not to have to justify themselves, for example, for having set aside the adoption of an official aid and reparation mechanism to support the countries which today are paying the price for the gluttony of the Global North.
This year, COP27 begins against a backdrop of cynicism and protest. In these pages, we learned this week that Justin Trudeau would not go to Egypt, he who instead appointed his Minister of the Environment, Steven Guilbeault, as an emissary. The Prime Minister’s Office justified this absence by saying that “leaders generally do not attend every summit”, and recalled that Canada was still preparing to host the UN Conference on biodiversity which will take place in December in Montreal (COP15).
Canada should therefore not be ashamed of its “ongoing commitment to fight climate change at home and with [ses] international partners. Here then. It should be remembered, however, that as COP27 approached, the UN invited States to revise upwards their greenhouse gas reduction targets, which are insufficient to keep us on a trajectory of limited warming. at 1.5 degrees. Except that Ottawa has not moved, and rather announced to maintain its target of 40% by 2030 – a target that we are on the way to missing miserably.
The luster of great diplomatic masses for the climate is already tarnished in the ranks of ecologists. During COP26, in Glasgow, David Suzuki announced that he had turned his back on these events, emphasizing that the over-representation of the oil industry was a clear demonstration of their limits. Then, this year, Greta Thunberg announced that she would not be going to COP27, calling it a vast undertaking of ” greenwashing “.
The activist also deplores the lack of space given to civil society organizations, especially in the repressive context of Egypt under President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi. In doing so, she adds her voice to the COP Civic Space coalition, which campaigns for human rights issues to be taken more seriously at UN climate summits.
In 2021, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association warned the world of the growing risks faced by activists and civil society organizations fighting for climate justice, all over the world. As the climate emergency escalates, we see that repression, too, tends to grow — both from states and companies hampered in their ambitions.
The international consultation bodies on the climate cannot ignore this dimension. If we care about climate justice, protecting the rights and freedoms of people at the forefront of environmental struggles must be a priority. Yet at the COP, this would force parties to raise uncomfortable questions, to confront their counterparts about their human rights record. We doubt that this fits with the spirit of good understanding that we want at all costs to reign over these conferences…
Which brings us back to another uncomfortable question: the responsibility of rich countries towards emerging economies, which are struggling to pay the bill for adaptation to climate change. In October, the V20, a group of 58 “climate-vulnerable” states representing 1.5 billion people and responsible for 5% of global emissions, announced its intention to suspend the payment of its collective debt, which amounts to 685 billion U.S. dollars. There are calls for the creation of an international fund to compensate for the losses and damages caused by the climate crisis. Will we still succeed in sweeping this issue under the rug in Sharm el-Sheikh?
If the UN climate conferences are to remain relevant, it will be necessary to accept that in this time of urgency and great upheaval, confrontation is inevitable. Otherwise, you might as well stay home.