The media around the world caught the emotion of Alok Sharma, the president of COP26, when he announced the last minute changes to the text of the agreement reached in Glasgow, under pressure from India and China. “I am deeply sorry,” he said, revealing that the commitment made would no longer be to end coal mining, but only to reduce its use.
The expressed disappointment was intended to be targeted, limited to this concession which, in fact, is difficult to justify. The suppressed sob, however, points to a larger frustration, that of the laughable (but predictable) inadequacies of this agreement.
Alok Sharma did not only have sadness to offer at the close of this COP26. He still had some hope, it seems, at least just enough to remind him that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees from the pre-industrial era was still “alive.” “His pulse is weak, and he will only survive if we keep our promises and quickly translate the commitments into concrete actions,” he said, while acknowledging that the next course, that of 2 degrees of warming, would be “A death sentence” for a large number of people.
The UN recently underlined that the current rate of emissions is moving us towards a scenario of 2.7 degrees. However, the commitments made in Glasgow certainly do not herald a radical and immediate reversal of this trend. The “death sentence” Sharma spoke of has obviously already been passed.
The President of the Republic of Palau, Surangel Whipps Jr., spoke on behalf of the Pacific island communities who are currently seeing their future crumble before their eyes. Calling on G20 leaders, President Whipps recalled a folk tale in which a little boy never stops growing, to the point where he ends up swallowing whatever comes his way, decimating the world around him. The analogy is not very difficult to understand. It is the excessiveness of some that leads to the ruin and suffering of others. “There is no dignity in a slow and painful death. You might as well bomb our islands, ”Whipps concluded.
Everything indicates that these calculations have already been made. Millions of lives will be sacrificed in the decades to come. It takes a habit of inflicting a lot of suffering to announce so much while speaking of hope, even with caution.
In addition to his shyness, it is the omission of climate justice that marks the agreement reached in Glasgow. This is wonderfully illustrated by the persistent reluctance to heed the demands for “climate repair” made by the countries most affected by global warming. Several delegations arrived this year at COP26 with a disastrous human and ecological toll: famines, displaced populations, desertified land or engulfed by the sea. It was not a question of projections, but of upheavals of which we already speak in the past, of which we have known the pain. Despite everything, the text of the agreement carefully rules out the creation of a formal aid and redress mechanism intended to support these countries.
The sharing of responsibility for local disasters has haunted international climate agreements since their inception. The question raised is however simple: if the countries which have contributed the least to GHG emissions, and whose financial resources are limited, suffer more from the consequences of global warming, should we not create a fund – systematically financed – to compensate? the losses and damages suffered?
Of course, the destruction caused by the climate crisis is not always quantifiable. You cannot put a pecuniary value on a destroyed ecosystem, on a torn community. Still, the overall distribution of the burden of devastation is the elephant in the room.
In Glasgow, the designated monsters were India and China. It is true that the growth in emissions from these two giants, as well as their reluctance to contain them, is a major obstacle, especially in view of the urgency. Still, it is dishonest to blame “India and China” above all for the delay in reducing emissions, ignoring the fact that the countries of the North have relocated to these emerging economies the production which supports the rate of consumption. of their populations – exporting at the same time part of their emissions. The United States, Europe, responsible for most of the historic GHG emissions, have embellished their recent record while clearing themselves of the deadly economic regime they have established, and from which they benefit more than anyone.
These are dynamics that we know well. The countries of the North show their white paws while passively listening to the anger expressed by the most vulnerable countries. And, in passing, they are careful to cast the odious on emerging economies, even suppressing a sob. Except that inevitably, these ploys will no longer suffice. It will be necessary to recognize that the gluttony of “India and China” is a reflection of ours.