RANT: BREATHING ROOM

WE ALL HAVE CONCERNS, to one degree or another, about the environment—be it the threat of global warming or the health of our air, our water, our lands and forests, and the myriad creatures that inhabit them. None of us (save the odd sociopath or two) wants to leave our children and the generations to follow with a biosphere less rich and diverse than the one we inherited. And yet we will. Not maybe. Or perhaps.  It’s baked into the cake sitting in the oven. 

IN NOVEMBER there was the annual COP gathering of ministers of state, NGOs, lobbyists, and activists (along with hordes of media), all there to discuss and develop a game plan for what humankind should do in response to anthropogenic global warming. The conference was held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, over a two-week period and was the 27^th such gathering since the 1992 Rio de Janeiro United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or UNCED (also called the "Earth Summit"), which set the stage for ecologically sound and sustainable global environmental practices that we see in evidence, today. 

 

COP27 BEGAN WITH MORE than a little acrimony and ended 40 hours later than expected, with a last-minute deal that had as its signature achievement the establishment of a fund to compensate countries negatively impacted by climate change. Just who would fund this new financial vehicle was hotly debated, with China refusing to give up its status (acquired in 1992) as a “developing” country and therefore not liable for “loss and damages” claims made by impacted countries because of its CO² emissions.
 

WHICH WAS A GOOD MOVE considering, today, China is the largest emitter of GHGs (Greenhouse Gases.) Theoretically, this new fund would be financed through donations from large, emitting nations, primarily the global north (i.e., rich nations who were first to develop their economies using fossil fuels). BUT, there was no binding agreement on the amount of money developed countries will commit. So, it’s a bit like building a bank without any deposits. In a worst-case scenario it’s merely a façade, a sham agreement. HOWEVER, it is a step in the right direction: At least there is acknowledgement, however grudgingly given from developed nations, accepting their responsibility for the bulk of atmospheric carbon pollution, with all the cascading environmental effects¹ this engenders—and that they must therefore pay compensation to low-emitter countries for damages incurred. We'll see if that holds true or not in the coming months and years.

 

AN ADDITIONAL BONE OF CONTENTION among delegates was language from last year’s COP26 accord that had signatories agreeing to phase “down” their fossil fuel use, instead of the more strongly worded phase “out”. But the weaker language remained in this year’s agreement. It’s a small difference in legalese but it might have focused the minds of politicians to pursue climate mitigation policies more aggressively.  It should be noted it was only last year that the term “fossil fuels” was used at all in any COP final agreement. One would think that the chief cause of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), namely billions of tonnes of CO² and related gases released each year into the atmosphere, might be mentioned in documents ostensibly designed to combat their effects. I'd suggest that the hundreds of fossil fuel lobbyists (over 600!) and BAUs (Business As Usual) attendees at COP27 might have something to do with watering down the final agreement but I'm afraid of being labelled a "conspiracy theorist!" Sigh.... I’m reminded of the cigarette lobby and its decades-long program of dis-information (to use a much-abused word) disguising and obfuscating the hazards of smoking. 🚭 

[And check out the state-of-the-art cellophane wrap that protects each pack of Camels from mold and mildew. Thank goodness they found another civilian application for plastics after WWII! Ed.]

 

ACTIVISTS WOULD SAY that progress to combat climate change is being made an inch at a time when it’s miles that are needed. To call November’s COP27 a wet squib—I think I already did—and disappointing, is probably how a lot of people feel. Unless you’re in fossil fuels, of course!

AS NATURAL DISASTERS are exacerbated by rising global temperatures and unstable weather patterns, we'll see whether rigorous “climate justice” policies are enacted by developed countries to compensate poorer ones (again, mostly in the global south) who are disproportionately affected by an atmosphere with current, world-wide CO₂ concentration levels of 421 ppm.²

 

BUT, WILL SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES be made to business-as-usual any time soon, here on our little blue ball in space? 

Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.

 

Cheers, Jake.

 

_____________________________

 

1.  LIKE the incredible flooding occurring in Pakistan just as the conference got underway. Damages there are estimated at a staggering $30 Billion, with over thirty million people affected by the unnaturally heavy monsoons, nearly 2,000 dead, and leaving 13 million homeless!)         

2. “This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years to the mid-18th century.” (Wikipedia)

 

 

  I HAD INTENDED to discuss the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD/COP15), just finished in Montreal, but I wanted to go over a couple of things from November’s COP27 climate change shindig. In the end, its’ not much of deal, I think you’ll agree, despite UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierrez's, warning at the start of the Sharm el-Sheikh conference about the “stark consequences” of failure:

 

“There is no way we can avoid a catastrophic situation, if the two [the developed and developing world] are not able to establish a historic pact because at the present level, we will be doomed.”

 

HERE'S HOPING December's COP15 biodiversity bash isn’t a limp noodle like COP27!

 

 

 FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE! FREE JULIAN ASSANGE!