The United Nations has been looking for issues deemed larger than the perennial conflicts of traditional geopolitics. It created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 to acquire the authority to run the global economy so as to “save the planet” and “equitably” share the benefits of “sustainable” (i.e., limited) development. It holds a massive conference (over 65,000 attendees) towards the end of each year staged as if governments were adhering to UN mandates. The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) in the FCCC series concluded Saturday (Nov. 23) in Baku, Azerbaijan. It ran a day over the two-week schedule as compromise language was hammered out that would allow member states to do as they pleased.
As much as the UN bureaucrats hate to admit, the UN is still a member organization, with the world’s leading national governments making the real decisions as to the policies they will adopt to advance the best interests of their citizens. There are no UN mandates. This concept was formally eliminated at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. That meeting was the peak of the FCCC campaign with a massive buildup by activist groups around the world for the two years prior. President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage him to commit to the UN climate agenda that President George W. Bush had rejected.
COP15 was supposed to adopt a “legally binding” treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The plan had been to impose on the “rich” developed countries a requirement that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be cut by 25-to-40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels. Such a drastic measure would have locked the developed countries into a permanent recession. Meanwhile, the developing countries, led by the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) coalition, would not have had any mandated restrictions on their GHG emissions because they have a sovereign “right” to economic growth. The terminology was “common but differentiated responsibilities.” All must be concerned, but only some (the West) need to do anything about it. In the last days of COP15, President Obama met directly with the BASIC delegates and told them either everyone has a mandate to act, or no one does. The frank result was no one has a mandate. Instead, each nation is simply “called upon” to report to the UN what they are doing about climate change (if anything).
The look back at COP15 is important in understanding COP29, as the division between the developed and the developing countries was at the center of the negotiations with the latter again insisting on the old, discarded Kyoto formula. The purpose of the Baku summit was much reduced from past meetings, reflecting the evolution of thought of member states against the demands of the UN bureaucrats. This was apparent in last year’s COP28 held in Dubai (a site which like Baku is based on oil production) There were commitments to triple renewables capacity and double energy efficiency by 2030 and to make progress on adapting to any climate change that occurs rather than curtail (or even reverse) energy use and other human activities in an attempt to prevent climate changes. The favored approach was incremental and cost-conscious. The final language called for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” (giving plenty of wiggle room) while the term “phasing out” fossil fuels was rejected.
most recent projections, if the world is able to generate a high growth rate between now and 2050, energy demand will increase by 56%. Increased use of renewables will contribute to this increase, but not replace the fossil fuels which will continue to be the foundation of the world economy. Even coal, the main target for transition, will be up by 18%. Natural gas will be up 69%. Indeed, all energy sources will be needed to generate high growth, with the mix reflecting practical matters of reliability, affordability, and security more than fear of climate change. Economic growth is still the higher priority, with a rapid expansion of nuclear power as a much more practical, non-emitting source than wind or solar.
COP29 was hailed as the “finance summit” where the international struggle would be over who would pay for “loss and damage” from climate change and the transition to clean energy. President Joe Biden had opposed setting up such a fund, fearing its inevitable corruption, but finally agreed at last year’s meeting. The funds demanded are very high, with the figure $1.3 trillion per year set as the goal. The developed world, led by the European Union, initially offered $200 billion per year in public funding, doubling the prior goal of $100 billion set at COP15 but not reached until 2022 (with $5.8 billion coming from the U.S.). Under pressure, the sum was pushed up to $300 billion, to be reached by 2035. Unspecified is which countries pay what, and whether the funds are in the form of grants or low-interest loans. The UN demand that “commitments be turned into cash immediately” fell on deaf ears. Politicians know that despite decades of alarmist rhetoric crying “wolf” at each storm cloud, taxpayers are not up to paying to fight climate change, and even less willing to suffer reduced living standards.
To meet the $1.3 trillion UN goal will depend on development banks and the private sector. Good luck with that! Talk of giving the UN taxing authority to raise the money was a non-starter.
China, India, Nigeria, and Brazil led the developing countries in denouncing this transfer of wealth as inadequate. Earlier, these more advanced developing countries rejected the idea that they might also be rich enough to pay something to help the rest. Sun Shao, a senior researcher at Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, told Global Times (the official media outlet of the ruling CCP), “developed countries are looking to China to shoulder more responsibilities. But the problem lies in the fact that developed countries have ignored the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities… China needs to fight back against unreasonable funding demands and avoid taking on excessive responsibilities that are not appropriate for its stage of development.”
In the real world, all nations, including the U.S., are still developing. The American people still have unmet needs which in many cases are quite serious despite the overall success of our society. President Donald Trump took the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, the core document of the UN climate agenda, during his first term and has pledged to do so again. While an important signal, it makes little practical difference as leaders around the world have ignored the UN to set their own agendas. These are judged by their own citizens as to whether they are improving their lives or making them worse. The Biden-Harris administration was out of step with world practice in this regard, spending wildly on a “Green New Deal” that only pushed up general inflation as well as costs in vital sectors which were foolishly targeted for decline. The costs were rung up at the polls.
One of the few major national leaders to attend COP29 was the new UK Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer who wanted to flash his Green credentials. Yet, in his report to Parliament upon returning, he had to claim, “At every meeting I had at COP and the G20, and in every agreement I entered into, my focus was on tackling these problems to deliver growth and security for the British people.” And he was clearly at odds with those further Left on climate policy when he declared he was “not interested” in telling people “how to live their lives.”
Even in the fantasy land of the UN, reality rears its head. President Trump’s rejection of the “climate emergency” delirium will not make him an outlier, but a leader in the continuing world-wide effort to build societies in which people can lead better lives on their own terms.
William R. Hawkins is a former economics professor who has worked for conservative think tanks and on the Republican staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has written widely on international economics and national security issues for both professional and popular publications including for the Army War College, the U.S. Naval Institute, and the National Defense University, among others.
Image: COP29
