After thirty years of climate summits, debating the reality of climate change is no longer the priority. Today, the discussion has narrowed down to determining who will pay the price for the measures needed to halt it and deal with its detrimental consequences. When negotiators sit at the table, their diverging stances are led by the economic interests of the countries they represent.
Poorer, developing countries demand vast unconditional aid to reduce emissions and adapt to irreversible changes, in addition to compensation from industrialized countries that have historically caused the largest amount of emissions. Then there are the emerging economies led by China, a country that has become the largest source of emissions while still insisting on extensions and exemptions, seemingly claiming its right to pollute. Rich, high-income countries are largely accepting the principle of halting emissions by 2050 and providing financial assistance to low-income developing countries to support their transition to clean energy and adapt to changes. However, they are still trying to limit their contribution and evade the principle of compensation for the emissions they have historically produced (Loss and Damage concept). Motivated by rising sea levels and its threat to their existence, small island states are bent on immediate steps to halt emissions. Oil-producing countries, on the other hand, consider the rapid elimination of fossil fuels a mortal threat to their economies, livelihoods, and chances of achieving development goals.
The dilemma lies in the fact that all of these divergent interests have some level of validity.
While the concept of "sustainable development" was supposed to lead towards environmental protection and a balanced management of natural resources to ensure their regeneration, opponents succeeded in hijacking it. They did so by interpreting sustainable development as means to achieving unrestrained economic growth. When I contributed with Klaus Töpfer to introducing the slogan Environment for Development, our understanding was that a healthy and clean environment, alongside the balanced exploitation of resources in a manner that ensures their regeneration, are indispensable preconditions for development. When governments and companies considered that this slogan gave them the right to deplete resources and destroy the environment to achieve uncontrolled development, we became ashamed of our role in initiating this slogan.
The same applies to climate action, after the facts of climate change imposed themselves as irrefutable reality, and after skeptics lost their arguments. They also lost the second line of defense, which was that changes in climate follow natural cycles that have nothing to do with human activities. The last line of defense was claiming that climate change cannot be stopped, so it must be accepted as a fact. The priority, thus, must be given to adaptation to deal with the consequences, while continuing with business as usual.
The weighing of conflicting interests and arguments at the negotiation table poses a dilemma. Ranging from small island states’ right to survival to oil exporters’ right to growth and progress, climate negotiators are avoiding answering the pivotal question of what to do when a choice must be made between economic growth and human progress, or between lavish livelihoods and life itself. Most responsibility lies with the rich industrialized countries, which must set limits to unrestrained growth and accept lower levels of luxury, if this is what it takes to make room for poor developing countries to catch up.
I doubt that Donald Trump himself, who is not ignorant when it comes to matters of money and economy, believes that the United States is safe from the increasingly devastating effects of climate change. In fact, his speculative policy is based on pushing others, especially China, to make bigger commitments to accelerate emission reductions and financing, because he believes that the current distribution of commitments gives China a greater opportunity to excel economically.
One of the climate negotiation tactics used in recent years is to create long-term goals whose implementation is difficult to oversee in the short-term. When the deadline approaches, new goals are created, as well as the hope that other countries will fill the implementation gap in the meantime. Instead of immediately rejecting such unfavorable proposals that blatantly obstruct meaningful debate, negotiators – including some from oil-exporting countries, who are most often highly educated and with impeccable diplomatic skills – are adopting a strategy of delay. The main approach is proposing initiatives and alternatives based primarily on technological concepts and procedures, such as carbon capture and storage or planting billions of trees to absorb emissions, thus delaying the pressing need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. While these proposed actions are legitimate and necessary as a means to fight climate change, they cannot be taken as an excuse to continue burning fuels with no limits. The current strategy comes with the risk that if, for example, the implementation of carbon capture technologies is delayed for technological or financial reasons, or afforestation plans clash with water security requirements, there simply won’t be enough time left to devise a plan B.
How were these positions reflected in the climate negotiations at the latest climate summit (COP 29) in Baku at the end of 2024? The Baku Summit backed down from the Dubai Summit commitment of "transitioning away from fossil fuels"- a breakthrough negotiated by UAE’s COP 28 President Sultan Al-Jaber. The Dubai text stipulating that the transition be "fair and balanced" was not even enough to save the commitment, as the mere reference to transitioning from fossil fuels was clearly too sensitive for some oil and gas exporters- most probably emboldened by the prospect of Donald Trump return to power. The UAE spirit which inspired COP 28 was lacking in Baku. On the other side, rich countries, which were expected to cover the funding needed to enable developing countries to confront climate change, delayed announcing the size of their contribution until the last hours of the conference. The amount ultimately committed was $300 billion – a quarter of the required amount of over $1,200 billion annually. The argument was that the rest can be secured by the private sector, in the form of loans and commercial investments, which creates an added burden on poorer developing countries.
The same scenario was repeated at the UN Plastics Treaty Negotiations in South Korea at the end of last year, where parties failed to agree on a timetable to quickly reduce the production of new plastic materials, as was expected. This was due to the objection of a group of oil-producing countries that considered that this prevents them from harnessing their natural resources used in the plastics industry. Ironically, some developed countries demanding to reduce plastics and criticizing the blockers, are to this day still the largest users of plastic products.
Are we at a dead end? The answer is no, as climate and environmental awareness is increasing, and what we are witnessing is actually a tug of war to determine how to distribute the burdens and who pays the highest price. One of the most notable positive developments in 2024 was the arrival of climate justice to the highest international legal authority, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For the first time, it considered a lawsuit filed by countries affected by climate change, along with groups of environmental activists, against countries and companies causing high emissions.
Ultimately, achieving decisive results in addressing climate change, protecting the environment, and sustaining natural resources remains dependent on placing quality of life above growth figures in economic output and national income, and considering the concept of human progress a higher goal than mere economic growth. It must be equally acknowledged that securing the right to survival, decent living and progress for developing countries requires stopping the unlimited depletion of natural resources by rich countries, which requires reducing extravagance lifestyles and waste and accepting lower levels of luxury. Sustainable consumption should be the norm.
Najib Saab, Secretary General, Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED)
