What has COP 27 accomplished?
Prior to hosting COP 27, Egyptian leaders emphasized the importance of the issue of loss and damage. Even before the 2015 Paris Agreement, developing countries had been advocating for a loss and damage mechanism - ideally an international organization that would allocate funds for recovering from catastrophic climate-related events (e.g., floods in Pakistan, typhoons in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, drought in East Africa). An important first step would be a commitment - from developing nations - of funds for a loss and damage program. Up until the final hours of COP 27, an agreement on loss and damage funding seemed unlikely. Developed countries, led by the European Union, were persuaded to support a loss and damage fund. The United States, which had long resisted such a fund and program, agreed to support the proposal and provide some funding. While for some parties this decision made COP 27 a success, other parties, particularly NGOs, were frustrated the the COP 27 agreement did not urge the phasing out of fossil fuels. This article from The Guardian summarizes well the key outcomes of COP 27. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/20/cop27-climate-summit-egypt-key-outcomes
We always emphasize lowering carbon emissions for everyone but what about developing countries? The way every first world country got to where it is now is through the use of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution where they used as much as they liked to industrialize. How are we supposed to expect these already struggling countries to invest in more expensive power while they are already struggling financially and are using fossil fuels precisely because they are cheaper. One way we could is buy funneling money to these impoverished nations but then that relies on countries willingly giving up billions of dollars to help support nations they may not care about.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that it is easy for global superpowers, who became so strong due to the consumption of fossil fuels to forget the struggles that come with being a developing country. As a developing country, you will consume a lot of natural resources because that is what you have to work with. Couple that with the fact that Europe came in and decided that those countries' resources were their own, leaving these developing countries not much wiggle room. And as such, they need the money to support themselves and their rise into the market economy, all of which they have to do without heavy reliance on fossil fuels, a struggle that the global superpowers of today did not have to go through.
ReplyDeleteStarting with fixing things in countries when it comes to climate change sounds like a very good first step. Fixing things can provide a good foundation for building future plans to help the climate. If we were to just leave those issues be we would not be super efficient in our fix towards climate change. We must get rid of the old in order to build the new.
ReplyDeleteThe difficult part of phasing out fossil fuels is that the world has become so dependent on them for so long that I think, frankly, most people don't even want to think about making the change. However, if we are to truly tackle and reduce the effects of climate change, this will become a necessity. There are so many forms of energy, such as nuclear energy, solar energy, wind power, and hydro power that could replace fossil fuels, but arguments arise including nuclear energy being unsafe, solar energy and wind power being temporary things because the sun is only out for a certain period of the day and the wind is not always blowing. Hydro power has already been used but we could implement this even further to reduce fossil fuel energy. Hydro power is the cheapest energy source and brings a great amount of energy and power with it. Fossil fuels has been so helpful because they compliment our busy lifestyles. What if everyone decided to slow down in life? Maybe we produce a little less products, drive around less, and maybe the slower lifestyle would lead to people being generally more happy and a healthier world.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is certainly a good thing (although rather surprising) that the United States agreed to support the loss and damage fund, after reading the article from The Guardian, there certainly seem to be some disappointments in outcomes. The removal of the resolution to peak emissions by 2025 and the failed resolution to phase down fossil fuels are far from ideal. There certainly were some good things to come out of the summit it seems, but I personally don't think that it is anything near enough compared to what needs to be done. I think the issue of fossil fuels is interesting, as many countries came to the summit for gas deals, but India proposed the phasing out of all fossil fuels on the other hand.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely seems like there were some success and letdowns with the outcome of COP 27. I am really glad that the United States and the European Union have finally agreed to helping with a fund for loss and damage as a result of natural disasters. With disaster after disaster, I can't imagine the financial stress citizens of poorer countries face as they struggle to find a job, replace the belongings they lost, and provide for their families with limited opportunity. I am saddened to hear that a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels had not been agreed upon. I think that would be a major step in the push to correct climate change before the damage done is irreversible. I do wonder how a commitment like this would work in the United States. Would people be forced to give up their personal property because they use fossil fuels? If so, how would people react?
ReplyDeleteThis was interesting to read and it is also interesting to see how the same change can be classified as both beneficial or not strong enough depending on who you as. I am curious, thinking back to all of the COPs you have participated in, which would you say had the most impactful accomplishment and what was that accomplishment?
ReplyDeleteIn the past it seems like many countries have not upheld agreements or indefinitely put off their commitments. Is there any kind of discussion at these conferences about enforcing the programs?
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a potential argument to be made that it is wrong to place all these bans on carbon emission-based energy sources after the countries establishing them have elevated themselves into stable economies. It can be viewed as potential targeting to smaller countries to stop their progression.
ReplyDelete