We must stay on the climate life-raft

The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been held annually since the first in Berlin in 1995. The objective was and remains to bring a global effort to addressing the global problem of climate change.

The most recent of COP outcomes was the creation in 2015 of the Paris Agreement, the first legally binding global climate agreement. It aims to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, and reach global net zero emissions in the second half of the century.

The world has made progress in some areas, global electricity generation from wind and solar increased from 9 terawatt hours in 1995 to 4000 terawatt hours in 2023. Yet global emissions increased from 35 gigatons of CO2-e in 1995 to 58 gigatons in 2023. We are not on track, so it is worth reviewing the once-again-incremental progress made at COP29 held this month in Baku, Azerbaijan.

The most prominent headline was an agreement by rich countries to lift help for poor countries in the face of climate change from $US100 billion a year now to $US300 billion ($463 billion) by 2035. While significant, this falls far short of the $US1.3 trillion that was sought at the Baku summit. The detail also matters, since much of this funding is in the form of loans, for which many of the world’s poorest countries cannot meet the interest bills. The acrimony from the developing economies was strong and that will continue, regardless of whether they could be considered “ungrateful”.

Real progress was made on setting the essential rules for a global carbon trading market, including agreement on an international standard for carbon credits aligned with the Paris Agreement. These mechanisms are important in ensuring international action doesn’t penalise economies that take stronger domestic action on emissions’ reduction than their trading partners. Such a structure will help to reduce obstructive domestic pressures against climate action as countries seek to increase their commitments and supporting actions.

The change of president in the US is unlikely to improve things.

Other things didn’t go so well. The global stocktake at the previous conference, COP28, resulted in words around “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, a commitment considered lacking in ambition at the time but which was supposed to be picked up at COP29. However, there were strong moves in Baku by various countries, apparently led by Saudi Arabia, to sideline any real progress on that issue, and the decision has been shunted to COP30 next year in Brazil.

This mixture of incremental progress while the underlying problem inexorably deteriorates is a too-familiar feature of the COP process, and no circuit breaker is yet in view.

Australia has played an active role and had an interest in international action on climate change since 1992, although we didn’t ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol until 2007. Australia has been an active contributor to the COP discussions, with Minister Chris Bowen co-chairing important negotiations in Baku and with our emission-reduction commitments in line with the Paris Agreement.

The Australian Government has been lobbying to host COP31 with Pacific Ocean partner countries. It seems there was strong support in Baku, but no decision was taken and Turkey remains an active competitor for hosting rights. Australia did pledge $50 million to a global loss and damage fund to help the most vulnerable countries repair climate change damage, a move welcomed by some of the most affected island nations.

Australia has our own version of the global problem. We have already breached the objective of containing temperature increases above pre-industrial levels to no more than 1.5 degrees, and national emissions, having fallen from 2005, have flatlined for the past four years. That trend cannot continue. And we must submit our 2035 target early in 2025, an intriguing prospect given the likely timing of the next federal election.

Frustration with the pace and scale of change under the Paris Agreement raises concerns that the COP is no longer fit for purpose. But while the US election changes the president, it does not change the climate. And there are no practical alternatives to what has been described as humanity’s life raft. Australia should stay on board.