Climate negotiations must face reality and rebuild credibility

Integral to this conversation is the question of responsibility. Given that LMICs will face steeper challenges from climate change than HICs but have done little to contribute to the problem, a looming question of who is responsible for paying for all the damages hangs over international climate talks. It should be no surprise, then, that there is growing anger among LMICs over the position they’ve been put into with little recourse and few financing options that won’t drag them deeper into debt. 

That anger should be a wake-up call for HICs that the situation is untenable; a serious “rescue plan for people and the planet”—one that addresses mitigation as well as adaptation and losses and damages—must be resourced and scaled urgently for any chance to meet international climate and development objectives, or negotiations will continue to fail and fragment. Without a mechanism for international cooperation, climate and development action will fall further behind, quality of life for ordinary people around the world will deteriorate, and development may continue along a path that increases emissions, ultimately undermining human and planetary well-being further.

Unfortunately, even the mitigation efforts of HICs suffer from tunnel vision because they primarily focus on the energy transition. Project Drawdown’s library of over 90 climate solutions across eight sectors reveals that the issues at hand go far beyond the energy transition. While sectors such as food, agriculture, and land use (FALU); buildings; health; and education are receiving more attention than in the past, it’s not nearly enough. Consider that FALU accounts for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, yet last year was the first year that a food systems transformation pavilion was present at COP. This year, in Bonn, food systems transformation received more attention through workshops and side events; however, the conversation remains contentious and has seen little progress on official agendas. 

Some state delegates and representatives from industrial agriculture corporations have taken similar approaches to obfuscating climate science and obstructing climate solutions as some oil and gas companies have. During a food systems transformation workshop in Bonn, an NGO representative spoke to the importance of plant-based diets, only to be scoffed at by representatives from the dairy industry and state parties. Citing the regional nature of food systems, one state delegate suggested that plant-based diets shouldn’t be discussed at global forums. The reality that plant-based diets offer a major mitigation opportunity for HICs and that food systems are deeply interconnected seemed to be dismissed by a proverbial strong arm rather than a strong counterargument.

There is no doubt that international negotiations have been instrumental in moving us toward agreed objectives and a stronger response to climate change. But they are not moving fast or far enough, nor are they moving equitably enough, to make the changes that are needed. This year at COP28, the Global Stocktake will be finalized, offering the world a view not only of the state of the climate but the state of negotiations. This moment offers us a turning point to reinforce commitments, build international consensus, and move toward swiftly deploying climate and development solutions. 

My friend’s text from New York was wrong: The world isn’t dying, it’s being actively attacked by our way of life, the assault is being downplayed by world leaders, and, as a result, the response is being delayed. We cannot let our planet fall victim to the “bystander effect,” where no one takes responsibility and no one steps out to stop the assault in the hopes that someone else (or the next generation) will save the day.  We know the science. We have the solutions. There are no more excuses for delay.