DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Ask most people what the annual U.N. climate talks are and the answer is likely: “Huh?” Ask those in the know and the answer might be: “Why should I care?”
The negotiations, called the Conference of the Parties, last about two weeks and are being repeated for the 28th time in Dubai. Delegates use risky terms like “NDCs,” “1.5 degrees” and “loss and damage” at parties, not exactly in a way that would invoke protection. Any final decision is not binding; That is, countries may agree on something, but later they may not be able to comply with this decision. When tens of thousands of people travel to the event, a lot of greenhouse gas emissions are created, which defeats the purpose of the conference.
What’s the point?
Even most climate watchers sometimes ask this question, and there is a growing debate about whether the current process needs major reforms. But when viewed through a long lens – and provided progress is gradual rather than a dramatic event and impact – there are many reasons why the talks may prove valuable.
THEY APPLY PEER PRESSURE
The harmonization effort (in a public forum) is an important part of the COP in the form of the development of “Nationally Determined Contributions” called NDCs.
These are plans by individual countries to reduce their use of oil, gas and coal, which cause the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, and to lay out how they plan to adapt to the effects of extreme weather events.
The plans are being requested by all signatories to the 2015 Paris Agreement, arguably the most important Conference of the Parties to date. The plans are publicly available and set broad targets for industry and individuals in relevant countries to view, while also allowing other countries and news organizations to review them. Countries are encouraged and expected to update their plans and “up their bets,” creating a level of peer pressure on nations to keep promises.
THEY CREATE CLEAR TARGETS
This is something that individual beings sometimes have difficulty doing.
The Paris agreement established a defining goal that has driven climate discussions ever since: Reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels to ensure that average global temperatures do not rise above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, and ideally do not rise above that. . 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Temperatures are currently up about 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit).
As extreme weather events caused by climate change increase and intensify, climate scientists have pushed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. Almost every discussion about climate change these days has 1.5 in mind.
For example, this 1.5 guideline is central to the Biden administration’s climate goals; these include the US Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate legislation in US history, pumping billions of dollars into the green energy transition.
It is also used as the lens through which many decisions are viewed. When oil companies announce plans to launch new drilling projects that will lock in oil and gas production for decades, policymakers can and do criticize the plans for not meeting the 1.5 target. This does not prevent oil companies or anyone else from making counterproductive decisions. Still, it provides a strong frame of reference.
THEY FRAMED THE DISCUSSIONS
Deciding how to talk about something can be an important part of getting things done.
Last year’s COP27 climate talks in Egypt produced a landmark agreement for rich countries to contribute to a fund to help developing countries adapt to climate change. For decades, environmental activists have argued that a “loss and damage” fund is needed because rich nations that industrialize on fossil fuels are largely responsible for climate change, while developing countries are hit hardest because they lack the resources. Enduring floods, heat waves, prolonged droughts and other signs of a warming world.
Initial discussions of loss and damage at COPs were always on the sidelines, not even on the official agenda. This changed last year, when the issue, and therefore the decision, became the centerpiece of the summit.
More broadly, many climate debates today, from reducing emissions to paying for switching to green energies like wind and solar, revolve around the idea that rich countries have historically been responsible for the current situation and therefore have a moral obligation to pay. more to confront it.
THEY SUPPORT SLOW BUT STRONG PROGRESS
The glacial pace of debate without binding decisions or ways to implement agreements can seem like a formula for failure in a world accustomed to visible, sometimes dramatic decisions.
However, the results seen during nearly 30 years of peaks can be called cautiously optimistic successes. For example, levels of greenhouse gas emissions 10 years ago put the world on a path to warming of up to 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, which scientists say will create devastating extremes.
Today’s models show the world is warming by 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. This is still well beyond the 1.5 target and poses a threat to humans; When it comes to extremes, tenths of a degree are very important.
But humanity in general is on a much better path. While many factors have been influential in lowering the emissions curve (technological advances, environmental laws in many countries, the move towards electric vehicles and others), the UN climate negotiations have undoubtedly been a central factor.
THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE
After all, COP is the only game in town.
Even if none of the above is convincing, the truth is that there is no other way for the world to collectively address climate change. Consider how difficult it can be for two people to agree on anything. What about 200 countries?
The Conference of the Parties process gives every nation in the world, rich or poor, big or small, a seat at the table to discuss how climate change affects them and how they believe the world should confront it. They also provide a forum for people from all walks of life to exchange ideas, from young environmentalists to Indigenous activists, bankers and leaders of many industries.
Risky conversations, debates and disagreements will continue in the hope of combating climate change. This is a worthy conversation starter at parties.
___
Peter Prengaman is director of climate news for The Associated Press. AP’s climate and environment coverage receives support from many private organizations. You can find more information about AP’s climate initiative here. AP is solely responsible for all content.