Are COPs truly “fit for purpose”?

The bottom line

> In what is projected to be the hottest year on record, and with carbon emissions at an all-time high, the legitimacy and effectiveness of climate COPs has been called into question. The IPCC warns that carbon emissions need to be reduced by 43% by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Yet 2024 marks the first year this target was broken. COPs require urgent reform if they are to provide legitimate, trustworthy and clear leadership in effectively limiting warming.

> The high number of fossil fuel delegates attending the COPs calls into question the ability of the Summits to deliver on emissions reductions. Limiting fossil fuel delegate numbers and requiring them to provide evidence of their industries’ decarbonisation efforts could help restore public trust, while still involving the industry constructively in the energy transition.

> Agreements achieved at previous COPs have lacked clear metrics, financing frameworks and quantitative commitments to cutting carbon emissions. Reforms are needed to ensure that future agreements incorporate quantitative goals with clear timelines, funding frameworks and institutional oversight in order to provide meaningful, actionable opportunities for change.

> As the Trump administration is likely to oversee a return to anti-climate change rhetoric and withdrawal of the US from key climate agreements, COP summits will become more important than ever for financing, implementing and monitoring climate adaptation and carbon reduction solutions. To cancel COPs altogether so close to the 2030 carbon reduction deadline would send the wrong message and leave global carbon emission reduction programmes in disarray.

Why are COPs feeling the heat?

The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP) hosted by Azerbaijan faced controversy since before it even began. Early issues included a lack of female representation on the Organisational Committee, reported plans to conduct oil deals at the climate conference, and statements by Azerbaijan’s President that oil and gas are “gifts from God”.

Then, last week came an open letter signed by former UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon, senior climate scientists, former EU member state presidents and CEOs, which asserted that COPs are no longer “fit for purpose”.

While the letter praised the ability of previous COPs to deliver “scientifically rigorous and economically sound” global policy frameworks for reducing global emissions, it said they could no longer deliver the speed and scale of change required to prevent global warming surpassing 2.9°C by 2100. The letter was not explicitly targeting COP29 or Azerbaijan; rather it was the second letter sent to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stating that COP summits themselves were no longer viable for producing substantial and meaningful action on reducing carbon emissions.

This is a view that is starting to gain traction in the media and wider public opinion, and reflected among citizens and members of the Vulnerable 20 (V20) island nations who are turning to courts to expedite action for climate adaptation.

A crisis in legitimacy?

Global carbon emissions are at an all-time high at 37.8bn tonnes emitted per year, up 57% from 1995 levels, when the first COP was held. This is far from the IPCC’s target of reducing global carbon emissions by 43% by 2030 in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C. At the same time, COPs have been heavily criticised for allowing an increasing number of delegates from fossil fuel industries to attend while emissions continue to rise. In 2021, 500 fossil fuel delegates were present at the UK’s COP26; by 2023, 2,456 fossil fuel delegates were at Egypt’s COP28.

It is widely recognised that fossil fuel production cannot be discontinued overnight, as the reality of the energy transition is that it is a gradual process where fossil fuels are phased out over time. Some commentators argue that it is therefore pragmatic to involve the fossil fuel industry in climate discussions to ensure that agreed frameworks for emission reductions are feasible and do not cause major disruption to global energy supplies and prices.

However, the overwhelming presence of fossil fuel delegates at COPs – they continue to outnumber representatives from scientific institutions and the V20 – reveals a stark imbalance in representation, which calls into question the commitment of COPs to deliver effective climate action.

The open letter to the UNFCCC suggested a solution; that COPs permit the entry of fossil fuel delegates based on strict criteria requiring that delegates demonstrate their businesses’ commitment to emission reductions. This policy combined with a cap on fossil fuel delegate numbers would be a potential step forward to improving transparency and restoring trust in COPs’ ability to deliver on the decarbonisation process.

Barriers to further progress: Who foots the bill?

Despite success in achieving agreements on global policy frameworks for carbon emission reduction, COPs face criticism over their ability to implement agreements.

An oft cited reason for this is financing. There have been challenges in agreeing frameworks for financing green projects in developing countries, with green finance being transferred into high-interest loans, resulting in increased debt for vulnerable nations. UN Secretary Antonio Guterres has stated that this is hampering developing nation’s abilities to act on climate change, and that stricter and clearer criteria for what constitutes green financing is needed to prevent vulnerable nations incurring unnecessary high debts.

Furthermore, an agreement to deliver a $1trn per year loss and damage fund has been met with significant diplomatic challenges. The sum, previously agreed at COP15, has been cited by some researchers as an outdated figure that does not provide sufficient funds to meet today’s challenges. There are also disagreements on how to reliably and consistently meet this target each year, with some experts calling for a windfall tax on annual fossil fuel profits to finance the fund. Annual fossil fuel profits are currently estimated at $3.5trn per year.

Further conflicts over climate financing have emerged regarding government subsidies for fossil fuels. Since 2020, explicit subsidies for fossil fuels have more than doubled to $1.3trn per year. Implicit subsidies bring the total value of subsidies to $7trn per year. Researchers at the London School for Economics suggest that removing explicit subsidies could reduce carbon emissions by 5% by 2030, and further decrease emissions by 43% in the same period if implicit subsidies are also removed. The International Institute for Sustainable Development has suggested that the subsidies could be reinvested into renewables.

Yet trust in whether these financial challenges can be achieved by COPs is being continuously eroded due to crises in legitimacy and representation.

The way forward

COP30 in Belem, Brazil, will face its greatest challenge to enact meaningful action on climate change yet – the likely absence of the US. It is anticipated that Trump will repeat his previous administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Earlier in November, Trump stated, “We don’t have a global warming problem” and called climate change “a hoax”, signalling his administration’s likely return to anti-climate change action and a decrease in federal investment into green industries and renewable projects.

The absence of the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter will have a significant impact on carbon reduction and climate change adaptation projects. However, it also may represent an opportunity for other countries to step up in the US’ absence. The UK government announced in Baku last week its intention to reduce carbon emissions by 81% by 2035 – down to 1990 levels, potentially providing the UK with an opportunity to lead international action on addressing carbon targets. Yet China, as the world’s largest investor in renewable energy, may also seek to capitalise on the US’ absence and prove its credentials for leading carbon reduction at future COPs.

Regardless of who steps into the fore, no forum is yet better placed to help convene countries to work on tackling climate change than COPs. To cancel them whilst global carbon emissions and temperatures continue to rise would send the wrong message. Reforming them so that they are better able to robustly track climate financing, streamlined to increase the speed and scale of project delivery, and made more accountable through increased monitoring and oversight could greatly aid in their ability to deliver large-scale and fast-paced change.

Image source: CC By 4.0 International