Should COP26 be Considered a Success?
November 29, 2021
About the author:
Austin Clayton, Program Director at International Conflict Resolution Center, Washington D.C., and Associate Domain Expert at Dataminr, New York, NY
In their current form, many international institutions, including the United Nations, offer potential for increased cooperation and the creation of tangible results in addressing global crises. However, there are also major shortfalls that largely hold back the effectiveness of these platforms. Looking at the recent COP26 conference, it would be fair to assess the “success” of the conference in this way: countries that are serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions promised to adopt aggressive policies and set ambitious deadlines, while others fell victim to the pressures of domestic politics, pushing back on the targets that the Convention on Climate Change sought to implement. The success of international platforms requires cooperation, consensus, and compromise, but with crises that affect the entire global population, emergency situations cannot be treated lightly.
Prior to the conference, a series of documents were leaked, showing that several states sought to downplay the need to move away from fossil fuels and adopt green technologies in an urgent manner. In its contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessment report, the oil ministry of Saudi Arabia pushed to remove language expressing the urgency of moving away from fossil fuels. Australia issued “recommendations” to remove parts of the assessment recommending the closure of power plants utilizing coal to produce electricity.
In both cases, this is simply a response to each country’s domestic situation. Saudi Arabia relies on its massive oil revenues, and a cut in fossil fuel consumption would damage the local economy, which is not diversified enough for the government to not rely on oil revenue. Coal mining is a large industry in Australia and India, and both countries profit handsomely from exporting the commodity. Both Australia and India resisted the statements issued on coal representing a major pollutant. As oil and coal are both targets of the UN’s climate plans, it makes sense for Saudi Arabia, Australia, and India to push back based on the possible economic impacts.
At the same time, it is nothing but hypocritical for some countries to participate in international platforms, especially as they are larger and more economically powerful and often dictate what smaller, poorer nations can and should do, when in fact, they are reluctant to make the changes themselves.
One “problem” with many international organizations is the inability to truly enforce certain policies. While some penalties can be enacted, there isn’t a true punishment for countries that do not adhere to international agreements or recommendations. In the end, this waters down the true effectiveness of platforms such as the COP26. There is no way to force countries to agree to any targets set, and there is certainly no way to enforce what individual countries have pledged. For the future success of international organizations, especially committees and platforms designed to address global emergencies, ranging from climate change to responding to a global pandemic, there should be some consequence for not adhering to pledges. Perhaps this will lead to less ambitious statements, but it may be possible to increase accountability and see real results.
This article is from the November issue of TI Observer (TIO), which is a monthly publication devoted to bringing China and the rest of the world closer together by facilitating mutual understanding and promoting exchanges of views. If you are interested in knowing more about the November issue, please click here:
—————————————————————
ON TIMES WE FOCUS.
Should you have any questions, please contact us at public@taiheglobal.org
