Can COP30 Fulfill President Lula’s Hopes of becoming the Summit of Climate Truth

COP30 has come after some climate summits which appeared to be diminishing the significance of these events. However, just before the latest climate summit started in Belem (Brazil), President Lula da Silva raised the expectations high by positioning this as a summit of Climate Truth.

More specifically he stated, “If we fail to move beyond speeches into real action, our societies will lose faith not only in the COPs but also in multilateralism and international politics more broadly. That is why I have summoned leaders to the Amazon: to make this the COP of Truth; the moment we demonstrate the seriousness of our shared commitment to the planet.”

President Lula has also spoken of several new initiatives at COP 30 like Tropical Forests Forever Facility, a ‘Declaration of Hunger, Poverty and Climate’ and a UN Climate Change Council linked to General Assembly.

We’ll no doubt be hearing more about these but the bigger question is whether a big and real climate breakthrough can be achieved. What are the wider challenges involved in this, including those that are important but neglected?

Can COP30 really live up to the hopes raised by the President of Brazil? Facing the truth also includes such bitter realities as the most powerful leader of the world stating that he considers climate change to be “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” As this quote from President Trump indicates, the USA with its capacity for the biggest impacts, for good or for worse, is moving further and further       from its responsibilities in the context of climate change. At the same time, even Europe is more in retreat than in advance, particularly in terms of its financial commitments for helping the climate efforts of developing countries. With the entire west backtracking, the UN stated recently that developing countries are receiving less than 10% of the money they need to cope in a world increasingly vulnerable to weather extremes.

So, it gives some hope when President Lula says, “To confront this crisis together, we need resources. And we must recognize that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility remains the non-negotiable foundation of any climate pact. This is why the Global South demands greater access to resources—not out of charity, but justice. Rich countries have benefited the most from the carbon-based economy. They must now rise to their responsibilities, not only by making commitments but also by honoring their debts.” 

This is well stated, but this still leaves unanswered the question of what is to be done if the rich countries simply refuse to live up to these responsibilities, and sometimes even deny these responsibilities altogether?

President Lula has further stated very appropriately, “we must recognize that the most vulnerable sectors of our society are the most affected by the impacts of climate change, which is why just transition and adaptation plans must aim to combat inequality.” This is absolutely correct, but the question remains that given the increasing inequalities in the greater part of the world and the glaring inadequacy of climate finance at the international level, how can we overcome these problems in the real world?

In the course of my field visits in remote villages in India I regularly meet small farmers who are making a great effort to shift to natural farming, and I can see that if adequate climate finance was available and well-used almost all small farmers in these villages would be happy to shift to natural farming, thereby greatly reducing the burden of fossil fuels in a very large number of villages. In fat in the ideal world of adequate climate finance supported with good plans taken forward with the participation of farmers in very creative ways, a lot can be achieved even in this late stage to create the kind of hope that President Lula has spoken about. But let us also face the existing truth that the situation just now is quite grim.

Dr. James Hansen, the senior scientist at NASA who gave some of the earliest warnings about climate change has written a paper with a telltale title—How We Know that Global Warming is Accelerating and that the Goal of the Paris Agreement is Dead’. In this paper he has written that global warming of 2 degree C will be reached by 2030 (as compared to the widely agreed objective of limiting this to 1.5 degree C above pre-industrial levels). Dr Hansen has stated, “The 1.5 degree limit is deader than a doornail.”

The reasons being given for this failure are no less worrying. Dr. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change has stated—“The fossil fuel industry has now completely corrupted the COP process.” At a wider level, it is increasingly felt that the best possible agenda for climate change could never be formulated because of pressures from several powerful lobbies.

It is also increasingly realized that wars, weapons and all the related activities and preparations together account for perhaps the biggest single use of fossil fuels and for greenhouse gas emissions, apart from all the other destructions that these weapons and wars cause. The powerful military industrial complex has been getting even more powerful and has played an important role in all the never-ending wars. Such issues do not even get discussed at COPs although it must be clear to all that preventing wars and establishing a strong agenda of peace is integral to checking climate change and other related global environmental problems, both in terms of controlling a massive source of GHG emissions and also for establishing the essential conditions of peace, stability and international cooperation needed for resolving life-threatening environmental problems led by climate change.

It is increasingly clear that fossil fuel use is too huge to be replaced entirely by safe renewable energy sources and so the overall burden of commercial energy should also come down significantly. This necessarily involves big reduction of all harmful goods (for example all weapons and intoxicants) as well as reduction of wasteful goods and high luxury products. However, such reductions at a global level have not received the much-needed attention at all.

The COP process has often spoken of a justice-based approach to climate change. However, in a fast-reducing carbon space (apart from other constraints), should not there be a clearer and stronger prioritization for meeting the basic needs of people at global level? If carbon and other environmental limits are not to be transgressed, then surely in these times in order to prioritize basic needs of all, there must be reduction of destructive, harmful and wasteful goods and services, as any relevant and credible model would reveal. But such reductions and restrictions hardly get the desirable attention in COP priorities. However, justice concerns are voiced by the COP process in the context of a green climate fund to help developing countries. Unfortunately, this fund has been kept so short of actual needs and its progress has been so tardy that the faith in its capacity to make a very significant contribution has been badly eroded, although of course efforts should be made to make the best possible use of what is available.

While initially there was higher recognition on the part of at least some developed countries of ‘differential responsibility’—the much higher historical role of the developed countries in creating the climate change crisis—this too has seen back-tracking to avoid the compensatory responsibilities associated with this. According to the Human Development Report 2007-08, the carbon footprint of the USA is five times that of China and over 15 times that of India. In Ethiopia, the average per capita carbon footprint is 0.1 tonnes of CO2 compared with 20 tonnes in Canada. A calculation made by P.R.Ehrich and A.E.Ehrich in their book, ‘The Population Explosion’ shows that the life of one USA citizen represents twice the environment burden of a Swedish citizen, three times that of an Italian, thirteen times that of a Brazilian, thirty-five times that of an Indian and 280 times that of a citizen in Chad or Haiti.

In a world of extreme inequalities internationally and locally, not only is the environmental burden of the richest countries and sections very high, in addition the poorest sections are very highly vulnerable. Much has been said about increasing the adaptation capacity and improving the resilience of more vulnerable communities. Of course, there are important geographical and regional contexts for this—for example people of islands and coastal areas are more vulnerable. However, at a broader level, it can also be said that the poorest people everywhere are highly vulnerable. The landless farm workers in villages or the migrant construction workers in cities will probably have to toil even in blistering heat brought by global warming just to provide food to their families unless significant remedial and relief steps are taken. Yet as worldwide inequalities have been increasing, enough has not been done to help the poorest people in terms of accessing basic needs or improving the adequacy and sustainability of their livelihoods. What is more, due to injustice and inequalities at international level, the conditions relating to trade, agriculture and food, investment, patents, debt are often rigged against the poorer countries in several contexts, increasing the difficulties of the poor and vulnerable there and also making it more difficult for the national governments to bring significant improvements in their prospects. All this has an important bearing on retarding the adaptation and resilience of vulnerable communities.

Thus, whether we look in terms of adaptation or mitigation aspects of climate change, the reality is that of a worsening and more worrying situation. All the rhetoric at various COPs has not been able to change this basic reality yet. In fact, the situation would appear more worrying if there is greater transparency in explaining the progress claimed to have been made so far so that it becomes clearer to what extent this is real progress. In order to divert attention from real issues, big business interests have been placing emphasis on some technological fixes and making exaggerated or even false claims for them.

COP30 must face all these uncomfortable facts, and bring its discourse much closer to the reality (which is very grim).

We may conclude with these words of the Human Development Report, “Future generations will pass a harsh judgement on a generation that looked at the evidence on climate change, understood the consequences and then continued on a path that consigned millions of the world’s most vulnerable people to poverty and exposed to the risk of ecological disaster. Our starting point is that the battle against climate change can-and must-be won.”

Box—Quotations

Let’s not forget we shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive. –Albert Einstein

We are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility of our future. –George Bernard Shaw

Earth has enough to meet the needs of all, but not their greed. –Mahatma Gandhi

The deeper problem is that the world lacks a clear, credible and long-term multilateral framework that charts a course for avoiding dangerous climate change—a course that spans the divide between political cycles and carbon cycles. –Human Development Report, 2007-08

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children—American Indian proverb

Prudence and care about the future of our children and their children requires that we act now. –Human Development report 2007-08

We must act now with determination and urgency. Everything that must be done should have been done yesterday. Tomorrow it will be too costly. –Former UNDP Administrator James Gustave Speth

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071.