DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Ask most people what the annual U.N. climate talks are and the likely answer will be: “Huh?” Ask those who know and the answer may be, “Why should I worry?”
The negotiations, called Conference of Parties, last almost two weeks and are in their 28th edition in Dubai. Delegates use weird terms like ‘NDCs’, ‘1.5 degrees’ and ‘loss and damage’, not exactly conservation party starters. Any final decision is non-binding, meaning countries can agree to something and then not follow through. And when tens of thousands of people travel to the event, it creates a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, which goes against the whole point of the conference.
So why bother?
Even many climate observers sometimes ask that question, and there is a growing debate about whether the current process needs major reforms. But viewed with a long lens – and with the understanding that progress is often more of a slow trickle than dramatic event and impact – there are many reasons why the conversations can be worth having.
THEY EXERCISE peer pressure
Striving for compliance (in a public forum) is an important part of COP – in the form of the development of ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’, also known as NDCs.
These are plans by individual countries to reduce their use of oil, gas and coal, which produce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, and set out how they plan to adapt to the impacts of extreme weather events.
The plans are required by all countries that signed the 2015 Paris Agreement, perhaps the most important Conference of the Parties to date. The plans are public and set broad goals for industries and individuals in the respective countries to see, while also offering other countries and news organizations the opportunity to scrutinize them. Countries are encouraged and expected to update their plans and ‘raise the ambition’, creating a level of peer pressure on countries to deliver on their commitments.
THEY PRODUCE CLEAR GOALS
That is something that individual entities sometimes have difficulty with.
The Paris Agreement set a defining goal that has guided climate discussions ever since: reducing emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels to ensure that the average global temperature does not exceed 2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and ideally not above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Currently, temperatures have risen by about 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit).
As extreme weather events have increased and intensified due to climate change, climate scientists have urged limiting warming to 1.5. These days, virtually every discussion about climate change has 1.5 in mind.
For example, that 1.5 guide is at the heart of the Biden administration’s climate goals, including the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, the largest climate legislation in American history that pumps billions of dollars into the transition to green energy.
It is also used as the lens through which many decisions are seen. When oil companies announce plans to launch new drilling projects that will freeze oil and gas production for decades, policymakers can, and do, criticize the plans for falling short of the 1.5 target. That doesn’t necessarily stop oil companies, or anyone else, from making decisions that are counter to the goal. Yet it provides a frame of reference that is powerful.
THEY FRAME DEBATES
Deciding how to talk about something can be an important part of getting things done.
Last year’s climate talks, COP27 in Egypt, produced a landmark agreement for rich countries to contribute to a fund to help developing countries adapt to climate change. For decades, environmentalists had argued that a ‘loss and damage fund’ was necessary because rich countries, which industrialized with fossil fuels, were largely responsible for climate change, while developing countries were hit hardest because they lacked the resources to deal with flooding. , heat waves, prolonged drought and other manifestations of a warming world.
The first discussions about loss and damage at COPs were always on the margins, not even on the official agenda. That changed last year, when the topic, and therefore the decision, ultimately became the focus of the summit.
More broadly, many climate discussions today, from cutting emissions to paying for a transition to green energies such as wind and solar, are framed around the idea that rich countries are historically responsible for the current situation and thus have a moral obligation to pay. more to be confronted with it.
THEY PROMOTE SLOW BUT STRONG PROGRESS
The glacial pace of the discussions, with no binding decisions or ways to enforce agreements, may seem like a formula for failure in a world accustomed to visible, sometimes splashy resolutions.
But given the nearly thirty years of summits, the outcomes can be cautiously optimistic successes. For example, a decade ago, levels of greenhouse gas emissions predicted the world would warm by 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, which scientists said would cause devastating extremes.
Nowadays, models assume global warming of 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. That is still significantly above the 1.5 target and poses a threat to humans; Tenths of a degree are very important when it comes to extremes.
But overall, humanity is on a much better path. While many factors have played a role in lowering the emissions curve – technological advances, environmental laws in many countries, a move towards electric vehicles, among others – UN climate negotiations have undoubtedly been a central factor.
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION
Ultimately, COP is the only game in town.
While none of the above is convincing, the reality is that there is currently no other way for the world to collectively address climate change. Think about how difficult it can be for two people to agree on something. What about 200 countries?
The Conference of Parties process gives every country in the world, rich or poor, large or small, a seat at the table to discuss how climate change affects them and how they believe the world should deal with it. They also provide a forum for people from all walks of life to exchange ideas, from young environmentalists and indigenous activists to bankers and leaders of many industries.
The shaky speeches, the many discussions and disagreements will continue, all in the hope of combating climate change. That’s worth a conversation starter at parties.
___
Peter Prengaman is director of climate news for The Associated Press. AP climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. View more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.