THE CLIMATE CRISIS

This year’s UN Conference of the Parties (Cop26) takes place at one of the most consequential moments in human history writes Kumi Naidoo

KUMI NAIDOO has been the global head of Greenpeace and Amnesty International. He is now a global ambassador for Africans Rising for Justice, Peace and Dignity and runs a well-known series of podcasts titled Power, People and Planet

WHAT WE do in the next 10 years will determine humanity’s future – or whether we will have a future at all.

Having participated in several climate negotiations, I think it’s important not to put all our eggs in the Glasgow Cop basket. We will almost certainly be disappointed by the gulf between what governments agree and what actually is required. Climate activist Farhana Yamin outlined what is required in her article “A Manifesto for Justice for Cop 26 and Beyond”, when she said, “Glasgow needs to give a boost to global solidarity and the build back better and climate justice agendas. It can do so by correcting power imbalances and putting justice and fairness at the heart of this and all future Cop negotiations.”

In the lead-up to the Paris climate negotiations, when I was with Greenpeace, along with other campaigning organisations, we made a conscious decision to talk about “The Road Through Paris”, rather than “The Road to Paris”. Even though we knew we needed to do everything in our power to secure the best possible outcome from that move to greener technologies. This “lobbying” raises questions for the Cop26 climate summit.

I wish we could say that we are surprised. But, sadly, this happens all the time: governments saying one thing to appease the public but doing another to support the fossil fuel industry – an industry that sometimes appears to own and control these governments.

Should we have needed any proof? This has happened throughout recent history and is the reason we are in such dire straits in terms of the oncoming climate catastrophe.

In a letter to Alok Sharma, the Cop26 president, Transparency International cautioned that even the perception of conflicts of interest is enough to undermine public confidence and threaten progress towards making the urgently needed progress in these negotiations.

It is critical that Sharma takes steps to make sure his and future Cop presidencies can tackle the climate crisis by eliminating corruption and undue influence at Cop26. But don’t hold your breath.

Even though the $100 billion a year commitment made at Cop15 in Copenhagen was already fought for and won in 2009, we see no sense of urgency to ensure those resources are being made available to poor countries, many of whose emissions are negligible compared to the emissions of those countries that have built their economies on dirty energy.

By the time countries reach the actual face-to-face negotiations, a lot of positions will be already locked in. That is not to say that a surge in global public mobilisation in the remaining days before the Cop26 cannot shift things in a more positive direction, so all efforts should be encouraged and supported.

At the same time, we should not be naive about the limitations of a process that has failed to deliver in almost three decades of negotiations. For example, when George Bush, a climate change denialist, was president of the US, we lost close to eight years of progress. President Barack Obama was only marginally better.

But, sadly, this happens all the time: governments saying one thing to appease the public but doing another to support the fossil fuel industry which sometimes appears to own these governments

What we must recognise is that the writing is on the wall insofar as the crisis is now in plain sight. All countries are going to be saying the right things, including that we have to act now. For instance, Sharma, the UK government-appointed president of Cop26, has proposed four main aims for the summit: Global Net Zero; adapting climate strategy to support communities in need; providing financial support to tackle climate change and governments working together with business and local communities to bring about change.

This might suggest decision making is heading in the right direction but the UK government has a track record of saying one thing then acting differently.

We need to bear in mind the rich nations failed the “Covid test” by hoarding vaccines and putting their citizens’ short-term interests above the interests of people elsewhere, so we would be foolish to take their word as a guarantee.

These actions, and their past behaviour at previous climate negotiations, confirm that global economic apartheid is alive and well. History will judge those nations that go into these climate negotiations protecting the economic interests of a handful of powerful stakeholders and the South African government should not be exempt from that scrutiny.

History will judge those nations that go into these climate negotiations protecting the economic interests of a handful of powerful stakeholders