COP28: Inc

The arena is set for COP28 — the “world” is coming together to save the “world” from the “world”


Muhammad Jahangir Kakar November 15, 2023
The writer is a civil servant based in Quetta

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair”, it was the heap of hope, it was the year of COP!

The arena is set for COP28 — the “world” is coming together to save the “world” from the “world”.

The official Joint Statement of the Executive Secretary UNCC and President Designate of COP28 forms a tapestry which is short of but patterns and designs.

Hallucinatory script roared in surreal fashions, the Joint Statement is a repository of epistemological “dis-joints” especially when one reads the statement saying that one of the aims of COP28 would be “closing the gaps across all of the pillars of the Paris Agreement”.

Now, this obviously means “critical things” when read academically. This notion implies that there were severe structural faults within the superstructure of the Paris Agreement. This is so because the definitive word — “pillars” — orients to all that precedes and all that proceeds.

This would also mean that the forthcoming COP28, in dualism, was also correcting blunders committed of COP21 which created Paris Agreement. One wonders how this correction would be done-perhaps, through regression technique or reverse engineering.

Further ahead, the COPian Statement reads “unity is a prerequisite for success”.

But it prompts inquiry: unity of whom and against whom?

This essentiality of “unity” is situated in the Joint Statement only after the Statement accuses the G-20 Countries of being “responsible for 85% of the world’s GDP, but also 80% of the world’s emissions”.

Read uncritically, this turns out to be like an applause than an accusation of the G20 as downplayed is the construct of “emissions” and hyperbolised is the construct of “GDP”.

This is but a failing attempt by the global environmental “institutionalists” in their venture of slaying two dragons with one sword. Emissions are conceived as not so crucial given the hegemonic growth size of the Giants-20.

The Joint Statement, which is setting the tone for the COP28, suffers from an emptiness. For instance, in a love triangle of “vulnerable” people who are affected by “climate change” are seen “looking to us” for recourse. One wonders who are the “us”?...Is it the G20? Well, it cannot be because the statement states that G20 are polluters…is the “us” the people? No, they are the “vulnerable(s)”.

Who are the “us”, then?

Going through the COP28 paradigmatic “sponsors-partners” vortex simplifies things to a greater extent.

COP28 brands their partners as having “a key role in delivering a successful COP28” and necessitates the partners’ continued role to “support the impact and the legacy of the event” in the future.

This, again, prompts inquiry.

This makes the sponsors the stakeholders.

Moreover, it cannot be discerned whether “Event” is referred to the COP28 or the “festivity” of COP28. Anyhow, even If it means the former, the “sponsors” cannot have the legality to complement the impact; and, if it means the later, all ends as the “festivity” ends and no legacy is entailed.

Things get clearer as one advances to know who these honourable sponsors are. We cannot mention these sponsors, multinational corporations, names but can mention their economic sizes such as, just to mention a few,(P-stands for Partner): P1 net revenue of $47 million for the year 2022; P2 worth $42 billion for the year 2022; P3 with worldwide projects worth $30 billion; P4 with brand value worth $10.457 billion; P5 revenue worth $49.4 billion; P6 net income 2022 worth $27.53 billion; P7 revenue for 2022 worth $60.53 billion; and, many others.

COP28 smells money!

It is only now where the ontology of Joint Statement meets its epistemology and settles the meanings of the Statement’s intended “knowledge”.

Nature Inc.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 15th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ