COP29: tourism triumphs over climate responsibility

ISLAMABAD':

Climate change has endangered the future of the planet and humanity. The lack of will and wisdom complicates the future of coming generations. We are handing over our children, whom we claim to love the most, to disasters, a vulnerable and struggling world. On one hand, our children will have to grapple with the economic and financial crisis, which is deteriorating every second. On the other hand, climate change has raised the stakes, putting the planet and future generations at even greater risk. Although climate change vulnerability is increasing every day, actions are in a backward mode. The global leadership does not seem to be in the mood to act.

The UNFCCC COP, created to find and implement solutions, has become a gala event. Participants come together, enjoy different cultures and food, and then disperse. The most recent example is COP-29 in Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan failed miserably in steering COP-29 in the right direction. Like previous COPs, it failed to deliver on climate expectations but was a success on the tourism index. It provided an excellent opportunity for diplomats and government officials to visit and explore a new country. However, despite all the tall claims, the final document does not meet expectations. In fact, it has been dubbed the worst joke in climate history. After recognising that the world would need $1.3 trillion to combat and mitigate climate change, the document proposed only $300 billion for climate action. Moreover, the document is silent on how these commitments will be met.

Meanwhile, the least-developed and poor countries are seeking answers to some fundamental questions. First, will the proposed financing be another unfulfilled promise like Copenhagen's $100 billion? Will there be more loans, and rather expensive ones? Will it consider the vulnerabilities and needs of developing and least-developed countries? Will this proposed money be used for fair distribution and assistance in combating climate change? Or did developed countries and Azerbaijan create an opportunity for the World Bank, the Western private sector, and other institutions to profit from people's miseries? Right now, we do not have answers to these questions. The most critical question is whether the financing will consider historical responsibility, the principle of equity, and a fair distribution of resources. Unfortunately, history is quite alarming. In the past, developed countries never delivered the promised $100 billion. Instead, they promoted a loan culture—a rather expensive one, as Oxfam highlighted in its report. Many countries are already facing a debt crisis. According to the latest report from the Institute of International Finance, global debt has reached $315 trillion. Alarmingly, debt is accumulating at an unprecedented speed and with severe implications. The main culprit of this mounting debt is the "interest-based" economic and financial system. The financial system, specifically the banking sector, is jeopardising the world's economic future. Thus, expensive climate loans will further complicate the situation for these countries. They will also compromise institutional strength to tackle climate change and exacerbate vulnerabilities.

Second, available financing is highly skewed in favour of mitigation, whereas developing countries need funding for adaptation. Third, the financing mechanisms in place do not cater to the needs of disaster-hit countries. For example, Pakistan suffered devastating floods in 2021, with initial estimates showing losses of $30 billion. Despite efforts to secure assistance from various institutions, Pakistan received no substantial aid and had to rely on loans, further complicating its already high debt obligations. Pakistan is only one example; similar cases can be found across Asia and beyond.

Last year at COP-28, the world created the "Loss and Damage Fund" to assist disaster-hit countries. However, after a year of its establishment, it has only received $731.15 million in pledged money—a mere fraction compared to the world's needs.

Furthermore, developed countries often ignore principles of historical responsibility and equity when providing financing. These principles remain among the most contentious topics at COPs. Developing and least-developed countries insist that developed nations should contribute in line with their historical contributions to climate change. However, the developed world continues to deflect attention from these principles, shifting responsibility to developing countries. The Financial Alliance for Net Zero exemplifies this strategy, significantly hampering the fight against climate change. Consequently, developing and least-developed countries bear the worst consequences of this approach.

The increased emphasis on the private sector's role and the shedding of government responsibility offer an opportunity to redefine historical responsibility. Currently, this concept is confined to states, which excludes the private sector. However, the private sector is equally responsible for climate change and is one of its main contributors. Historical data underscores this argument.

For instance, big oil companies such as Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now BP), Gulf Oil (Chevron), Shell, Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon, later ExxonMobil), Standard Oil of New York (Mobil, later ExxonMobil), and Texaco (Chevron) have been major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since the 19th century. Standard Oil, one of the pioneers, dominated global oil and gas production for decades, controlling more than 80% of global reserves, including those in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, by the 1970s. Coal-producing companies also played a dominant role in GHG emissions. Beyond oil and coal, companies in sectors like steel, iron, and automobiles have significantly contributed to global emissions.

Industrialisation provided these corporations with immense opportunities to earn and accumulate resources while disregarding environmental and climate concerns. Colonisation further enabled the exploitation of resources without accountability. Globalisation amplified this exploitation, allowing corporations to profit from resource-rich, weak nations while ignoring environmental obligations. Through bribery and coercion, these companies expanded their GHG footprint worldwide. Instead of paying for their contributions to climate change, these corporations now attempt to portray themselves as saviours of the planet. They seek to erase their history while profiting from the very miseries they caused. This raises an obvious question: if they are leaders in tackling climate change, as the developed world claims, then who created the crisis? The answer is clear—they were, and remain, part of the problem.

Against this backdrop, the UNFCCC must redefine historical responsibility to include the private sector. The liberal economic and governance model holds businesses accountable for their actions, so multinational companies should also bear responsibility. A comprehensive study of major corporations should assess their historical fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Based on these findings, they must be held accountable for their contributions to climate change.

THE WRITER IS A POLITICAL ECONOMIST AND A VISITING RESEARCH FELLOW AT HEBEI UNIVERSITY, CHINA