Why can’t we have serious climate targets?

The current model for climate targets is outdated and does not deliver results. We need to think beyond the old, linear economic mantra of "growth at all costs."

Credits to Rashida Islam

Last weekend, I bought a bottle of wine for my little cousin who just celebrated six months. He will open it when turning 18, in 2039. After doing some researches, I discovered that those wines that get better with time are called “wise” wines.

Eventually, I opted for a Barolo although Amarone and Brunello were very good candidates, too. And while imagining the time my cousin will celebrate his 18th birthday, I wondered: “How will the world look like that day?” Certainly different from today, yet hard to imagine.

First, I thought of a doom and gloom picture of giant glaciers melting and forests burning. But I soon realised that - although this is a real possibility - it doesn’t help to change the mess we are in today. Because people react individualistically to danger: “Oh my God! Now we are stuck. I’ll protect myself and my family".

Instead, the key point is about engaging people. Make them part of the solution by showing where we stand today. And – obviously – this brings me to the outcomes of COP26, the most attended UN climate summit in history.

At first, I wanted to share with you few technicalities that have been discussed in Glasgow, like Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. But what is the point of focusing on the details if the big picture is already an issue? And so, this piece.

The idea is very simple: we have a target - keep temperature increases below 1.5°C by 2100 - and different players that will make it achievable. We need to make sure that the individual commitments sum up to the global target and that everybody is on track. Easy, isn’t it?

Apparently, not. Current policies in place today will lead to a best estimate of around 2.7°C warming by 2100. And our leaders are fully aware of it. The Glasgow Climate Pact “notes with serious concern” that current pledges will see emissions increase by 2030. Thanks for the “serious concern” but what are we actually doing to get on track?

Well, the UN “requests” nations to “revisit and strengthen” their targets by the end of 2022, instead of 2025. Indeed, countries should submit new emission reduction targets, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), every five years. Each submission needs to be more ambitious than the last, thus creating a “ratchet” mechanism. Cool idea.

Does it work in practice? Not really. Ultimately, this “request” is likely to be ignored by some countries in 2022, in the same way that Algeria, Iran and around 40 other nations failed to present new or updated NDCs before COP26. India announced new targets in Glasgow, but has so far refused to formally submit them to the UN.

Nevertheless, supporters of the Glasgow Climate Pact stated that the wording sets a clear expectation that all countries will raise their game next year. What if they don’t? There will be a flooding of intense diplomatic pressure. Is it enough? I don’t think so.

Also, the Pact “encourages” all parties to submit five-year targets, starting with pledges in 2025 for the period from 2031-2035. But, “encourages” is at the weaker end of the spectrum of the UN jargon – and certainly does not enter the realm of an imperative instruction.

***

Do you see it now? These are just empty statements. This is a system based on promises that so far were never achieved. There are no penalties in the climate regime, there’s only naming and shaming. But why is it so? Why cannot we commit to legally binding targets and go full speed to achieve them?

Because all the decisions taken at COP1, COP2,…COP26 were driven by an “invisible hand”: gross domestic product (GDP) growth. All the climate models discussed in Glasgow, Paris, Copenaghen, and so on assume a perpetual economic growth. Ideally, while decoupling from increasing levels of pollution.

But why this obsession with GDP? Is it a sensible measure of human welfare? “GDP measures everything, except that which makes life worthwhile”, Senator Robert Kennedy famously said. And what we measure matters, because it guides what we do.

GDP does not capture health, education, equality of opportunity, the state of the environment or many other indicators of the quality of life. It does not even measure crucial aspects of the economy such as its sustainability: whether or not it is headed for a crash.

Still, it is the unit that rules this planet. Our leaders are not asking for much, just 3% of GDP growth a year. But this tiny percentage on a yearly basis means almost doubling the current GDP by the time my cousin will open his “wise” wine bottle!

We are bursting through all the environmental boundaries and screwing the planet already. And do we need to double all that? It is pure madness. We have to find a better way of measuring human welfare than GDP. And the first step is acknowledging that our welfare does not equal our money.

So what? We can start by leaving the profitable yet highly polluting fossil fuels where they are - underground. But at COP26 it was only agreed to “phase down” their production, with India taking the brunt of the blame. Obviously, Australia, China and the US were all perfectly happy with the watered-down lagnuage.

We need to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it. Greta & CO chanted it loud through the streets of Glasgow: “System change, not climate change!”.

By now, COP26 has come and gone. Then there will be COP27, and many more to follow. But we should face the reality: this UN jaw jaw system has not and is not going to work. You can’t solve a problem using the same logic that created it.

So what? There are no easy answers, but avoiding the issue altogether is not an answer either. Thus my call to action for you: keep reading, learning, and sharing.