and Society (CLICCS)
World Climate Conference COP26The End of Fossil Fuels: Believing in It Can Help
28 October 2021, by Stephanie Janssen
Photo: UN ClimateChange
The 26th UN Climate Change Conference, or COP26, started in Glasgow on 31 September. Sociology professor Stefan Aykut has been studying climate conferences and the mechanisms behind them since 2007. Political scientist Dr. Jan Wilkens investigates various concepts of climate justice in particularly hard-hit regions. They both work at Universität Hamburg’s Cluster of Excellence Climate, Climatic Change and Society (CLICCS), and are in Glasgow for the conference.
Stefan Aykut, Jan Wilkens, what are the main topics at the COP26 in Glasgow?
Stefan Aykut: The conference’s British presidency has defined four key points: firstly, states should modify their goals for reducing greenhouse emissions so that the 1.5-degree limit can still be met. Secondly, adaptation to climate change should be pushed forward more resolutely. Thirdly, countries in the Global South should receive financial support. Years ago, the conference set the goal of 100 billion dollars per year for adaptation, and emissions reduction, but this is unlikely to be achieved this year. Fourthly, finally completing the remaining points in the so-called Paris Rulebook, which offers guidelines on implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement. Interestingly, the first three points will not be part of the official negotiations, but instead are, in principle, voluntary decisions on the part of the states. As such, it is clear that the focus is less and less on the negotiations themselves. The main point is implementation issues.
Jan Wilkens: Various social movements and civil-society stakeholders will put justice high on the agenda. The question of what fair climate futures will look like, and which paths should lead there is a huge challenge and is disputed at various levels. Which priorities and demands will not only be formulated but also respected? Organizing COP is also a major practical challenge. Several participants have decided not to attend because they don’t consider the COP to be a suitable format. At the same time, other participants are barely able to attend because the financial and organizational hurdles, such as when it comes to entering the country, are enormous and for many unjustifiable. This situation raises the question of how a just future can be discusses at all if civil-society stakeholders affected are absent. What is also at issue is whether the COP is a suitable instrument, in the sense of it being a fair form of international cooperation.
What are the goals this year in Glasgow? What do you think is important – and what can we expect?
Stefan Aykut: The COP26 in Glasgow is the first one held since the break caused by corona in 2020. It is also the first conference since the Paris Agreement came into effect. And although there have been positive signs in recent years – the drop in renewable energy prices, for example, or the announcement of pursuing net-zero emissions by various countries – current efforts are nowhere near enough to curb global warming. Global conferences like this will not bring about fundamental changes, since implementation largely takes place in a national context. Here is where each country’s crucial course has to be set. Nevertheless, such conferences are important because they raise awareness of the issue. They offer new networking opportunities for climate activists, as well as companies, towns and cities. If it means that the climate movement continues to gather momentum, it can increase pressure on political and private stakeholders.
Jan Wilkens: After the long interruption imposed by the pandemic, it’s important for social movements to meet, network and make new plans. How should we conduct ourselves in relation to the COP in the future, especially when there continue to be no visible successes in terms of implementation? How can we create a truly just and global movement considering that people from the so-called Global South and the Arctic have long since been hard-hit by the impacts of climate change? This is not only fundamentally changing their circumstances, but also their opportunities to take action.
Which countries are taking the lead, and which are slowing the process?
Stefan Aykut: The answers change somewhat from conference to conference. Although the USA under President Joe Biden is back on the global climate stage, domestic political aspects make it extremely hard for it to deliver on its promises. China and India are major emitters and can at times be difficult negotiating partners who insist on protecting their right to development. In the last few years, especially Australia and Brazil have stood out for blocking important negotiating points. In this context, the European Union tends to position itself as a trailblazer. The EU recently introduced the “Fit for 55” package, a bundle of measures intended to make Europe the “first climate-neutral continent” and set itself up as a role model. Whether or not this will work is anyone’s guess. Here, too, major conflicts are already becoming apparent, for instance between the eastern member states and the rest.
Jan Wilkens: It’s going to be very interesting to see what countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, which made a big show of presenting their climate targets in advance, will do.
What research question are you personally most interested in this year?
Jan Wilkens: My colleague Alvine Datchoua-Tirvaudey and I will be observing how the topic of climate justice is discussed. We’re interested in the social movements and actors from civil society. In this regard, we’ll especially focus on indigenous actors from the Arctic and the Mediterranean, for example in Western Asia and North Africa. Globally speaking, both regions are harder-hit than average by climate change.
Stefan Aykut: I’ll especially be looking into what could be called the “theater of transparency,” that is, the public discussion on measures introduced by countries and corporations alike. What information needs to be shared, how is it presented, and which audience is it discussed in front of? These are essential questions for the implementation of the Paris Agreement, which is after all based on voluntary participation.
Mr. Aykut, you’ve said that a positive story – or positive narrative – is more important than the actual outcomes of the negotiations. What makes you say so?
Stefan Aykut: The implementation of the Paris Agreement is voluntary. As a result, all of the participating countries can present as many climate plans as they like, which are then collectively discussed but aren’t internationally binding. But in our research, we’ve shown that that’s not the end of the story. The architects of the Paris Agreement also believed that agreeing on shared targets, creating national climate plans, and meeting for an annual conference would produce a knock-on effect of sorts. In this way, private actors like corporations and investors were to be convinced that a transition away from fossil energies was imminent, making fossil investments no longer lucrative. And if they believe this will happen, it makes it more likely that it actually will. That’s the trick. But it’s important that this already be a hope, or perhaps wishful thinking. We need to better understand how global conferences like the COP26 influence actors’ expectations.
The great thing about the COP conferences is on the one hand that all countries sit down at the same table, and ideally ratify a shared goal. But isn’t the process too slow, when it’s only the lowest common denominator that they agree on?
Stefan Aykut: Within the UN system and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, this can hardly be changed. There are petroleum-exporting and resource-rich countries sitting at the table who can block any decision with a veto. Accordingly, complementary initiatives are called for, like on renewable energies, or the current movement to achieve a non-proliferation treaty for fossil fuels. Sub-agreements for specific sectors might also be an option. In this way, specific countries could lead the way, and the results of their efforts could later be fed into the Framework Convention.
Jan Wilkens: It’s also important to bear in mind that governments and their representatives are sitting at the negotiating table. This raises the question of whether important non-governmental actors should also be included. Of course, they represent a broad range of interests and views. But finding a better mode of inclusion is important for climate governance – that is, the actual implementation of measures. Here it’s not about the quantity of participants, but the diverse types of climate knowledge that can be found around the globe, but which are often overlooked.
Within this system, which is based on growth and the exploitation of resources, that is, on capitalism, a fundamental transformation would seem impossible – no matter how ambitious the agreements reached at the COP conferences are. Can this growth-based dogma ever be replaced?
Jan Wilkens: That’s an essential question. Unfortunately I’m no expert, but in the Western context, the debates on the concept of “degrowth” are gaining in prominence. Nevertheless, the topic has yet to gain public awareness. In Germany’s recent federal elections, we could see why not: to capture the public’s attention, you need either a taboo topic or something that’s been stigmatized (like a political party that stands out for what it wants to forbid). Especially if we look beyond our own “Western backyard,” it becomes clear that it’s all about the relation between human beings and the environment.
To put it bluntly: What’ more important: the Fridays For Future protests – or global climate conferences?
Stefan Aykut: Climate conferences should be seen as focal points where a variety of trends come together. So the question isn’t which of the two is more important. Global conferences will surely do very little good if civil societies fail to put pressure on their governments. But without the climate conferences that have been held since the 1990s, would the topic receive so much attention today? Climate protests cite the temperature targets set in the Paris Agreement. And it’s similar in climate lawsuits, like the successful complaint submitted to Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court. The real question is how the dynamics of various political, economic and civil-society movements can reinforce one another – a central point addressed in the recently released Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook. https://www.cliccs.uni-hamburg.de/de/results/hamburg-climate-futures-outlook.html.
About research
When climate protection is conjured up
Climate justice - important but a source of conflict
Die Dissonanzen des Klimagipfels (German)
Is the 1.5 degree target still possible?
The Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook
Contact
Prof. Dr. Stefan Aykut
Universität Hamburg
CLICCS - Cluster of Excellence for Climate Research
E-Mail: stefan.aykut"AT"wiso.uni-hamburg.de
Dr. Jan Wilkens
Universität Hamburg
CLICCS - Cluster of Excellence for Climate Research
E-Mail: jan.wilkens"AT"uni-hamburg.de