Stefan Aykut, Professor at the University of Hamburg and a specialist in climate governance, considers that we have too many expectations towards COP. In his eyes, the debate of questioning our economic model must be launched at the national level.
Comment collected by
After the fence, Saturday, November 13, of the United Nations Climate Conference (COP26), Stefan Aykut, Sociologist and Politologist at the University of Hamburg and Governance Specialist climate, returns to the usefulness of COP and the limits inherent in their organization.
What assessment Should you shoot COP26?
A mixed balance sheet. It has shown that climate governance is alive, has survived the health crisis [related to the Pandemic of Covid-19]. But Glasgow’s pact is disappointing about finance, adaptation and North-South solidarity issues. And it is mixed with regard to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. There was an avalanche of promises of carbon neutrality to fill the emptiness of the climate plans submitted for 2030. The crucial question will be to see how these commitments are materialized, which are for the moment declarations, and if it manages to formalize them .
There is a real problem with the voluntary mechanism of the Paris Agreement [concluded in 2015]. Nothing forces the countries to increase their efforts every five years, as the international agreement commits them. States do not want to nail their peers at the pillory. The Onurian, very policed format, is rather to highlight what we do good that to denounce what others do. There is, however, a pressure that works a bit, that of civil society, NGOs, think tanks, media.
We have a lot denounced the “greenwashing” to this Cop …
This is the most commercial COP so far, with an area devoted to companies and initiatives that has been the largest so far. In Glasgow, we saw a beginning of debate on the exit of fossil energies. On the other hand, states have not questioned growth ideology and how to organize capitalism. On the contrary, there is almost a reenchantment of markets and finance as a solution to the climate crisis. The fossil energies lobbyists were very present because they are aware that their future is played out. It should be banned in the same way as the World Health Organization had excluded tobacco lobacies in negotiations on its harm.
Do climate conferences still serve something?
One can get the impression that this is where the future of the planet decides, whether the solutions for the future are decorated, while no. We must think like a arena among others – nevertheless important – in the global conflict that is played on the transformation of the economy. This arena is crossed by the North-South cleavages and the ideology of market economy. COPs are only a registration chamber, a resonance fund of the World Debates. By their structure, they can not be at the forefront of the debates. As long as the debate in questioning our economic model is not launched at the national level, it can not be awaited by COP. It is important to recognize it so as not to be disappointed. Today, they are asked too much.
You have 56.78% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.