COP30 underscored the fact that solutions to climate change will have to come from technology, not governments.
It is difficult to know where to begin in writing a post-mortem for last week’s COP30 summit in Brazil. The United States did not even send a delegation, as it preferred not to even participate. The parties failed to agree on a more detailed roadmap for phasing down fossil fuel use beyond existing nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The demands from much of the Global South for climate reparations — “loss and damage” — were more muted this time, perhaps reflecting a more realistic expectation of their likelihood of success.
But the one big picture takeaway that emerges from all of this is that it seems that the era of trying to build a unified and elegant global solution for the issue of climate change has come to an end. Ten years after the Paris Accords set a 1.5 Celsius target and a goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by around 2050, it is clear that the details will not be filled in. That is not to say that no progress is being made, but that it is occurring largely on the technological side, not in global rule-making.
Why Did COP30 Fail?
The differing values and interests of the parties do not lend themselves to the sort of fair and rational apportionment of the costs of adjustment envisioned under the Kyoto Agreement over three decades ago, which envisioned a global emissions trading system for the developed world and economic support for low-carbon development in the Global South.
But it is now clear that there will not be unanimity on the notion of phasing out fossil fuel use to anywhere near a net-zero emissions target. It is not just hydrocarbon exporters who oppose this drawing down of fossil fuels, but also some of the least developed countries, where the more acute concern is about relieving energy poverty. It is difficult for the United States to support solutions that tilt development toward renewables when Chinese industry is so dominant in manufacturing the components for renewable energy systems.
It also is clear that, whatever the just and moral answer might be, not all of the richer countries are willing to subsidize low-carbon energy development for the Global South, much less make payments to poorer countries for the “loss and damage” that climate change has inflicted on them through reduced crop yields, more severe natural disasters, and the like.
That is not to say that the process set up under the Kyoto Protocol has been completely useless. The setting of NDCs has given countries individual benchmarks. Even where they are not being met, such benchmarks have arguably led to more carbon reductions than would otherwise have been the case. The mobilization of financial resources from the countries willing to donate for aid also has been useful, as has the discussion surrounding adaptation to climate change, which needs to be more central. But it is becoming very clear that we are not moving toward any sort of global consensus on filling in the details and making commitments more binding.
Technological Mitigation of Climate Change
Meanwhile, though, a lot of progress has been made on the technology front. The installed cost of solar and wind generation is now competitive. Chinese automakers are now exporting electric vehicles priced below $15,000. For many individuals in poorer countries, e-bikes may become the first step into motorized transportation, replacing gasoline motorcycles at that point in the cost continuum. It is troublesome for the United States in a way, as, for the most part, these are technologies where it is dominant. But this absolutely is making a dent in both emissions growth and energy poverty. Perhaps the United States can lead in the nuclear renaissance, which would complement renewables for baseload.
None of this suggests the nations of the world are going to come to a global consensus on how to tackle climate change — very much the opposite — but humanity is muddling through in ways that can be expected to provide at least some degree of mitigation.
About the Author: Greg Priddy
Greg Priddy is a senior fellow for the Middle East at the Center for the National Interest. He also consults for corporate and financial clients on political risk in the region and global energy markets. From 2006 to 2018, Mr. Priddy was Director, Global Oil, at Eurasia Group. His work there focused on forward-looking analysis of how political risk, sanctions, and public policy variables impact energy markets and the global industry, with a heavy emphasis on the Persian Gulf region. Prior to that, from 1999 to 2006, Mr. Priddy worked as a contractor for the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the US Department of Energy. Mr. Priddy’s writing has been published in The New York Times, The National Interest, Barron’s, and the Nikkei Asian Review, among others.
Image: Shutterstock/Zulfugar Graphics
Region: Americas
Tags: Climate Change, COP30, United States, Paris Accord, Kyoto Protocol, Climate Mitigation
Topic: Climate
