Checking my mood at the turning of the year
The first of three short posts marking the beginning of 2024
Introduction
The turning of the year has encouraged me to reflect on how I am feeling about the world and my place in it. This has taken the form of, firstly, a personal stocktake, taking into account the recent COP in Dubai; then consideration of the implications of that for me and others like me working as lawyers and specifically how the Three Horizons model may be helpful in responding to them; and finally, a broader attempt at sense-making in these times.
This will comprise three short posts over the coming days, with the first one below.
A Personal Post COP Stocktake
The recent COP included the latest Global Stocktake of how each nation is performing against their own nationally determined contributions. This is my own measure of how I feel about the outcomes of that jamboree: the short answer is surprisingly positive. Generally there was much to be offended by, but the big signals emerging from the noise were clearer than ever. I think this is helpful, even if it demands a particular interpretation. By way of example:
Ø the inevitability of the demise of fossil fuels has, finally, been formally recognised. Over 130 countries called for a statement that they should be phased out and, whilst that did not make the final text, the commitment to transition “away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner” is an acknowledgement that making no reference to the role of fossil fuels in climate heating is no longer credible. The debate is no longer if, but when, phase out occurs, whatever the official text says.
Ø the final statement reiterated both the goal to hold increases in the global temperature to 1.5°C and that this requires a 43% GHG emissions cut by 2030 and 60% by 2035 relative to 2019 levels. This is the critical reference point in terms of what must be collectively achieved, against which all acts and omissions must continue to be measured.
Ø in the light of this, the knowledge that emissions are still rising, with only seven years now in which to achieve those reductions, exposes the fallacy of the commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels”. Whilst some of the larger corporates are busy producing Transition Plans, none of these are consistent with the speed and scale of emissions reduction required. As it stands, the pathway for transition is wholly inadequate. Transition could have been orderly (as the final statement proposes) had efforts begun at the turn of the century. Without swift and significant change in this regard, orderly transition is now less likely than chaotic collapse.
Ø the commitments to a transition that is “just” and “equitable” also ring hollow when the nations who have profited most from the activities causing global heating continue to resist fully funding the loss and damage fund, or supporting the necessary mitigation and adaptation actions required by poorer nations. They do, however, continue to subsidise the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $7 trillion a year, even as that industry announces annual profits of $4 trillion. The money is evidently available; just not the will to align action with the words. As with resisting the fossil fuel phase out, this position is untenable for any party genuinely seeking to address the crisis we face
Ø industrial agriculture was present at this COP in greater numbers than ever, trying to persuade anyone who would listen that they are not, in spite of all the established scientific evidence, a major contributor to climate heating and environmental degradation. Closely following the fossil fuel playbook, this is an admission the sector knows it is next in line and a heads up we need to be ready to accelerate the process of cleaning up agriculture without having to repeat all the steps undertaken with fossil fuels.
You might reasonably ask why fury is not the most appropriate response to all this. For me, this feels like the pretence is over. Obviously, the Saudis and others have no intention of adhering to the Paris Agreement ambition, whatever they may sign up to out of political expediency. Clearly, the US are not going to finance a loss and damage fund in any manner reflective of their historical emissions. Evidently, other sectors like agriculture are preparing to follow the same trajectory, rather than investing in sustainable food alternatives. We therefore need to be even more circumspect in our dealings with such parties and whilst never permanently writing them off, we must be ever more vigilant in challenging any claims they make to sustainable and responsible practice. In other words, the COP has done a good job of further focusing minds and stiffening resolve.
Many may argue that we did not need COP28 to know this. Personally though, it feels like where the lines are being drawn are shifting and the lines themselves are becoming more solid. Significant resistance remains to doing what is required, but more and more businesses, investors and communities are doing it anyway.
Next time, I will look at what this may mean for us as lawyers.