Why International Climate Conferences Are Failing and What We Should Do Instead: The Case for Narrower Binding Agreements

Instead of focusing heavily on international climate conferences, which require unanimous support, and relying on voluntary commitments that ultimately have little impact on emissions, policymakers should pursue narrower binding agreements. We already know that this strategy works and is scalable.

Mere observers of the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai could be forgiven for betting big on the event. “We are on the brink of climate catastrophe and this conference must mark a turning point,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned during the conference. After the final agreement was reached, Canada’s Environment Minister Stephen Guilbault hailed the “crucial commitments to renewable energy, energy efficiency and divestment from fossil fuels” contained in it.

But the truth is that neither the content of the Dubai agreement nor what was left out of it will have a significant impact on climate change. We’ve seen this movie many times, starting with the 1992 agreement that created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. At that time, all countries pledged to prevent “dangerous” climate change, which would have required drastic reductions in annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But emissions have continued to rise, albeit at a slower rate than would otherwise have been the case. Voluntary commitments have largely turned out to be empty talk

2024-02-06 22:02:00
#Fighting #climate #change #empty #talk #replaced #binding #trade #agreements