COP 27, betrayal

After 30 years of fruitless negotiations on global warming within the UN, its current Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, was forced to acknowledge the failure: “The commitments made by countries so far are a recipe for disaster. We are in a fight to the death for our safety today and our survival tomorrow. We are headed for a climate disaster. Humanity must choose: cooperate or die.”

Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister stated in her opening speech at COP27: “Humanity is heading towards the abyss, towards 3°C warming, with devastating effects on our lives.”

“Inaction on climate change leads to a collapse of our civilization,” David Attenborough.

A group of scientists recently published a statement in the prestigious scientific journal BioScience in which they warn:

“We are code red on planet Earth.

Humanity unequivocally faces a climate emergency. The very future of humanity depends on the creativity, moral fiber and perseverance of the 8 billion people on the planet today.

Current policies lead to a 3°C increase by 2100, a temperature that has not been recorded in 3 million years.”

A coalition of 14,700 scientists from 158 countries published a warning about the climate emergency a year earlier in the same journal: “Climate change causes significant alterations to ecosystems, society and the economy, making large regions of the Earth uninhabitable.”

The central objective of the Paris Agreement is “to limit the increase in the average surface temperature of the planet to no more than 2°C by the end of the 21st century with respect to the average of the pre-industrial era, doing its best to limit it to 1.5°C”.

The justifications for these limits are specified in detail in the reports of the Panel of Experts on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific advisory body of the UN on this matter. The most recent compares the implications of an increase of 1.5°C with those of 2°C to highlight the extreme gravity of exceeding the limit of 1.5°C, for its destructive impact on the natural balance that humanity has known during the Holocene, since the discovery of agriculture and human settlements were established 10,000 years ago.

Crossing the 1.5°C threshold leads to a highly dangerous global scenario. Crossing the 2°C threshold places humanity in a catastrophic scenario. The consequences are clearly established in the reports of the IPCC, the basis of the decisions taken in the Paris Agreement, supported by all the academies of sciences of the world, without exception, as well as by all specialized research centers on the subject worldwide.

97 percent of the scientific publications of the last 30 years in the specialized literature agree that the accumulated global warming to date, 1.2°C, is the product of human activity through greenhouse gas emissions, mainly CO2 and methane. The focus is on CO2 emissions from remaining active as a global warming agent for centuries and accounting for three-quarters of annual greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emissions are 30 times more potent per unit than CO2 emissions, but they remain active for only twelve years and account for fourteen percent of total annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C by 2100 requires that CO2 emissions over the period 2021-2100 be limited to 400 gigatonnes (400 billion tonnes). Currently, 40 gigatons are emitted per year, with clear upward trends. If current trends continue, the 1.5°C threshold will be crossed by 2030 in just eight years (IPCC AR6).

To prevent the temperature increase from exceeding the 1.5°C limit, net CO2 emissions need to be reduced quickly and drastically. At COP26, just a year ago, it was agreed to reduce them to zero by mid-century. But, in practice, commitments made by countries lead to a significant and suicidal increase in emissions.

Even in the extremely unlikely scenario in which all countries fulfill the commitments made so far, we would end up with a 3°C increase by the end of the century, unleashing a veritable hell on Earth and condemning most of humanity to its annihilation. Most of the tropical strip of the planet, especially the areas closest to the equator and closer to sea level, would become uninhabitable for the human species.

If all countries agree on the gigantic danger of maintaining current trends, why is concrete progress not being made to comply with what was signed in the Paris Agreement?

The increase in temperature is closely linked to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The agreed benchmark is the average of the pre-industrial era, during the period 1850-1900, when the concentration of CO2 was 280 parts per million (ppm) and the surface temperature of the planet averaged 13°C. At present, the concentration of CO2 is 420 ppm and the temperature registers an increase of 1.2°C compared to the average of the pre-industrial era.

With the visit of “El Niño” next year, the increase in emissions and the cyclical recovery of solar irradiation after the minimum reached in 2020, the average temperature may exceed 1.3°C in 2023, becoming the hottest year in the last 10 thousand years.

The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (420 ppm) corresponds to an average temperature increase of 3°C. The recorded increase is only 1.2°C due to two fundamental factors. Along with greenhouse gas emissions, human activity also causes the emission of aerosols into the atmosphere. Aerosols mitigate global warming. Its current concentration causes a net reduction of 1°C in the average temperature recorded.

Most aerosol emissions are from fossil fuel consumption. Aerosols are also short-lived. The reduction in fossil fuel consumption would lead to a reduction in aerosol concentration, unlocking the corresponding increase in the average temperature of the planet.

The second important factor in the difference between the temperature recorded and that corresponding to the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the planetary energy imbalance, of 1.08 watts per square meter of land surface in 2020. The planet absorbs more energy than it emits, which inevitably leads to a latent increase in temperature of approximately 0.8°C due to climate inertia, over a period of 30 to 50 years. It implies that in that period of time the average temperature will increase by at least 0.5°C, even if all greenhouse gas emissions are immediately stopped.

The relationship between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average temperature at the surface of the planet is fundamental in the fulfillment of the Paris Agreement. An increase in the recorded temperature of 1.5°C for 2100 compared to the 1850-1900 average corresponds to the cumulative emission of 2,840 gigatonnes of CO2 during the period 1900-2100.

Cumulative emissions during the period 1900-2020 totaled 2,440 gigatonnes. It follows that the available emissions budget is just 400 gigatonnes over the period 2021-2100 for a recorded temperature increase of 1.5°C by the end of the century (IPCC AR6). It implies that net CO2 emissions must be halved by 2030 and to zero by mid-century.

These variables include obstacles to any progress in the Paris Agreement negotiations:

1. How to distribute the available emissions budget during the period 2021-2100 among the different countries of the world?
2. What are the historical responsibilities related to cumulative CO2 emissions during the period 1900-2020?
3. How is the decarbonization of the world economy financed, replacing fossil fuels with renewable and CO2-free alternative energies?

DISTRIBUTION OF THE EMISSIONS BUDGET 2021-2100

The Paris Agreement negotiations are effectively reduced to negotiations between rich and powerful industrialized countries, with 17 percent of the world’s population, and poor, technologically dependent and indebted developing countries, with 83 percent of the world’s population.

Developing countries have proposed that the available emissions budget to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C, 400 gigatons of CO2, be distributed equally among all humanity.

Based on the principle of equality and justice, every person has an equal proportion of the capacity of the atmosphere, a common good of all humanity, to host CO2 molecules from human activity. They propose that the available emissions budget be distributed in proportion to the population of each country.

The industrialized countries, the world elite, oppose this approach, without proposing alternative measures. They simply delay the decision, allowing them to continue to hoard for free the largest proportion of that budget with their disproportionate emissions compared to their population.

Their delaying tactics allow them to seize most of the available emissions budget at no cost. When an agreement is eventually and inevitably reached, the budget will have been reduced to levels that prevent the poorest countries, the greater part of humanity, from promoting their development through the consumption of fossil fuels, even if they have these resources in their own territories.

The United States, for example, has announced that its policy on global warming is based on reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It involves seizing 80 gigatons of the available emissions budget 2021-2100, when it corresponds to only 17 gigatons in proportion to its population. The difference is currently worth $5 trillion. It also implies the stripping of the emissions budget that corresponds to 1,210 million people in other regions of the world, mainly in developing countries.

83 percent of the world’s population in impoverished and indebted developing countries will be forced to choose between remaining indefinitely in poverty, prevented from boosting their development through fossil fuel consumption, or chaining their future generations with colossal debts to decarbonize their economies.

HISTORICAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Cumulative CO2 emissions during the period 1900-2020 originated 70 percent in industrialized countries, where only 17 percent of the world’s population is located.

Industrialized countries accumulated wealth and power through the consumption of fossil fuels and the free accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, using it as a free dumping ground for their toxic emissions.

The cumulative global warming during the period 1900-2020 is proportional to the CO2 emissions accumulated during that period. It follows that 70 percent of the cumulative global warming 1900-2020 is the responsibility of 17 percent of the world’s population in industrialized countries. Therefore, their contribution to overcoming the current climate crisis should be proportionate to their accumulated responsibility to date. Industrialized, rich and technologically advanced countries should contribute 70 percent of the budget needed to decarbonize the global economy.

But in the negotiations of the Paris Agreement they have consistently refused, for 30 years, to recognize any historical responsibility for their disproportionate greenhouse gas emissions, although such responsibility is explicitly established in the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement.

During the period 1900-2020, industrialized countries emitted 1,710 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. In proportion to their population they had to emit a maximum of 410 gigatons. The excess, 1,300 gigatons, corresponds to an accumulated climate debt of 104 trillion dollars at current prices (trillions. Current price of emission permits in the European Union market: US$ 80/ton CO2).

If we distribute this climate debt, from industrialized countries to developing countries, over a period of 30 years, they would have to contribute 3.5 trillion annually, non-reimbursable, for 30 consecutive years.

The industrialized countries refuse to acknowledge any responsibility in this regard. Contemptuously, at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, they offered to throw a handout at developing countries: 0.1 trillion annually (100 billion annually) from 2020. They have not kept their word.

FINANCING

Janet Yellen chaired the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, during the Trump administration. She is now Treasury secretary, equivalent to a finance minister, in the Biden administration. He stated in his address to COP26 2021 that the cost of global energy reconstruction, needed to reach the 1.5°C target, is $150 trillion over the next 30 years, an average of $5 trillion per year. Based on their historical responsibilities, industrialized countries would be entitled to contribute 70 per cent, in proportion to their contribution to the problem, 3.5 trillion per year for at least 30 consecutive years.

McKinsey estimates investment at $9 trillion annually for 30 consecutive years (McKinsey: Solvingthe Net Zero Equation 2022) while BloombergEnergyFinance estimates it at $173 trillion over the next 30 years, in energy supply and infrastructure.

The report of the United Nations Environment Project on the Emissions Gap 2022, highlights that to achieve a low-carbon economy requires investments of four to six trillion dollars per year for 30 consecutive years, the transformation of the global financial system and the introduction of prices to carbon emissions either through taxes, or by emissions trading (bond market).

In his opening speech at COP27 on 07 11 2022, Al Gore noted: “we need 4.5 trillion annually for the transition to clean energy.”

Based on the modest figures presented by the US Treasury secretary, about 60 percent of total investment is in developing countries, about three trillion per year for 30 consecutive years. Industrialized countries must contribute 70 percent of this financial burden, in proportion to their contribution to the gestation of the current climate crisis. It is thus incumbent upon them to provide developing countries with at least two trillion per year over the period 2021-2050, 20 times more per year than they have offered to date: 0.1 trillion/year (https://bit.ly/3PNsTxo).

The external public debt of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America together amounted to $2.8 trillion by 2020, according to the World Bank. The cancellation of this debt could become the payment of the first installment of the climate debt that industrialized countries have accumulated with developing countries in the context of the Paris Agreement.
Decarbonizing the world economy in a period of no more than 30 years is the fundamental challenge of the Paris Agreement. Its financial cost should not become an instrument for condemning developing countries to remain indefinitely in a state of poverty, dependency and indebtedness. Nor can it become an instrument to chain them with colossal debts for generations.

The only viable solution to overcome the growing threat to the survival of humanity is for the industrialized countries to recognize their historical responsibility in the gestation of this planetary monstrosity and to provide the financial and technological resources necessary to overcome the crisis, in proportion to their contribution to the gestation of global warming accumulated to date. This historical responsibility is explicitly established in the three international agreements already mentioned: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the Paris Agreement of 2015.

THE MERCENARIES

Industrialized countries use their diplomatic representations in developing countries to establish networks of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to serve their interests. Through funding, they turn them into servile bodies to promote their policies and divert attention from the injustice of their positions in the Paris Agreement negotiations.

They thus turn instructions to focus the attention of the unsuspecting population of developing countries on blaming their respective governments for the climate crisis, highlighting the failure to meet their commitments. They dishonestly and deliberately refrain from mentioning that the fulfilment of most of the commitments undertaken by developing countries depends on the financing and transfer of technology by industrialized countries.

In the case of Latin America, one of the most prominent aspects of the disinformation campaign is the destabilization of the forests of the Amazon and the Orinoquia. The scandalous chorus of NGOs blaming the governments of the Amazon countries for the destruction of their forests is evident. They insist that deforestation is wiping out the forests of the Amazon and Orinoquia. They invent unsubstantiated figures to support their complaints (http://bit.ly/3fVk4Vm). They distribute videos and hold lectures to demonstrate their distorted allegations, which are then widely reported by media outlets without confirming their validity.

Its central argument is that the forests of the Amazon are being destroyed, looted and burned by incompetent and corrupt governments, in alleged complicity with drug trafficking and terrorist groups. They claim that the governments of these countries are not interested in the protection of biodiversity, nor the protection of the Amazon, nor the rights of indigenous communities. They allege that they are also predatory leftist governments that threaten the security of all humanity, since the stability of the Amazon, naively classified as “lung of the planet”, is key to planetary stability.

All these arguments pursue a pre-established strategic objective: the international community must intervene to protect the “lung of the planet”. The destruction must stop. If the corrupt and incompetent governments of the region, allied to drug trafficking and terrorism, are not able to protect the Amazon, the international community must intervene and internationalize the Amazon, for the good of all humanity.

They distribute maps painting a third of the Amazon’s forests in red to demonstrate the gigantic scale of the destruction in progress. Few seem to notice that the forests of the Amazon and the Orinoquia extend for 620 million hectares, and that the alleged burning of 100 or 200 million hectares would cause a planetary debacle of immediate catastrophic magnitudes.

The reality, however, is quite different from that deliberately planted by NGOs in the service of foreign interests.

In 2021, there was a peak in the deforestation rate of the Amazon’s forests: two million hectares in the Amazonian portion of the countries of the region. The cumulative destruction from 2000 to 2021 is 56 million hectares, eight percent of the forests in 2000.

With the arrival of President Lula in Brazil, the rate of deforestation is expected to be considerably reduced in that country, where about 70 percent of the destruction of the entire South American Amazon forest is recorded.

However, even assuming that the current rate of deforestation is maintained for the next ten years, 2022-2032, approximately 20 million hectares, three percent (three percent) of the region’s forests, would be destroyed by deforestation.

Three percent in the next ten years. Why then the insistence on making believe that the survival of the entire Amazon is threatened by deforestation in the short term?

Because during that same period, the other 97 percent is seriously threatened, not by deforestation, but by global warming, caused by 70 percent by industrialized countries.

What is deliberately intended to hide is that the main threat to the forests of the Amazon and the Orinoquia is not deforestation, but global warming. The contribution of the Amazonian countries to global warming is insignificant compared to that of the industrialized countries, the same ones that promote and finance the agenda of the NGO networks at their service in the countries of the region.

The forests of the Amazon and Orinoquia mitigate approximately 2.6 gigatons of CO2 per year, an arbitrarily free service for all humanity. Emissions from deforestation are estimated at 1.2 gigatons per year today, for a balance of 1.4 gigatons as a net sink.

While emission mitigation from EU and US forests is recognized as carbon credits, with its corresponding financial implications, net mitigation by the forests of the Amazon and Orinoquia is deliberately ignored. If recognized, its net worth would exceed $100 billion annually today, using as a reference the current price of carbon credits in the European Union market.

If the service provided by the forests of the Amazon and the Orinoquia to the climatic stability of the planet were recognized, sufficient resources would be available not only to effectively protect these ecosystems, but to generate alternative means of subsistence and cohabitation for the 40 million people who survive mostly in extreme conditions of poverty and marginality. both in the perimeter and inside the forests of the Amazon.

To evade this recognition, with the complicity of local NGOs, the perception that the forests of the Amazon and the Orinoquia do not contribute to the mitigation of CO2 emissions is promoted. They thus contradict their vaunted and naïve perception of the Amazon as the “lung of the planet”. Without net CO2 mitigation there can also be no net oxygen emissions.

In this way, the long-term interests of the countries of the region are betrayed for the benefit of the immediate financial and strategic interests of industrialized countries. They also impede effective mechanisms for the conservation of the forests of the Orinoquia and the Amazon.

They betray their own countries for a handful of dollars.

Source: 5 September