Parts of Metro Manila cities and other coastal regions worldwide will most likely be underwater by 2050. Droughts and floods will worsen, and we will probably experience frequent heat waves as carbon emissions continue to increase and warm the planet.

In an attempt to deviate from this future, world leaders from all around the world gathered this November for the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Egypt. Here, delegates from countries are supposed to commit to shifting to more sustainable systems and reducing their carbon emissions.

But by the end of the conference, leaders were only able to agree to set up a loss and damage fund to be given to developing countries affected by climate change. There were no firm resolutions to cut emissions and phase out fossil fuels, or even commitments to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The COP, an institution created to combat climate change, falls short of its goals despite its almost three decades of existence as its mechanisms are founded on faulty structures and non-existent intent to transition to more sustainable systems.

On Unequal Ground

In its 27 years of annual meetings, the COP still has yet to show significant contribution in fulfilling its mandate to fight climate change. The COP is supposed to be the highest decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a convention of over 190 countries created during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which serves as a treaty of nations against climate change.

During its annual conferences, parties adopt a decision when a consensus is reached or when there is a three-fourths majority vote from the participating parties. The different countries also assess their progress in combating climate change, and draft treaties and agreements such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the 2015 Paris Agreement, and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact.

However, members of the conference stand on unequal ground. In COP26 in the United Kingdom last year, only around one-third of the typical number of attendees from the Global South, composed of marginalized and less developed countries, were present. This means that the Global North, developed countries which contribute the most to climate change, held more power in the adoption of decisions.  And in the recently concluded COP27, there were more than 600 delegates from the oil and gas industry, overwhelming the presence of African countries and indigenous communities who are affected the most by climate issues. 

The presence of fossil fuel lobbyists, as well as the defense of states reliant on this industry consistently block talks about the phasing out of fossil fuels during the conferences, leading to a lack of concrete action toward this major driver of global warming.

As climate conferences like the COP continue to cater to the interests of industries and countries that contribute the most to the Earth's decay, treaties and agreements will always be ineffective.

Driver of Destruction

Human activities are the major driver of the warming planet. The excessive extraction and depletion of natural resources, and unrestrained dumping of wastes that could not be absorbed by the environment–all for the pursuit of purposeless growth and profit–led us to where we are now. And this is the fact that the COP has turned a blind eye to for years, which also explains the failures of its former efforts in climate change mitigation.

A study from Södertörns University in Sweden showed that with increasing per capita income, the measurement of per capita emission of carbon dioxide also increases. This dependence of countries on noxious industries for their own growth and profit makes it hard for them to commit to a genuine fight against the rapid climate change.

Because cutting down on consumption and emissions would threaten economic growth, agreeing to treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialized countries to reduce their emissions, means forgoing a chunk of countries' wealth.

The US, for instance, the world’s top producer of oil and second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, signed the Kyoto Protocol but did not ratify it, citing that it should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not set any commitments for developing countries. China, the number one emitter of carbon dioxide, was classified as a developing country and therefore did not have binding obligations to reduce emissions. Seventeen out of 36 developed countries failed to meet their emission-reduction goals, trading off a habitable planet for economic growth.

After the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, another pact, the Paris Agreement, was made almost two decades after. Under the Paris Agreement, members must aim to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Countries have submitted stronger pledges to reduce their emissions but even if these are fulfilled, it would still be insufficient to curb the warming global temperature since, at this point, there needs to be greater effort beyond cutting back on emissions.

The failure of these treaties is rooted in their inability to bind countries and impose sanctions on those who do not meet requirements. The Kyoto Protocol, for one, employs market-based mechanisms, showing how agreements still largely cater to the interests of the rich nations and their industries. The protocol allows signatory countries to trade “rights to pollute” and for developed countries to pay developing countries, allowing them to go beyond their reduction targets.

Climate agreements did not only effectively allow for countries to fall short of their reduction targets from the get-go, but they also gave way to wide-scale destruction of the environment, according to IBON International.

The environmental harm brought by these developed countries seeking profit is borne unfairly, evident in how countries in the Global North can recover relatively quickly while the vulnerable nations from the Global South, like the Philippines, cannot effectively adapt to the drastic changes in the climate. The failure of the developed countries to uphold their end of the deal in efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change further exacerbates the damage received by vulnerable countries.

Systemic Shift

As long as leaders and institutions like the COP continue to be blind about the root and real evil of climate change, there will be no concrete results to resolve climate issues. Making actual change necessitates straying from systems focused on endless growth without bearing its consequences on the environment—and being aware that no mechanism based on this system will solve the climate emergency.

“Ang kailangan natin ay isang sistema na sustainable, pro-people, at isang pro-environment na sistema,” according to Karl Barranta, an officer of Saribuhay UP Diliman. Only by transitioning from dirty economies and systems of production to a system that allows for sustainable development can we make substantial progress toward combating climate change.

Perhaps a better solution to this climate crisis would be to halt the endless craving for never-ending growth. This is the tenet of the degrowth movement, a school of thought that has been gaining traction recently amid rising climate concerns. High-profile critics, such as Bill Gates, have expressed their objections to the idea of degrowth, but scholars insist that only by limiting production and consuming only what is needed can we make it in time to protect ecological systems and make a significant effort against climate change.

Unless we want this trend of climate issues and calamities to continue, we should think of pushing for drastic action from big players in the climate situation. Properly fighting climate change can only be attained by demanding accountability, advocating for a structural rework of economic systems, and calling for an inclusive decision-making body that is genuine and not driven by counterproductive agenda. ●