COP-out or cop on

With the United Arab Emirates (UAE) hosting the most-recent event, COP 28, there was an inevitability that concrete decisions around the phasing out of fossil fuels would not be forthcoming. There were vague references to the need to move towards a net-zero-carbon global economy, but no timelines or actions were implemented to achieve that. Since agricultural mechanisation is still, and will remain for many years, heavily dependent on oil-based fuels to power the sector, this is not necessarily an entirely negative outcome. The COP is a weak and ineffectual structure. There is an alternative reality that, despite vague COP aspirations, fossil-fuel exploration and exploitation is increasing.
Saying one thing and doing another is not a novel concept. The fact that the chair of COP 28, Sultan Al-Jaber, is also the chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, provided considerable doubt as to how robust a statement of intent could ever be expected to emerge from the COP meeting, especially as the Sultan’s oil company is increasing its oil and gas output. Holding COP 28 in a country that floats on a sea of oil and gas might have seemed like a good idea, but the outcomes should provide a contrary viewpoint. One mistake is bad enough. The fact that the next COP will be hosted by Azerbaijan is surely proof of an inability to learn from previous mistakes. That country has nothing to gain from restrictions or reductions in the use of fossil fuels in the global economy. Azerbaijan earns more than 90 per cent of its net exports from oil and gas. It has a huge, vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels. Why on earth would it facilitate any international agreement that would jeopardise its own economy, and you can hardly blame Azerbaijan for that stance.
Compromise is always necessary in reaching any international agreements. However, when the COP host nations are already fatally compromised by their own economic interests, the outcomes will always fall short of what is deemed necessary.
It is not just Azerbaijan or UAE that has self-serving interests in preserving the status quo. Germany, for instance, is more dependent on coal than ever, after Merkel’s naive cosying up to Putin, inexplicably closing nuclear power plants and opening coal mines. India mines almost 900 million metric tonnes annually, with year-on-year increases in output. While Chinese coal mining extraction is close to plateauing, its 4,000 million tonne annual production makes it unlikely to favour a short timescale for the elimination of coal burning, which is the single biggest contributor to global greenhouse gases. It is no coincidence that the largest users of coal, China and India, also have the largest populations and are most dependent on the continued use of their single biggest indigenous energy resource. This leaves the other big economic dog, the US. It is the third-largest user of coal on the planet. Despite President Biden’s assertions of a speedy transition to renewable energy use, there is little likelihood of a seismic reduction in coal use in the coming decade. If Donald Trump returns to power, his ‘drill, drill, drill’ philosophy will reverse even the modest reduction trends currently being experienced. Nuclear fission, and ultimately fusion, is the ultimate answer to our energy needs. Meanwhile, 100,000 well-intentioned COP attendees, including Al Gore, Mary Robinson and her cohort of self-esteemed Elders, will continue flying, literally and in the face of reality, to discuss climate change mitigation in five-star hotels in the desert. Sustainability, how are you?