COP climate conferences have become 'meaningless rituals,' says economist
Jayati Ghosh signs open latter calling for overhaul of annual UN climate conference
It's time for the United Nations to completely re-think its annual climate change conference, says economist Jayati Ghosh.
Ghosh, a frequent advisor to the UN, is one of several prominent climate experts and former UN and world leaders who have signed an open letter calling on the organization to completely overhaul the annual event that brings delegates from member countries together to tackle climate change.
This year's conference, COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, has been particularly fraught with controversy.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev opened the conference by calling his country's oil reserves "a gift of God."
A senior member of Azerbaijan's COP29 team was caught using the conference to arrange potential fossil fuel deals with a man posing as an investor.
And efforts to agree on a funding formula to help developing countries adapt to climate change — which was this year's primary goal — have largely stalled.
Ghosh, a development economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, spoke to As It Happens host Nil Köksal about why she feels COP is failing in its mission, and how it could be better. Here's part of their conversation.
What was it that made you decide to sign this letter?
These COPs have become meaningless rituals which don't actually deliver anything. And the problems are too urgent and intense for us to keep doing these big summits that don't deliver.
You and the others are saying that it's not time to debate and negotiate anymore. It's time to actually implement things. Why is it still at the negotiation phase?
The problem really is that countries come and make these commitments far into the future. So they say "by 2050 or 2070." And that lets them off [the hook].
What we really need is actionable promises, saying: Here are the steps I'm going to take next year, the year after that. And then you come back and say: Well, I took those steps or I didn't take those steps for the following reasons.
There's no accountability. There's no real roadmap that tells us exactly how we're going to proceed.
We have to move towards more frequent summits, [and] smaller. Not, you know, lots and lots of these private jets arriving with fossil fuel companies trying to do their side deals. But we need smaller events that are actually focused on clear promises that will be met.
The United States has just had a seminal [presidential] election. Donald Trump has been re-elected. We know what he said on this issue in the past. Is there enough agreement to actually work and deliver the kind of implementation you're talking about?
Of course, [Trump's victory] is bad. It's very bad for the planet. It's bad for climate. I think it's bad for the U.S. But the problem is that the U.S. has never really been the best-faith negotiator in the climate process.
Remember, the U.S. is now the world's largest fossil fuel producer. It's a net fossil fuel exporter. And its activities in these negotiations, even under different Democratic administrations, [have] not necessarily been in the multilateral interest. It's been in its own national interest.
So I don't think it's going to make a huge difference. I think what really matters is how the rest of the world responds.
The letter's very first recommendation is about the countries allowed to preside over the COP process ... Was that recommendation targeting Azerbaijan in particular?
Not necessarily only Azerbaijan. We had a series of these COPs now, which [are] based in fossil fuel countries. And it's open knowledge now that these have become venues for all the fossil fuel companies to do these side deals.
We should at least have host countries that are very clear about their active commitment to reduce fossil fuel production.
What do you say, though, professor, to those who argue that the climate process needs to include everyone, even if people who are at COP don't agree with the leadership and the policies of the countries that the summits are being held in? That it needs to be inclusive [and] everyone needs to be on board in order for this to actually work one day?
Oh, I agree. I think everybody has to be on board. But I think what's happened now is that these have become performative summits rather than genuine attempts to change. So what we're saying is that if you want to be part of this, prove that you are actually going to be doing something.
History is really on the side of those who are demanding change. And we are already seeing [change]. I mean, the energy transition is ongoing. China and other countries are going ahead with it. More and more countries are going to recognize that this is the future.
And for all you know, even the Trump administration … may realize that it can't afford to be left behind.
Do I hear optimism in that?
That's right. I think there is optimism because I believe that the ultimate trust has got to be towards a just, green energy transition. It's not going to happen easily. I think there are huge vested interests against it. But on the other hand, it is happening.
Despite the fact that these are performative summits, despite the fact that these are just now literally meaningless rituals and developing countries are not getting the finance and the technology that they need for their transition, there is a kind of momentum that is going to be hard to ignore in the future.
When people hear that you say these summits don't really matter …. what do you want them to take away from our conversation?
The fact that they don't matter is a tragedy. We have to make them matter. And the only way we can do that is by putting pressure on our own governments to force them to make commitments that are accountable, and to deliver on those promises.
It's up to people to force the transformation.
Interview produced by Kevin Robertson. Q&A edited for length and clarity
