The Time For Difficult Decisions

It is clear that the urgency of this moment in addressing climate change is now not being denied by anyone except nutjobs and those on industry paychecks. The UNFCCC Lima climate change conference started 12 days ago amidst announcements of new severe impacts, crossing of tipping points, and closing window of action.

Yet, as it nears its uncertain close, the optimism from the much-hyped “momentum” of the past few months seems so far back in time that it may well have been a dream. Despite the acknowledgement of urgency and apparent shift in will of powerful parties like US and China to act on climate change, the world seems to remain just as divided, on the same issues like differentiation of responsibility, as they were in Copenhagen five years ago when political leaders crushed the hopes and dreams of millions.

Back then, as now, nowhere was the disappointment, frustration, anger and sometimes despair more palpable than in delegations of the smallest economies and the most vulnerable states. To continue the tradition of calling for justice, more than half of Tuvalu’s population participated in a Fast for the Climate action last week.

The fact is, the painful reality of the last two decades of climate change negotiations is that in the end when push comes to shove, the little guys have to bend over and take what is thrown at them from the huddle, rather than accepting the only other available option of leaving it entirely. This, of course, reflects the power disparity between the north and the south that has persisted for centuries, only reframed through a lens of development and free trade and thinly veiled by secrecy.

It would be a dream to think that this will change overnight, and that Lima and Paris will be any different, especially with so much at stake. The US, Australia, Canada, EU, and other top emitters like China, India and Brazil are hell-bent to not do anything near what is needed and are being called on to do - not until they are forced to, and even an optimist such as myself will have an ambition-gap-wide open jaw if that happens by Paris.

The best we can realistically hope for is that the agreement achieves something significant enough that does not close the door to the two degrees target (and hopefully the 1.5 degrees target), and leaves enough room to open up the door by the end of the decade.

This means that less politically powerful climate vulnerable countries must unite and build strength in numbers and pick their battles carefully in the last hours of Lima and on the road to Paris. There’s a lot on the table – capitalizing on the promised USD 100 billion annually for the Green Climate Fund, adaptation finance and technology transfer, agreeing a strong draft text and broad legal structures of the Paris agreement, ramping up pre-2020 ambition, long-term emissions reduction goals, and more.

They are ALL important.

But, some are more important than others at this current time in history. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a consensus-driven, historically conservative body that publishes synthesized scientific findings approved by all governments – provided drastic warnings in its Fifth Assessment Report about the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to a 100 percent clean world.

This means that at this current time, there is nothing more important than going to zero-carbon as fast as is humanely possible, starting right now. Otherwise, we risk runaway climate change that no country can adequately adapt to, and doesn’t leave us much of a world to continue negotiations in. And if developed countries are unable to adapt to it, that does not bode well for future adaptation finance and “loss and damage” support provided to others.

Yet, many vulnerable countries continue to act through a misguided lens of perceived national interest, apparently oblivious to the poisonous role they play in the negotiations in blocking progress. This was clear in the negotiations today when countries like Pakistan, Congo, and Nicaragua supported a watered down agreement that will do little more than the business-as-usual that got us here.

Pakistan suffered from terrible floods this year, with thousands of lives lost and countless more affected. Nicaragua recently ranked third in the world in a Germanwatch study on vulnerability to climate change. For these economies to do anything other than play the most constructive role in the negotiations is equivalent to suicide. Philippines appeared to realize this last week, when they left the hardliner Like-Minded group and joined the Most Vulnerable Countries.

To maintain a safe world, we need to peak emissions by this decade or early next decade and scale up rapid mitigation action in the pre-2020 period. This will generate a clear signal to businesses and investors that the time of unpunished pollution is over – and that the world will move on a rapid course towards 100% renewable energy whether or not they are part of it. All countries that are particularly vulnerable must prioritize this outcome above all, for their own sake.

A group of island nations started this process last week by calling for a full phase out of fossil fuels by 2050. Many Latin American countries extended their support, as did Norway. This is an amazing moment in history, but there is much work to be done to reach that outcome by Paris, and entrench that through enforceable legal mechanisms.

If all vulnerable countries in other negotiating blocs such as the Least Developed Countries, the Africa Group, and the G77 and China throw their full weight behind this rallying call towards the single progressive target and push to rapidly scale up short-term action for everyone, it would make for a powerful political force and potentially achievable outcome from the negotiations.

For each of these economies, this may well mean some very difficult decisions domestically, where fossil fuel industries hold enormous wealth and influence, and development priorities dominate the agenda. However, the economic argument is also increasingly clear that renewables provide much greater value when health and social costs are factored in, and are close to grid parity with fossil fuels in many countries already.

To add to the difficulty of the outcome, however, there is the stark reality of these cutthroat UNFCCC negotiations. How they work means that this may reduce leverage for developing countries on important issues like receiving finance and adaptation support in the short-term.

Vulnerable countries may need to borrow bargaining chips from other negotiation streams – not by any means because they are unimportant, but because no adaptation or finance is adequate in the 4-degree warmer world that we are headed for, and the gap between what is possible and what is needed will only grow wider with rising annual emissions. Limiting temperature rise now is the only option.

It is thus a painful reality that vulnerable countries find themselves in – one that is so unfair it makes colonialism look good. But it is important to learn from history that powerful countries have the ability to hold out longer than is acceptable – and despite the seemingly groundbreaking pledges, they have not yet shown anything that promotes confidence in betting our future on them.

Of course the discussions on adaptation, finance, equity and everything else will continue – because they are part of the same conversation really – but all the little guys must reach consensus on the one thing they will not give up – the hope of a less than 2 degrees warmer world – and protect it in Lima and Paris with full force together from the bullies.