The forthcoming COP 29 Climate Meet, set to take place from November 9 to November 22 in Azerbaijan, has not generated much excitement. On the contrary, there is considerable skepticism about its potential outcomes, especially in light of the results from the previous 28 climate meetings held in various countries.
Has Anything Changed?
The reality is that not much has changed over the years. Global warming continues, causing severe and unpredictable weather changes and other adverse climate impacts.
One cannot help but feel that these climate meetings have become an annual ritual—marked by loud proclamations, lofty promises, and a focus by developing countries on seeking financial support from developed nations to implement eco-friendly measures to protect the global climate.
It is widely understood that to protect the global climate, emissions of harmful gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and methane need to be curbed and ultimately eliminated to achieve net-zero emissions. A crucial step toward reducing these emissions is to cut down and eventually cease the use of fossil fuels, such as coal and crude oil. Yet, this isn’t happening.
Ambitious Targets in Jeopardy
Many countries have set their own targets for achieving net-zero emissions within a specific timeline: India has pledged to reach net-zero by 2070, China by 2050, and other countries have set their own schedules. However, despite these ambitious commitments, actual reductions in coal, crude oil, and natural gas production and use—and in methane emissions from livestock—have been limited. Fossil fuel production and consumption have continued or even increased, casting doubt on the sincerity of these promises.
Can Fossil Fuels Be Completely Eliminated?
It is now well understood that substitutes for fossil fuels in energy production include eco-friendly alternatives like renewable energy from solar, wind, and hydro sources, as well as green hydrogen production and biofuels. However, the development and production of these alternatives remain slow and fall far short of the levels needed to meet global energy demands. This is partly due to challenges such as the high production costs of green hydrogen and limitations on solar, wind, and hydro power due to seasonal variations and low capacity utilization. Additionally, curbing methane emissions remains challenging because reducing livestock populations isn’t feasible.
While the development of alternative energy sources is crucial and should be pursued with utmost effort, these sources alone cannot significantly reduce fossil fuel demand, particularly given the steady increase in global energy needs.
Why Not Reduce Energy Demand?
One solution, largely overlooked in climate meetings, is the possibility of reducing global energy demand, which would naturally reduce fossil fuel consumption. However, developing countries, in particular, resist this idea as it could hinder their industrial and economic growth.
Alternatively, energy demand could be reduced by optimizing energy use through technological advancements and by developing products and services that require less energy. Nonetheless, these measures can only address a limited portion of the demand for fossil fuels.
Reducing Global Population to Decrease Energy Demand
Another approach to reducing energy demand could involve stabilizing or even decreasing global population levels. While some countries, such as South Korea, Japan, and Russia, are attempting to increase their populations due to declining numbers, others, like India and many African nations, continue to see population growth. The overall effect is a steadily increasing global population.
More people mean more energy demand and greater fossil fuel consumption, so COP 29 could consider addressing global population levels to find ways to stabilize them.
Impact of Wars and Conflicts
Despite global concerns about climate change, many participating countries are involved in ongoing wars and conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas conflict. Terrorist activities also persist in various regions. Wars, drone attacks, bombings, and shootings release massive quantities of toxic gases and significantly pollute the atmosphere. Climate meetings seem to have largely ignored these aspects of climate impact.
COP 29: A Sign of Hope or Despair?
The question remains: will COP 29 be more candid and direct in its discussions, addressing these issues in-depth rather than merely engaging in surface-level conversations? Given the proceedings of past meetings, there is ample reason to view the upcoming COP 29 Climate Meet with skepticism—a potential sign of despair rather than hope.
