background
Emissions of climate-damaging greenhouse gases have increased by around 70 percent worldwide since 1990 – despite all conferences and agreements. What might the UN climate conferences have achieved?
Almost 50 years ago, scientists discussed rising temperatures at many measuring points. In 1979, the first conference to focus on climate took place in Geneva. Around ten years later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded – with the clear mission of gathering knowledge about the climate system and giving politicians a scientific basis for decisions.
At the second climate conference in Geneva in 1990, it became clear: the climate crisis will not go away on its own. It would make sense to do something about it globally. It was the time when the Iron Curtain fell and ideological barriers disappeared. The end of the Cold War opened up political and financial opportunities for states to address future problems. In 1992, in the run-up to the World Environmental Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was negotiated and then adopted in 1994. It is considered the mother of all UN climate conferences, which have since been counted as COPs – Conference of the Parties (to the Convention). The states have to meet annually; COP28 is taking place in Dubai this year.
The Kyoto Protocol
The first climate conferences were aimed exclusively at industrialized countries. Their responsibility for the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was undisputed. And at COP3 in Kyoto, Japan, they were obliged to reduce emissions – in an initial period up to 2012 by 5.2 percent compared to 1990. The EU promised a reduction of eight percent, Germany by 21 percent, knowing full well that that the collapse of the dirty GDR industry alone would practically be enough to achieve this seemingly high margin.
The collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the subsequent modernization of industry actually had the overall effect that the promises were significantly exceeded. The emissions of countries under the Kyoto Protocol fell by almost twelve percent by 2012. The USA signed the agreement in Kyoto, but did not subsequently ratify it by parliamentary resolution. The dilemma: Global emissions rose by a whopping 50 percent between 1990 and 2012. More than has become clear: the “old” industrialized countries will not be able to solve the problem on their own.
Dispute in Copenhagen
This conflict clearly broke out in Copenhagen in 2009. Further commitments should be decided there. But this conference almost failed completely. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that China and other emerging countries categorically refused to recognize any obligations, but on the other hand, it is due to the fundamental requirement to impose obligations negotiated at the conference itself on the states on an ad hoc basis based on scientific needs.
That would be effective in terms of climate protection, but the UN is not a world government – and no sovereign state can be forced to do something, no matter how sensible it may seem. At this point, the entire multilateral climate protection was in jeopardy. A year later, Japan announced that it would no longer participate in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and Canada even withdrew from the current treaty in 2011. A second period of the Kyoto Protocol was formally adopted in Doha in 2012, but apart from the EU, a few other European states and Australia, no one took on any concrete commitments.
The Paris Agreement
It took until 2015 to organize a new attempt. This time, voluntary commitments from states should be collected. This led to a new climate protection agreement in Paris in 2015. The construction is much more complicated and essentially formulates a common goal and a process that is intended to help achieve the goal in practice. Although it bundles the voluntary commitments and – once they have been made – places them within a binding framework under international law, the concept is based on the insight of the states and the power of a public debate.
In fact, emissions have only increased by a few percent worldwide over the past ten years. The curve has flattened significantly and a number of analysts believe that it is already stagnating and will decline shortly. Significantly too slow if you measure this against the scientific data and the demands of the global community on itself, as formulated in the Paris Agreement.
In order to limit global warming to “well below two degrees, if possible to 1.5 degrees,” emissions would have to fall by almost half by the end of the decade. Nevertheless: The UN Climate Secretariat UNFCCC points out that at the beginning of the climate negotiations an increase in the global average temperature of 3.4 to 4.8 degrees was likely. With all the resolutions and voluntary commitments, around two and a half degrees are currently being reached. A further reduction is possible. Even if the 1.5 degrees is hardly realistic, the sentence still applies: every tenth of a degree improvement counts. And “doing nothing” would be the most expensive option.
Today: a “trade fair” for climate protection
The UN conferences have evolved from a meeting of experts before the Climate Framework Convention to a large multilateral negotiating round of diplomats and finally to a huge trade fair for climate protection. At the first one, only a few thousand participants were accredited; this year in Dubai there will be 70,000. But it is only in the last ten years that the number has increased sustainably. Previously, only “important” conferences like those in Copenhagen and Paris stood out.
The word “fair” can be understood in two ways: it is in fact something like the high mass of climate protection. In addition to a growing number of state representatives, there are about as many lobbyists, non-governmental organizations and scientists working there.
And it is also a trade fair, because of course concepts and products are promoted there and best practices are exchanged. It’s no longer just a matter of tweaking a few small screws: the climate process and its financing affect large parts of the economy and international money flows. The switch from fossil fuels, i.e. coal, oil and gas, to renewable energies is being negotiated. The goal is to operate in a largely climate-neutral manner by the middle of the century so that no additional greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere and cause temperatures to rise further.