An eventful 12 days of COP26 in Glasgow, that was supposed to end on Friday, headed into overtime yesterday to give delegates more time to reach a final agreement after lofty vows to reverse deforestation and cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
But if one was to sum up the theme of this year's meeting, it'd be: "Who should pay to prevent climate catastrophe?" One thing everyone could agree on was that not enough is being done to prevent the planet from heating beyond 1.5º Celsius by 2100, a target set by the UN.
Time and time again, pledges have been made but few have led to specific policies. If the same happens yet again, humanity faces a bleak future as research group Climate Tracker Action predicts 2.7ºC of warming by 2100 if 2030 goals are not achieved. But for some, it's already too late as some nations are already reeling from a warming planet.
Unlike previous climate conferences, this year's edition had an air of tension with a constant tug between cooperation and competition as the fallout of Covid-19, rising nationalism, and economic crises eroded trust in international diplomacy.
China and Russia, two of the biggest emitters, decided to skip the meeting entirely. Another faultline at this year's meet was the North-South divide. Rich nations, which have mostly set targets to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, want developing nations to adopt similar timelines. In response, a group of 24 "like-minded" developing nations, including India, Indonesia and Vietnam want to follow their own timeline to ensure a stable transition to clean energy without upending people's livelihoods.
In fact, they are demanding $1.3 trillion (about 42 trillion baht) in aid per year to make the transition. Whether this is a fair demand is subjective, but if rich nations have the means to help others in the transition, is there not a moral obligation to do so? It's only the fate of humanity at stake.
If the world really wants to tackle climate change, we need to accept a few harsh truths. First, reducing our global footprint will require more than just pledges. Average citizens have to accept lifestyle changes beyond just recycling and adopting electric vehicles. Large polluting industries too must go but to do that, consumers must act.
With reports of fossil fuel lobbyists and countries pressuring the UN to alter climate recommendations prior to the meeting, it's not hard to see why reaching an agreement has been so difficult. Further, it's time rich nations, which are some of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas per capita, lead by example rather than blame others.
A recent Oxfam study revealed that privileged lifestyles in industrialised nations led to a carbon footprint 100 times greater than the world's poorest nation combined. Just days before Mr Biden was touting green energy at COP26, he was asking oil-producing nations to ramp up production to ease rising gas prices at home. What sort of message does this send to citizens of developing countries?
Similarly, our consumption habits need to be put under the lens. While some of our behaviours have a direct correlation to emissions such as driving or flying, other habits such as consumption of meat and fast fashion also contribute to warming by allowing dirty factories in less developed parts of the world to keep polluting.
Moreover, organising climate summits in which leaders fly in on private jets but sideline those already displaced by climate change is counterproductive. We often see Greta Thunberg, the Gen Z climate change icon, enjoy the spotlight over concerns about the bleak future her generation faces. But what about the youngsters in countries like Bangladesh or Yemen who've already been forced to flee their homes due to floods, sea level rises, drought and extreme weather? Sure, saying climate conferences are "blah, blah, blah" is cool and edgy but it just drives the conversation away from the matter at hand.
In the words of Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, combatting climate change is a common goal of humanity and "a matter of life and death". He says Thailand will be "ambitious" in its emission cut. Yet in practice, Thailand pledges to reach net-zero by 2065 -- 15 years later than the 2050 milestone while the country's mid-term emission cut in 2030 is between 25-30% instead of 50%. Thailand did not sign key pledges; the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forest and Land Use advocates zero forest burning and forest fires, which turn out be a major environmental problem in Thailand too.
For a country ranked 9th in bearing the effects of natural disasters caused by climate change, and whose GDP is forecast to fall by 43.6% by climate change effects on the farm and industrial sectors, the country's showing at COP26 leaves much to be desired. We've known for over 30 years what must be done to mitigate climate change. The time for talking has come to an end. It's time we act to contain climate change or start making plans to live a "new normal" in a hotter Earth.
