Club of Rome have finally noticed the world’s premier climate conferences are being run by petroleum states.
Open Letter on COP reform to All States that are Parties to the Convention
Mr. Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Secretariat and UN Secretary-General António Guterres
November 15, 2024
Excellencies,
We, the undersigned, write today to reiterate and update the call for COP reform, which was first conveyed in our open letter to the UNFCCC Secretariat, dated February 23, 2023.
We recognise the important diplomatic milestones of the past 28 years of climate negotiations. A remarkable consensus has been achieved with over 195 countries having agreed to strive to hold global warming to 1.5°C. We also recognise the key role of the UNFCCC Secretariat in helping to bring all 195 countries along the steps necessary to establish the global policy framework, which is underpinned by the Paris Agreement and its subsequent COP decisions.
Beyond the Paris goals, countries have now agreed to phase out fossil fuels, end inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, stop deforestation by 2030, operationalise carbon trading globally, and most have joined the Global Methane Pledge. Governments have pledged $100 billion annually to the Green Climate Fund, and the Loss and Damage Fund is officially established.
Despite some of its flaws, and limited resources, the global policy framework is scientifically rigorous and economically sound and complete. But the framework alone is not enough to solve the problems.
Global emissions continue to increase, carbon sinks are being degraded and we can no longer exclude the possibility of surpassing 2.9°C of warming by 2100. Our first encounter with 1.5°C was accompanied by unprecedented human impacts coupled with enormous climate costs running into the hundreds of billions in 2023. Science tells us that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 7.5% annually to have any chance of staying within the 1.5°C threshold, a prerequisite for the stability of our planet and a livable future for much of humanity. In 2024, the task is unequivocal: global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 4 billion tonnes.
28 COPs have delivered us with the policy framework to achieve this. However, its current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity. This is what compels our call for a fundamental overhaul of the COP. We need a shift from negotiation to implementation, enabling the COP to deliver on agreed commitments and ensure the urgent energy transition and phase-out of fossil energy.
We outline below our suggested measures for reform:
1. Improve the selection process for COP presidencies
We need strict eligibility criteria to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy. Host countries must demonstrate their high level of ambition to uphold the goals of the Paris Agreement.
2. Streamline for speed and scale
With the global policy map fully developed, COP must shift away from negotiations to the delivery of concrete action. COP meetings must be transformed into smaller, more frequent, solution-driven meetings where countries report on progress, are held accountable in line with the latest science, and discuss important solutions for finance, technology and equity. This work must be supplemented by the benchmarking of national progress using the UN Gap Reports. This approach will accelerate action and allow for timely adjustments based on emerging scientific findings and changing global circumstances.
3. Improve implementation and accountability
The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable for their climate targets and commitments. Whilst the Paris framework was intended to operate in “delivery mode”, it is not working because governments are not held to account to ensure that national action plans align with the latest scientific evidence. The Global Stocktake process is an important start but it must be strengthened with enhanced reporting and benchmarking, rigorous peer-review processes, independent scientific oversight and transparent tracking of pledges and action.
4. Ensure robust tracking of climate financing
A growing proportion of climate financing pledges are now being disbursed as interest-bearing loans, thereby exacerbating the debt burden for climate vulnerable nations. We need standardised definitions and criteria for what qualifies as climate finance, along with common reporting frameworks and tracking mechanisms to verify climate financing flows. All of these measures are critical for rebuilding trust and accountability and for mobilising the necessary resources.
5. Amplify the voice of authoritative science
Whilst the climate COP does rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other related bodies, such as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), it does not have its own permanent scientific advisory body that is formally part of the COP structure. We share growing concerns that climate COPs do not sufficiently integrate or action up the latest scientific evidence. The CBD COP has its own permanent scientific advisory body, which has provided a technical and scientific underpinning for the CBD. And the same could be replicated within the climate COP.
6. Recognise the interdependencies between poverty, inequality and planetary instability
New research from the Earth Commission and from Earth4All affirms the important linkages between ecological and social change processes. If the climate COP is to be more impactful, it must acknowledge that the current rate of nature loss (e.g. freshwater scarcity, land and soil degradation, pollination decline, ocean pollution) is affecting the stability of the planet. Moreover, planetary stability, now at grave risk, is impossible without decisive action on equality, justice and poverty alleviation. This is why we call for a Climate-Poverty Policy Envoy to ensure that these critical links are anchored in the negotiations and implementation actions, especially through dedicated spaces for vulnerable communities to advocate for these linkages.
7. Enhance equitable representation
Despite the climate COP’s new disclosure rules, a record number of 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access at COP28, nearly four times more than COP27. The fact that there were far more fossil fuel lobbyists than official representatives from scientific institutions, Indigenous communities and vulnerable nations reflects a systemic imbalance in COP representation. Improving the management of corporate interests within COPs proceedings will require stronger transparency and disclosure rules and clear guidelines that require companies to demonstrate alignment between their climate commitments, business model and lobbying activities.
In closing, let us reiterate the important role the UNFCCC has played and will continue to play in ensuring ambition on climate change. There is no doubt that climate change is a global challenge and must be solved through multilateral negotiations alongside ambition at the National level through Nationally Determined Contributions. The Paris agreement and subsequent COP decisions have laid a robust foundation for the global policy framework on climate action. Now, we must work together with urgency and purpose, transforming the climate COP so that it can take strategic, action-oriented and accountable decisions to deliver the scale of ambition commensurate with the defining challenge of our time.
SIGNATORIES
Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Executive Chair, Earth4All and Global Ambassador for the Club of Rome
Prof. Dr. Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Action Research
Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United Nations
Mary Robinson, Former President of Ireland
Christiana Figueres, Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Connie Hedegaard, Chair of the Board for the KR Foundation and former EU Former EU Commissioner for Climate Action
Dr. Carlos Nobre, Member of the Joint Steering Committee of the World Climate Research Programme & the Rockefeller Foundation Economic Council on Planetary Health
Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director-General, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Dr. Bertrand Piccard, President, Solar Impulse Foundation
Esmeralda of Belgium, President of the Leopold III Fund for Nature Exploration and Conservation
Maria João Rodrigues, President, Foundation for European Progressive Studies
Youba Sokona, Chair, African Institute for Sustainable Energy and System Analysis and former Vice-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Dr. Arunabha Ghosh, CEO, Council on Energy, Environment and Water
Sharan Burrow, former General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation
Phyllis Cuttino, President and CEO, The Climate Reality Project
Ilona Szabó de Carvalho, Co-founder and President, Igarapé Institute
Eva Zabey, Executive-Director, Business for Nature
Sheela Patel, Director, Society for Promotion of Area Resource Centres and Global Ambassador for the Race to Zero and Race to Resilience
Dr. Gunhild A. Stordalen, Co-founder and Executive Chair, EAT
Marie-Claire Graf, Co-Founder, Youth Negotiators Academy & YOUNGO Focal Point COP26
Paul Shrivastava, Co-President, The Club of Rome
Source: https://www.clubofrome.org/cop-reform-2024/
Club of Rome are famous for their 1972 publication The Limits to Growth, an absurdly simplistic attempt to suggest we will all run out of stuff before the end of this century.
One of my favourite responses to the Limits to Growth was published by The New York Times shortly after the publication of Limits.
… “The Limits to Growth,” in our view, is an empty and misleading work. Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon conceals a kind of intellectual Rube Goldberg device—one which takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science. “Limits” pretends to a degree of certainty so exaggerated as to obscure the few modest (and unoriginal) insights that it genuinely con tains. Less than pseudoscience and little more than polemical fiction, “The Limits to Growth” is best summarized not as a rediscovery of the laws of nature but as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
…
As a first approximation of the future, the authors assume that the world is utterly incapable of adjusting to problems of scarcity. Technology stagnates and pollution is ignored, even as it chokes millions to death. A shortage of raw materials prevents industry and agriculture from keeping up with population growth. World reserves of vital materials (silver, tungsten, mercury, etc.) are exhausted within 40 years. Around 2020 the pinch becomes tight enough to cause a fall in per capita income. A few decades later, malnutrition and lagging health services abruptly reverse the climbing population trend. By the year 2100 the resource base has shrunk so badly that the world economy is unable to sustain even 19th‐century living standards.
…
It is no coincidence that all the simulations based on the Meadows world model invariably end in collapse. As in any simulation, the results depend on the information initially fed to the computer. And the “Limits” team fixes the wheel; no matter how ‘many times you play there is only one possible outcome. Critical to their model is the notion that growth produces stresses (pollution, resource demands, food requiremeats) which multiply geometrically. Like compound interest on a savings account, these stresses accumulate at a pace that constantly accelerates: Every child born is not only another mouth to feed but another potential parent. Every new factory not only drains away exhaustible resources but increases our capacity to build more factories. Geometric (or as mathematicians prefer to call it, exponential) growth must eventually produce spectacular results. If the Indians who sold Manhattan 300 years ago for $24 could have left their money untouched in a bank paying 7 per cent (a number chosen no more arbitrarily than many in “Limits”) they would have more than $25‐billion today.
…
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/02/archives/the-limits-to-growth-a-report-for-the-club-of-romes-project-on-the.html
You would think after an intellectual blunder like “The Limits to Growth” that they would have changed their name or something, but every so often The Club of Rome still pops their head above the parapet to deliver a doom laden pronouncement, or scold the world for not being run the way they would like it to be run.
