I started going to COPs when they were numbered in single digits (e.g. COP1 vs this year’s COP28). In those early days, the COPs consisted solely of what the acronym stands for – Conference of the Parties, with “Parties” meaning Countries in UN parlance. I went then as a resource to, and yes perhaps a bit of an influencer on, the U.S. negotiators as they worked with but also competed with other countries to produce an agreement of some kind on how to prevent climate change.
In those days there were no exhibits and there were only a few thousand attendees each year.
As the COPs entered their teens, they began to be something else. Yes, the main objective was crafting a new Agreement, but people started to come to not just talk to the negotiators, but to each other. Corporations started to not just send people to attend, but to sponsor outside activities alongside the COP. Also, countries and NGOs began to put on programs of meetings, sessions alongside the negotiations. These took advantage of the many climate experts attending to offer top-notch programming that anyone could attend.
The COPs entered their next decade with a big 21st Birthday splash in Paris, and attendance and participation in COP have continued to increase and expand ever since. Along with this the demand for the UN-issued COP Badges has risen significantly. These are the badges that get one inside the actual UN COP. They allow you to don the earpiece and hear translations during the actual discussions among the countries – at least those that are not behind closed doors.
Since the supply of Badges is limited by the UN, more and more has been happening outside of the official COP to serve those without Badges. Between the expansion of things both inside and outside the COP, COP has turned into some kind of combination of world leader summit and trade show and expo.
All of that brings me to COP28 in Dubai.
I have seen estimates of COP28 attendees at anywhere from 70,000 to 100,000 people. What I don’t know is how these estimates are being formulated. Are they only people who got a UN Badge? Does it include the official delegates of the countries themselves? Does it somehow include people who came to Dubai, attended peripheral events but never got a badge to enter the actual COP?
Whatever the precise number, I am betting that 90% (maybe more) of the non-country, non-UN attendees did not talk to a negotiator or follow the negotiations over the text while they were at the COP.
That is why I have been critical of COPs. It wasn’t just because I had a frame of reference from the original days of COP. It was because it seemed that the COP had turned into a “see and be seen” event. The badge that came with attending the COP became not only the physical UN one around one's neck– but also the virtual badge of simply attending to signify that you were a true climate player. It became a photo posted somewhere that showed you were actually there.
For years I have seen people wandering around the COP grounds looking like they have no idea why they are there and/or what they should do while there. Yet, no matter what else they did they had now acquired COP “cred”.
This is not only the case for individuals. There has been in recent years a massive uptick in corporate involvement in events outside of the main COP Venue elsewhere in the Host City outside of the main COP Venue. Companies and other entities also want to show they are serious about climate change. And thankfully these events have now evolved to have a serious programming aspect to them.
So why am I now OK with all this activity and attendance unrelated to the negotiations among nations to reach some kind of global agreement?
I have two answers.
The first is that I failed to see that the growth of the COP is a feature of the rising recognition that climate is not just an issue. It is a full-fledged sector and community of people, businesses, NGOs, and other entities that work all year on their own respective climate activities and now are gathering to learn from each other and gain support from each other and, perhaps most importantly, spar, debate, and fight with each other. At this COP in Dubai, I was able to attend sessions focused on many different slices of the climate pie. I also got to speak on a number of different topics, ranging from e-mobility to resilience.
I am now thinking that the part of the COP that I have dissed for years is actually something that is very valuable and serious in its own right.
And if your idea of a conference or trade show is going to one for maybe 2-3 days, think again when it comes to what it means to attend this “other” COP. In my case, I arrived in Dubai on the morning of Friday, December 1 and after checking into my Hotel I went straight to the UN Venue. I finished up with COP activity at around 8 that evening. For the next four days it was essentially 8 am to 9 pm every day filled with meetings, presentations given and received, roundtables, business dinners, and educational sessions. Then came the official “rest day” when the UN closes the UN Venue to force people to take a break. But this year, there were still activities going on outside of that Venue on that day. On Thursday, and for the next four days, it was back to the 8-9 daily shift.
The Expo COP is not the real COP, but it is a serious COP, and the international participation and interaction is priceless.
My second answer also represents an evolution in my thinking about the main COP.
What a great thing it was 28 years ago when the COP process started. It showed that all the nations of the world realized what a threat global warming and climate change were. It showed early and timely acknowledgement and willingness to work together under the UN banner.
But there are three fatal flaws in looking to the UN as a body/process that could or will successfully address climate change.
One is the need for consensus of all countries to reach any agreement. Think about that in the case of COP28. As I write this the negotiations are still going on over the what the text of this COP’s agreement will be on. The major issue is what, if anything to say about fossil fuels, words which have never been used in any final UN agreement ever in the history of the COPs. Any strong statement in the draft agreement about reducing fossil fuels means that a nation whose main existence is based on fossil fuel production has every incentive to throw a wrench in the gears. How is that ever going to work?
I once actually looked up the dictionary/legal definitions of consensus. There are actually a few variations, only some of which mean a 100% yes vote, as in unanimous. But that is the definition that the UN uses. And at a time when the climate timetable dictates that we need the strongest climate agreement that can be written, the UN inevitably produces a watered-down version that is so weak that no one can oppose it.
The second fatal flaw is that even if the process does survive the unanimity hurdle, it is just too damn slow. The scientists are telling us that we are beyond the point of working with a timetable that allows incremental change. Yet that is the only way to describe the UN process.
The third flaw is lack of enforcement power. The UN has none. For example, it cannot do anything about the fact that no nation is presently on track to meet any of what it agreed to in its own respective pledge of emissions reductions under the Paris Agreement. The UN has the bully pulpit, and it has the ability to put information into the public domain, but that is it.
The UN Process produces pledges, and pledges are only as good as their timely fulfillment and their level of ambition. The International Energy Agency released an assessment of pledges made during week 1 of COP and found that even with full implementation, they will only take the world 30% of the way to the emissions reductions necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C. And did I mention that no nation is on track to meet its emissions reduction pledge made in Paris in 2015?
In summary, I don’t think much any more about the importance of reaching a UN-wide agreement on climate change. It is too late to put too many eggs in that basket. To satisfactorily prevent excess warming from emissions it will take tough, competitive negotiations and bilateral and multilateral agreements among the largest emitting nations and mutual action pursuant to them. It will also take tough policy by each nation to force itself to achieve near-term emission reductions. Furthermore, it will take tough and imminent action at the sub-national level, i.e. states, provinces, cities, etc. None of those require a UN Agreement.
Climate change is the biggest problem the world has ever faced. But yet it may not be a problem that we can expect the whole world to be able to work together to solve.
Maybe the true power of the COP will be not its convening of negotiators to reach consensus on an elusive agreement, but instead its bringing together the entire governmental, social, and business community to talk, learn from each other, do deals, and reach side agreements. All of which can create not only "photo opps" but possibly lead to real progress in a different way than the COP was intended to do.
See you in Azerbaijan next year?