Did COP 28 Prove Climate Demagogues Wrong?
In the fight against climate change, perfect is frequently the enemy of good
Earlier this month, the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference better known as COP 28 reached its conclusion. COP 28 culminated in a remarkable achievement when the 198 participating countries agreed to transition “away from fossil fuels in energy systems.” It is a landmark step as the countries of the world target the root cause of climate change for the first time. Limiting warming to 1.5°C still remains a nigh impossible goal but the fight against climate change is in a better position than ever before.
Beyond historic, this result would seem downright impossible if you listened to many climate activists in the run-up to the conference. A chorus of criticism rained down for months prior to the conference declaring it to be rigged in the name of fossil fuels and questioning if it was even worth having. The host nation, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was a petrol state and would never allow for any real progress it was claimed. These criticisms only heightened when the UAE government named the head of the state-owned oil company as the conference chairman. Further rage accompanied the fact that fossil fuel companies and interests were sending an unprecedented 2,456 lobbyists to COP 28. Lastly, in the run-up to the conference, US climate leadership has come under scrutiny as the country is set to extract more oil and gas in 2023 than ever before.
Climate activists and social critics lined up to declare the illegitimacy of COP 28 and decry its pandering to fossil fuels. Self-described climate and social justice activist Alexia Leclercq declared, “Do you really think Shell or Chevron or ExxonMobil are sending lobbyists to passively observe these talks? . . . Big Polluters’ poisonous presence has bogged us down for years, keeping us from advancing the pathways needed to keep fossil fuels in the ground. They are the reason COP28 is clouded in a fog of climate denial, not climate reality.” Caroline Muturi from IBON Africa complained that the organization and composition of the conference was proof that “the dynamics within these spaces remain fundamentally colonial” referencing the participation of fossil fuel companies primarily from developed countries in the Global North. Hwei Mian Lim from the Women and Gender Constituency added, “We are where we are because of years of denial, delay, and false solutions from the very groups that are responsible for the problem.” The world’s most famous climate activist, Greta Thunberg, recently dismissed all of the conference’s accomplishments as a “stab in the back for those most vulnerable.” These criticisms are not only unwarranted they convey a completely unrealistic view of how to confront the climate crisis.
I first took a serious interest in the COP scene in 2021 during the COP 26 Conference where my wife was a delegate on behalf of her then organization, the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare. That particular conference saw historic agreements on limiting methane and coal while providing a framework for private financing of green transitions. None of this was of any importance to the most ardent climate activists, however, including Ms. Thunberg who decried the efforts of political leaders as more “blah, blah, blah.”
The truth is that for these climate demagogues, whose own real world contributions to the fight amount to little, nothing ever constitutes real progress. There appears to be two primary reasons for this. First, like many influencers and populists before them, their popularity and power is dependent on a never ending crisis to which only they hold the answer. Admitting any progress whatsoever, especially on the part of political leaders, might mean there was reason to do something and hope for the future instead of listening to them spout off in fits of righteous anger. Second, many of these would be climate activists are actually idealogues in service to some world view (socialism, post-colonialism, degrowth, etc.) and if the solution does not come within their framework then it is no solution at all, regardless of what progress it makes towards combating climate change (a soon to come article will delve more directly into this second point). None of this is to say that the climate crisis is not a genuine existential threat to humanity as modern science suggests, it is. The point is that refusal to see progress disqualifies you from being a serious part of the solution. On the contrary, you become part of the problem as you convince people to abandon all hope and degrade their faith in the institutions of progress.
Returning to the specific criticisms of COP 28, the climate demagogues, intentionally or out of ignorance, have again missed the point. If, as critics suggest, fossil fuel-producing companies and states are those most responsible for the climate crisis, and they are, then they are the ones who most need to be part of the solution. Are petrol states like the UAE and companies like ExxonMobil trying to mitigate change and protect their financial interests? Most certainly. At one point, the conference chairman spat in the face of reality when he incorrectly and laughably declared that there was “no science” behind the idea that phasing out fossil fuels was necessary to stop climate change. But the significant presence of such parties at COP 28 is not evidence of a “rigging” in favor of fossil fuels, it is evidence that they feel like they have to participate because what happens there matters. Application of a purity test that limited participation to those whom the demagogues deem acceptable would result in a small inconsequential gathering of utopians discussing fantasy. Instead, the UAE and fossil fuel companies alike have all now been central parties to an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. Just two decades ago, that would have been unthinkable.
Criticism of fossil fuel production in the United States is also misplaced. It is certainly unfortunate that fossil fuels continue to play such an important role in our energy production, but they do. If the United States didn’t produce this energy in 2023, itself and its allies would simply be dependent on some less desirable source to do so. The idea that creating a limited supply environment where energy costs skyrocket will somehow spur on a green transition is folly. What it will spur on is a potentially irreparable backlash against such transitions from the global population that is increasingly frustrated by empty environmentalist grandstanding and calls to social revolution. It will do no good for governments who are serious about climate change to throw open the door to being pushed out by climate-denying populists (come on, you knew Trump had to make an appearance sooner or later) with unpopular and untenable policies.
None of this means that everything is well in hand or that we can rest on our laurels. Commitments and deals are just promises of future action. Even if all the current commitments by countries across the world were met, it still wouldn’t be enough to stop catastrophic warming. Nevertheless, it is okay and even necessary to celebrate the victories and recognize the progress. Remembering always that broad tents and compromise are an absolute necessity to deal with a problem of global proportions. If we are to save future generations from a climate apocalypse there is much work to be done and we should get about doing it as quickly as possible. What we shouldn’t do is abandon ourselves to the dreary visions of eternal pessimists. As is frequently the case here at DS we will leave with the immortal words of President Theodore Roosevelt, “it is not the critic that counts,” but the “man who is actually in the arena.”
If you liked this then check out these articles: