The greenwashing festival COP26 is over. As expected, the result was new agreements and texts filled with loopholes to avoid real action to prevent a global climate and environmental catastrophe. There is “a huge gap in credibility, action and commitment,” wrote Carbon Action Tracker as it noted that the transition is moving at “a snail’s pace” and that leaders’ real actions point to between 2 and a catastrophic 3.6 degrees of warming by 2100.
The chaos on the last day of the meeting reflected the attitude of the entire meeting. At the last minute, India and China refused to sign the already extremely watered-down text on fossil fuels. The end result was that countries should “accelerate efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”.
In other words, coal power should only be reduced and if you “bury” the carbon dioxide in the ground (with CCS technology, although it is not certain it ever will be available on a large scale) then it is perfectly fine to continue as before. And it is only what governments themselves deem as “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies that need to be phased out.
The fact that the inclusion of fossil fuels in the final agreement for the first time in the history of the COP is seen as a success shows what a bizarre pseudo-world the capitalist leaders and the fossil fuel lobby find themselves in.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has made the most optimistic assessment of the outcome of the meeting, saying that if all the pledges are also implemented, global mean temperature increase could at best be limited to 1.8 degrees by 2100, still well above the 1.5 degree target.
1.5 degrees is not really a target. The science clearly shows that this is where we need to be. “A 1.5°C increase is not an arbitrary figure, it is not a political figure. It is a planetary boundary. Every fraction more is dangerous.” noted renowned climate and earth system scientist Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, some time ago.
The IEA’s positive interpretation is due to the fact that they count on different governments’ promises of “net-zero” emissions at 2050, 2060 etc. The problem is that these pledges are totally out of touch with reality. According to the Carbon Action Tracker (CAT), the content of 73% of these pledges is completely inadequate, with only 6% having a reasonable pathway to achieve them. But no country in the entire world has a course of action and a plan in the near future that points towards achieving their “net zero” target! In many cases, these targets are based on highly uncertain large-scale carbon capture and storage technology that does not yet exist, in other cases on financing climate investments through the sale of coal and oil!
COP26 showed a total inability to stay anywhere near the 1.5 degree target, the emissions trend to 2030 points to roughly double the emissions needed for staying on the 1,5 degree track. The increased pledges at COP26 compared to Paris 2015 are only about 15% of what is needed.
To still have any realistic way forward, the outcome of the meeting was to kick the can down the road. Instead of new pledges for further reductions in 2025, the decision was to “encourage” governments to submit increased ambitions at COP27 in Egypt at the end of 2022.
When asked if this is not a success, Greta Thunberg declared “Winning slowly is the same as losing”. Greta Thunberg’s candour, using simple means such as exposing the “blah, blah, blah” of politicians and showing how “the emperor is naked”, is becoming increasingly troublesome for a greenwashing establishment. This explains the escalating vehement outbursts against her, despite the fact that, unlike socialists, she offers no real alternative to the current system.
Capitalism’s and today’s governments’ focus on profits for the rich over everything else is what created the crisis, yet the same leaders are now trying the same medicine to solve it — COP26 decided that emissions should be reduced by creating a “market” in emission trading. Like all other decisions, this trade contains loopholes — reductions in allowances are voluntary in trade between countries, and many countries are allowed to include unused allowances from the old Kyoto Protocol. And while this opens up new profit opportunities for capital at the expense of the climate and people, COP26 could only “deeply regret” that they did not reach a $100 billion climate investment fund for poorer countries.
The only good thing about new emission reduction pledges being discussed as early as 2022 is that it gives the climate and environmental movement a chance to immediately set its sights on building on the movement that was given a fresh start and injection of energy at the fantastic demonstrations in Glasgow.
It was not just the numbers, the 100,000 seen on the streets of Glasgow that were significant, but also the overwhelming realisation among the protesters that these leaders and this system are totally incapable of solving the acute crisis that they have created. At the same time, the demonstrations showed the limitations — as long as we only occupy the streets and possibly strike from schools, greenwashing and business as usual can continue. It is when we also collectively occupy and strike in workplaces that real change can be won — when the working class puts a stop to the capitalist machine.
Today’s union leaders in many countries put a brake on the struggle to defend jobs, wages, and working conditions, and unfortunately play the same destructive role when they fail to link up with the climate movement. Only together can we win a fair climate transition and avoid climate catastrophes that will undoubtedly hit workers hardest. Building a militant, democratic, and climate-conscious trade union movement is a key task for socialists.
The socialist methods and ideas put forward by the ISA´s 300 activists from around the world in Glasgow were strongly supported and openness to our ideas will only grow with the continued disastrous handling of the climate crisis by those in power.
The fossil fuel industry, the banks and all the other billionaires who have invested in this system will not change production and society, and neither will the governments who rule in their interests. A concrete and ambitious plan for a fair sustainable transformation of the whole society requires working people’s control of business and society — through nationalisation and governments that represent the working class instead of the rich.
Such a socialist revolution would not only be able to rapidly adjust to reduce emissions, as well as mitigate and adapt to the climate change that is already inevitable. It would also mean a historic redistribution of resources from the billionaires, who are literally awash in money, to the needs of housing, welfare, secure and well-paying jobs, and better living standards for the vast majority.
