Can We Still Solve Climate Change?

A mother and her children are seen wading through a cloud of smoke at the Dandora dumpsite, Kenya's largest open landfill. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPSOpinion by Felix Dodds, Chris Spence (san francisco, california / apex, north carolina)Thursday, January 30, 2025Inter Press Service

SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, Jan 30 (IPS) - With so much bad news about climate change lately, is it too late for the world to tackle the problem? Professor Felix Dodds and Chris Spence review the current state-of-play.When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

Moisés Savian, Brazil's Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is due for release in June 2025.

© Inter Press Service (2025) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service