The COP 28 UN Climate Change Conference that took place in Dubai this year from November 30 to December 12 has resulted in some interesting observations. As in the past, the COP summit constituted a platform for the global community to agree on ways to address the climate crisis, such as limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees celsius, supporting vulnerable communities to adapt to the effects of climate change, and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Available statistics indicate that more than 70,000 delegates attended the COP28 Conference. This included 47 representatives of the member states (called Parties), which constitute the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Business leaders, young people, climate scientists, indigenous peoples from different parts of the world, journalists, and various other experts and stakeholders were also among the participants.
It may be recalled that the UNFCCC was established in 1992 to combat "dangerous human interference with the climate system", in part by limiting the greenhouse gas emissions that compromise Earth's entire ecosystem, a prerequisite for human existence.
Climatologists spent time in analysing and critically examining progress made in accordance with the Paris Agreement of 2015, when 195 Parties of the UNFCCC agreed to keep the rise of global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F), compared to pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F).
In this context, one needs to refer to a very thought-provoking interview about the scientific perspective of the meaning and influence of COP28 undertaken by Michael Tjernstrom, Professor of Meteorology at Stockholm University. He compared the COP efforts to the steps that are normally taken by a dentist to keep one in good health through regular check-up visits where you need to trust him. He then pointed out that "in a similar fashion the COPs intent is to mend the already present damages to the climate, determine their causes and try to prevent a negative development. However, it is up to the members to act."
As expected, he then referred to the UN's positive role in this regard. In this context, like many climatologists, it was reiterated that "there is absolutely no other global organisations other than the UN which would be able to organise and be in charge of such a process. No other national, international, political or private organisation would be able to establish a global consensus and general awareness, as well as maintain the perseverance, stamina, objectivity and legal strength to do so". This is one dimension that needs to be accepted. Through such a view attention was drawn to the global and local outreach of the UN and its continuous support for the global scientific community.
M. Tjernstrom was also asked why he was not attending the COP meeting. He had an interesting response which is shared by many other environmentalists. He observed that in the contemporary global paradigm, unfortunately COP summits are more politically than scientifically motivated. It was also observed that the COPs mainly attract other stakeholders as well as scientists- such as "government representatives, spokespersons for environmentalist pressure groups and lobbyists representing the interests of fossil fuel-based industries, as well as oil and coal producing companies". Many such lobbyists try to find a place among decision makers and this, quite often, has undesirable effects. They try to highlight their specific interests, some of them being based on doubtful assumptions and moral priorities.
Such an accusation appears to be reasonable. One needs to remember that environmentalists have often demanded that certain interest groups be excluded from COP summits, like those lobbying for the use of fossil fuels, interests of oil producers, as well as industrialists who- for the sake of their own profit, try to minimise the threat from global warming- but this does not always happen. At this juncture one nevertheless needs to see another side of the coin. It is important that influential technological stakeholders are present because they might also be able to present to the audience new technological and scientific advancements that would assist other environmental friendly technologies, and the threats of global warming. This is an interesting perspective. One has to understand that industrialisation based on non-polluting and zero emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as new eco-friendly technology, are essential for change and improvement.
In a manner of speaking every effort to limit greenhouse emissions is worthy of attention, though decisive and comprehensive political actions are particularly crucial for achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.
It would, however, be correct to note here that the COP meetings, despite critical observations by climatologists, make participants aware of the fatal threat of global warming. That by itself is a significant contribution. It also makes the general public aware of actions that are taking place and for which institutions can be held accountable for the ongoing destruction of natural resources and the atmosphere.
One needs to make another noteworthy observation relating to the functioning of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICCP). It is expected to facilitate the advancement of scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities and it does so by examining all relevant scientific literature on the subject through comprehensive reviews and dissemination of scientific insights and research results including natural, economic and social impacts and risks. The ICCP is also expected to cover possible responsive options. However, it has unfortunately been noted that IPCC reports tend to be altered discreetly to mitigate alarming findings emanating from political nuances. This is a worrisome development.
It would also be reasonable to state that developed nations, particularly from the West and some from the East who contribute by far the most to the ongoing climatological damage, also do not take necessary responsibility when it comes to mitigation and adaptation. This is disappointing as these countries have the financial, technological, historical and scientific prerequisites to make amends for all the damage that they have already caused, and should therefore now also take a more proactive approach both regarding adaptation and mitigation and restoring ecological balance. It is true that Africa is lagging behind in its industrial development and consequently has limited emissions, but must nevertheless reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.
It would, however, be correct to note another important development that has taken place towards the end of the COP 28 meeting. The media has reported that the global nuclear industry has got a morale boost in Dubai after more than 20 nations vowed to triple capacity by 2050. There are currently 60 commercial reactors under construction in 17 countries across the world, with China accounting for 25, according to the World Nuclear Association.
However, reaching that goal will require the industry to overcome regulatory hurdles, financing obstacles, fuel bottlenecks, and public safety concerns that have contributed to a long history of project delays and decades of stagnation.
The declaration, signed by the U.S., France, Britain, South Korea, and others, commits countries to mobilise investment and encourage financial institutions like the World Bank to back nuclear power. It also promises efforts to extend the life of existing plants-- with about 200 of 420 reactors around the world scheduled to be decommissioned before 2050 -- and support for new technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs).
One needs to remember that it took nearly70 years to bring global nuclear capacity to the current level of 370 gigawatts (GW), and the industry must now select technologies, raise finance and develop the rules to build another 740 GW in half that time.
Analyst M. Schneider has observed that "judging by the international nuclear industry's performance over the past two decades, it is impossible." Nevertheless, while admitting the industry's struggles, Patrick Fragman, chief executive of Westinghouse has reminded the world that "nuclear is the safest source of energy." The other side of the coin has seen some environmental groups critical about the pledge-- citing public safety concerns. Some academics have also questioned whether nuclear plants could be brought online in time to help avert a climate catastrophe. This has included Mark Jacobson, an energy specialist at Stanford University, who has observed that "why would anyone spend a single dollar on a technology that, if planned today, won't even be available to help until 2035-2045?"
Rafael Grossi, executive director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has told the media that the body was now working on harmonising approval rules worldwide to make it easier for countries to share technologies. In this context he remarked that "the IAEA has launched a process so that regulators around the world can move faster, always by applying very strict safety measures."
We in Bangladesh have been following developments in this regard with care. Russia is currently the only significant producer of HALEU -- a highly enriched form of uranium that will be crucial for new reactor technologies. They are also involved in establishing nuclear power in Bangladesh. Let us see how things develop.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
muhammadzamir0@gmail.com