The climate crisis is a reality and a global challenge. According to the IPCC report, the planet has warmed by 1.1°C since the pre-industrial era and is expected to exceed 1.5°C in the coming years. The primary cause of this temperature rise is our mode of production, necessitating action towards the energy transition.
COP21 was a major milestone in the debate. At that time, the parties signed a document aiming to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C through a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting net-zero emissions by 2050. This is the famous Paris Agreement, named after the city that hosted the conference that year.
More than a decade later, at COP28 in Dubai, it became clear that there was only one solution: to make a “transition towards the end of fossil fuels.” Although necessary, the path to this goal is not easy, as it involves the interests of powerful nations, such as major oil companies and economies that rely on polluting energy sources.
Definition of energy transition
Today, the main sources of energy production on the planet are based on fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. The burning of these compounds produces CO2, the primary greenhouse gas, whose increased concentration is directly responsible for global warming.
Therefore, the energy transition is exactly what the name suggests: a change in how we produce energy, shifting to alternative sources with lower emissions, such as wind (which harnesses the power of the wind), solar, and hydroelectric power. However, the solution is not without obstacles. Among them are:
- Technical challenges: limitations in energy storage for some of these sources.
- Economic challenges: high investments required to alter infrastructure.
- Political issues: the interests of large and powerful global players are at stake.
Countries that depend on oil, for example, introduce a geopolitical dimension, arguing that it is unfair to hinder their development after the major economies have already enriched themselves and polluted without repercussions for decades.
Despite the difficulties, progress is happening. The criticism, however, is that its speed is still not sufficient to address the ongoing climate crisis.
The role of global climate negotiations
Given the complexity of the problem and its global scope, a negotiating table is indispensable to align the next steps. For this, consistency and frequency are needed. It is no surprise that the Conferences of the Parties, which take place annually, have gained increasing importance in discussing goals and analysing results.
The COP meetings also stand out for bringing together national, private, and various civil society representatives, such as NGOs and local communities, aiming for a broader debate.
Common but differentiated responsibility
A recurring issue is the question of inequality concerning the biggest polluters on the planet. Major powers such as the USA, Brazil, India, and China emit much more than countries with smaller economies, such as Bhutan or Iceland.
This divergence leads to endless debates. Some countries argue that the major powers should be held accountable for acting immediately and leading investments in efforts for an energy transition.
On the other hand, annual discussions have introduced mechanisms aimed at climate negotiations. The most famous perhaps are carbon credits, which are tools for offsetting emissions, and climate funds, where wealthier countries finance renewable energy development projects, such as the Green Climate Fund, or preservation, for example, in poorer countries.
Regulations have also been introduced, such as the Carbon Border Adjustment in the European Union, which taxes products based on their carbon footprint, encouraging companies to be more sustainable.
The aforementioned negotiations can be effective in pressuring large economies to accelerate the replacement of their polluting energy sources, as they commit to meeting goals before the international community. Germany is definitely a standout. The country has invested heavily in sustainable energy sources and aims to be carbon-neutral by 2045. Denmark shares the same goal, targeting 2050.
Fleeting targets
Critics, however, point out that many of these commitments are non-binding. In other words, they are promises without any legal basis to enforce compliance through laws or penalties in case of non-compliance.
Thus, the responsibilities assumed by a country can simply be discarded with a change of government. The clearest example is the United States, which was a signatory of the Paris Agreement but decided to disengage following President Donald Trump’s decision.
Renewable energy beyond the climate
Replacing energy matrices is crucial for mitigating the effects of climate change, but it can bring even more benefits. Currently, there is a growing economic trend called “green alternatives”—strategies crucial for economies of all sizes.
Studies suggest that BRICS countries, for example, could benefit from this shift, as well as ensure greater energy security by reducing dependence on oil and gas. These opportunities even encourage countries to collaborate and negotiate outside of multilateral meetings like COPs, creating space for greater cooperation, financing, knowledge exchange, and learning.
On the right track, but at a reduced speed
The energy transition is urgent and necessary. To achieve it, international cooperation, particularly regarding financial investment from wealthier countries to poorer nations, and climate negotiations are essential strategies that work to a certain extent. However, it is crucial to accelerate progress, as the pace of climate change is increasing, and the response must match this acceleration so that the crisis does not win the race and become unavoidable.
The post The impact of climate negotiations on energy transition appeared first on Sherlock Communications.
