No cop-out on climate crisis

National delegations and climate activists converge in Baku, Azerbaijan for COP29 beginning Monday in the backdrop of Donald Trump’s return as President of the United States (US). The US President-elect is a climate-sceptic and his return is seen as a setback for climate negotiations, the progress the world has made on emissions, and raising funds for developing countries, issues set to dominate the deliberations at Baku.
The concern about Trump’s intransigence on the climate crisis is understandable. The US is responsible for 20% of CO2 emissions between 1850-2022 and has per capita emissions of 18 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) compared to the global average of 4.7 tCO2e. Currently, China leads global emissions followed by the US, India and the European Union. Any policy reversal by the US could derail efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels when the UN is already warning of 3.1°C warming. Trump, not to forget, has threatened to terminate the Green New Deal and repeal the Inflation Reduction Act; his administration pulled out of the Paris Agreement in 2020. He has also said he will “drill, drill, drill”.
However, several multilateral agreements on climate have laid down the path to deal with the climate crisis in the face of American unilateralism. In fact, the US election result should, perhaps, be seen as a prodfor greater global cooperation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. US administrations, in any case, have maintained a hardline stance on climate and refused to acknowledge historical responsibility. They have demanded that emerging economies take on the burden of acting on climate and declined to provide adequate finance, weakening the very principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. Trump 2.0 could make it worse.
How best can UN climate meetings be insulated from the shocks of regime changes? The first would be to recognise that the economic losses due to climate disruption are far higher compared to the costs incurred in limiting emissions. Second, climate finance must flow from developed countries to developing countries as laid down in the convention; without finance, there can be no transition, and the developed world will suffer equally if developing nations continue to depend on fossil fuels. Third, unilateral trade measures such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) can alienate and negatively impact developing nations. An open dialogue on these measures is a must before frictions increase. Fourth, countries must trust market forces to force corrections. At COP28 in Dubai, the world agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner. It also agreed to triple renewable energy capacity globally and double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030. Even before Dubai, the declining cost of solar and wind power had provided the economic rationale for transitioning from fossil fuels. This is a global trend — though challenges of storage and transmission remain.
The onus may now be on other developed nations led by the EU, China, and India to step up the game and provide leadership based on principles laid down in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Beijing is currently the leading emitter but also a leader in clean energy. It is an opportunity for India as well: The climate emergency is the existential crisis of our time and future legacies will be built around leadership provided to alleviate its impact.