There is something ridiculous, not to say tragically clownish, Bringing 80,000 people together in the desertin air-conditioned hotels, in the oil state, to discuss climate change.
The COP28 meeting has become a metaphor for the problems humanity faces in the fight against climate change.
COP28 participants do not live in tents like Bedouins, save water and wash in the hammam from time to time. They don’t settle for local food or simple meals. They don’t travel on camels.
No, many of them travel in business class and stay in luxury hotels.
Like humanity
They are like the rest of humanity in the sense that they are willing to discuss the future of the planet as long as it does not lead to a decline in their standard of living.
The Chinese government is constantly postponing the setting of its CO2 reduction targets because it wants to maintain and quickly increase the living standards of its population.
Narendra Modi, whose country has one of the worst environmental records, shamelessly suggests that India should be used as a role model. He also wants his country to develop quickly.
The Alberta government opposes the carbon tax because oil companies could make less profits than before.
Yet China, India and Alberta are among the world’s worst CO2 emitters.
So what will the COP28 delegates decide? They decide to partially compensate for the damage caused by climate change. They are creating a gigantic multi-billion dollar fund.
This money will be spent in countries whose infrastructure is being destroyed by climate disasters. Well done. But given the corruption in most of these countries, their populations will not feel this. On the other hand, the political and economic elites of these countries will be very happy about this money. They are also happy to take part in COP28.
Disinvestment as a solution
There is a solution to accelerate our societies’ transition to a greener economy. This solution lies in the hands of rich countries.
It is enough if large investment funds, for example those that manage pensioners’ money, decide to stop investing in environmentally harmful energies. They should also stop investing in countries that refuse to reduce their carbon emissions, like China and India.
Large investment funds can stop investing in these places under two conditions.
First, investing in greener industries is just as profitable as investing in polluting industries. It is the case. The demonstration was carried out.
The second option is for shareholders to mobilize. This is where most of the work remains to be done.
Would you like more content from
Loïc Tasse? Don’t miss it live every day, in
Podcast or in
audiovisual on the audio platform
QUB radio.