Although the past decade is likely to be remembered as a period of pandemic, deepening economic crisis and protectionist policies swinging like a pendulum, climate change has concretely entered the agenda of many countries. In 2022, although there are still 5 countries that have not signed the Paris Agreement, the reality of the climate crisis has become almost undeniable in front of the states. Despite the climate change denialism, economic problems and technological limitations, we need to make great progress in a short time in order to realize the Paris Agreement's goal of net zero by 2050 and 45% reduction in global emissions by 2030.

The energy crisis we are in - as was the case at COP27 - has brought fossil fuel solutions back to the agenda, signaling a loosening and postponement of targets. It is evident that economic problems and the energy crisis could at any time get in the way of the climate goals that need to be realized. Attempts to bring Africa into the natural gas market, statements by host Egypt and Arab Group countries to block decisions to phase out fossil fuels were living proof of efforts to keep fossil fuels still on the table.

All in all, it seems that the steps taken to combat climate change are kept on the agenda as a tool for governments and policy makers to prevent or postpone the social and economic crises that may arise rather than meeting emission targets. The basis of this perspective is undoubtedly the reality of meeting growing consumption smoothly with limited world resources and financial means, but the priority must now be in favor of a climate-friendly growth approach.

In 2021, the COP 26 summit followed an Assessment Report in which it was unequivocally stated that climate change was caused by human-induced factors, and the fact that even a 1.5-degree warming would lead to unpredictable environmental disasters was voiced. Considering the seriousness of the situation we are in, it seems that we have no other choice but to decarbonize as quickly as possible. The emission reduction performance of many countries is quite inadequate, and these non-binding targets form the basis of our future projections, as there are no sanctions if the figures specified in the contribution declarations are not realized.

So, given that the continuity of human activities and the security of economies are the top priorities of many governments and institutions, how should we view the steps taken to combat climate change? Do these steps only save the day or can they build a future that will reverse global warming? Where should we start, given that no matter how different the capacities and resources of countries are, there is a limit to what can be done with the technologies, political and financial tools at our disposal? Although the current situation and international developments create a negative picture in general, at the end of the day, it is up to us to change our future.

The biggest outcomes of the Glasgow summit, where the rulebook of the Paris Agreement was finalized and seen as a general achievement, were the prevention of deforestation and methane emissions. Protecting carbon sinks and reducing methane emissions, which have a higher global warming potential than carbon emissions, came to the fore as solutions that could yield quick results in a short time. In fact, these steps cover issues that we are already paying a heavy price for and that we can easily achieve results by simply preventing them. In the face of these steps put forward by states with a common determination as a result of cooperation, civil society is aware that “cutting corners” and leaving the big responsibilities to the future.

COP27 was a COP without any decision to phase out any type of fossil fuel and without any concrete will to establish an implementation program. The fact that the financing mechanism for damages and losses of developing countries was included in the decision texts is seen as the biggest achievement of the African COP. Even if developed countries have failed to achieve the target of creating an annual resource of 100 billion dollars for capacity building by 2020, it is of great importance that this decision was taken at the African COP, where the voice of developing countries is expected to be heard the loudest. Details such as the size of the fund, the contributions of the parties and other obligations remain to be finalized, and we will be keeping an eye on the details of the losses and damages fund throughout 2023 to see if it is again “cut and dried”.

In the shadow of COP27, which failed to develop a timetable for transitioning away from fossil fuels and to take steps towards implementation, the IEA's Coal report reveals that coal still accounts for the largest share of electricity generation and global emissions. For a rapid reduction in national emission inventories and limiting global warming to 1.5 C, coal phase-out seems to be the fastest and “easiest” way. For many markets, including Turkey, the transition from coal to renewables is more economically and technologically mature than ever before[i]. A 13.19 GW solar plant, equivalent to 13% of Turkey's total installed capacity, can be built on the land of around 10.5 GW of currently operating coal plants in Turkey - with no additional environmental impact[ii]. Instead of taking easy prescriptions as gospel or taking them for granted, we can all do big things at any scale, starting from the easy!

[i] https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/turkey-coal-wind-solar-costs/

[ii] https://ekosfer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/komur-sahalarinin-gunes-potansiyeli.pdf

Murat Unal / 30.12.2022