COP26 Cables: Even When It’s Not about the Money, It’s about the Money

My Competitive Enterprise Institute colleagues and I are filing brief cables on COP26, the international climate conference being held in Glasgow, Scotland. Below is our third dispatch.

TL;DR: Tuesday was officially gender plus science and innovation day at COP26, but discussions focused on financing.

T here is a lot happening at the 26th Conference of Parties, a gathering attracting 20,000 people from around the world. It is part trade show for every nation and nonprofit to showcase good intentions about climate change. And it is a meeting to negotiate implementation of the Paris climate agreement, itself a product of COP21, which was held in 2015. It is a showcase for politicians, a flashpoint for activists, and something of a circus.

The agenda of COP26 is focused on Article 6 of the Paris agreement, which was vaguely drafted to address cross-border challenges, such as shipping and trade. At the highest level of negotiations — the “ministerial level” — the objective is to agree on rules for an international carbon-dioxide-trading regime. Depending on its structure, such a system could allow polluting, industrial, or rapidly developing nations to pay poorer countries to preserve forests or to adopt noncarbon-dioxide-emitting power systems. Imagine “dirty” Germany or America paying into a fund that provides money to nature preserves in developing countries while also funding offshore wind.

There are some hurdles including, ironically, animus against capitalism. Reuters reports, for example, that Bolivia opposes market systems that would lead to climate billionaires and harm to Mother Earth. The Climate Action Network (CAN) publishes a daily tip sheet on the proceedings, and today a headline blares, “It’s About People And Nature, Not Markets And Offsets.” CAN is a coalition, the player in the NGO space with the most breadth, and the lead editorial is a stern reminder that its members seek a rights-based framework for trading under Article 6. They claim that “rights-based and inclusive climate action is better climate action.” In practice, that means women, workers, indigenous people, persons with disabilities, and others who assert rights to generous funding of their priorities.

Today’s Headlines

It was John Kerry, the president’s special envoy for climate, who may have made the big news for Americans, though his intended audience is certainly the rest of the world. Kerry told Bloomberg Green that the United States would phase out coal-fueled power plants by 2030 and that its grid would be carbon-free by 2035.

What You Won’t Read in the Next Day’s Papers

Activists handed the “Fossil of the Day” award to Saudi Arabia because of the kingdom’s hard-line position, which appears to have kept the term “human rights” out of the guiding-principles document for Article 6 negotiations. One can only speculate as to why the House of Saud is shy about human-rights agreements. Regardless of motivation, it is a good idea to excise this idea from the discussions about climate change. Rights are a tremendously important bedrock of liberty and a crucial legal innovation. They are a framework for establishing the relationship between people and government, as well as among people. However, as a legal tool, rights are often not well-suited to handle complex social or moral problems.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. Some of the crucial mechanisms are understood — such as the greenhouse effect — while others, such as climate modeling, confound the brightest minds. For many people, climate change presents profound moral questions. But that does not mean that it is an issue of rights, which necessarily places an obligation on others. It is no wonder that so many climate activists want a rights-based approach to allocating resources: It would always place a burden on others.

Today’s Takeaway for Free-Marketers

At 2009’s COP15, Secretary of State Clinton proposed a $100-billion-a-year Green Climate Fund that would begin in 2020. It was approved at 2011’s COP17. We are now two years into the spending plan. When it became clear that wealthy nations were not going to make the targets, they began green-labeling direct foreign aid as contributions to the Green Climate Fund. But that was never going to be an approach that would generate enough to enable poorer countries to move to a low carbon footprint. As a result, the parties at COP21 in Paris agreed to create a new, more ambitious target in 2025. If you want to understand the COP meetings, and the United Nations generally, follow the money. The rest of the show is largely window dressing.

Photos of the Day

The Scottish Exhibition Center may be at least partially powered by diesel, but the U.N. meeting inside is all about the money.

First, take the diesel generators at the meeting:

And second, here are some protesters during a presentation at the COP26 “Action Hub.”