There is something ironic, not to mention tragically zany, about gathering 80,000 people in the desert, in air-conditioned hotels, in an oil nation, to discuss climate change.
COP28 has become a metaphor for the problems humans face in combating climate change.
COP28 participants do not live in tents, like nomads, where they save water and wash from time to time in the bathroom. They do not accept local foods or frugal meals. They do not travel on camels.
No, many of them fly 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 cause their standard of living to decline.
The Chinese government constantly postpones setting its carbon dioxide reduction targets2Because it wants to maintain and rapidly increase the standard of living of its residents.
Narendra Modi, whose country has one of the worst environmental records, shamelessly suggests using India as a model. He also wants his country to develop quickly.
Alberta government rejects carbon tax because oil companies could make less profit than before.
However, China, India and Alberta are among the worst emitters of carbon dioxide2 In the world.
So, what do COP28 delegates decide? They decided to partially compensate for the damage caused by climate change. They have created a huge multi-billion dollar fund.
This money will be spent in countries whose infrastructure has been destroyed by climate disasters. I did well. But given the corruption that most of these countries suffer from, their residents are not about to see the color of corruption. On the other hand, the political and economic elites in these countries would be very happy to receive this money. They are also happy to participate in COP28.
Divestment as a solution
There is a solution to accelerate our societies’ transition towards greener economies. This solution is in the hands of rich countries.
It is enough for large investment funds, such as those that manage retirees’ money, to decide to stop investing in dirty energies. They should also stop investing in countries that, such as China and India, refuse to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.2.
Large investment funds can stop investing in these places under two conditions.
First, investments in non-polluting industries are as profitable as those in polluting industries. This is the situation. The demonstration took place.
The second is to mobilize shareholders. This is where most of the work still needs to be done.
