Episode 46 - The Emperor Still Has No Clothes

In this episode we examine the fact and ways in which the current global system for tackling climate change is broken,  how our false optimism that it will somehow magically succeed has stopped us from considering viable, effective alternatives, and what those alternatives might be, particularly one that I'd like to propose, for a World Parliament.

Episode Transcript

Sovaida (00:08):
Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast
dedicated to envisioning abetter world and to infusing
hope that we can make theprincipled choices to build that
world.
Before I begin, I wanted toshare some good news with you.
This is our 46th episode.
You can now listen to all theepisodes of Reimagining Our

(00:32):
World on your favorite podcastplatform.
You can also still watch andlisten to them on the CPGG
YouTube channel as you've alwaysbeen able to do but I did want
you to know that they'reavailable now, at your urging,
as audio podcasts.
So please let your friends know.
All right, our episode today isgoing to examine the fact and

(00:56):
ways in which the current globalsystem for tackling climate
change is broken, how our falseoptimism that it will somehow
magically succeed has stopped usfrom considering viable,
effective alternatives, and whatthose alternatives might be,

(01:16):
particularly one that I'd liketo propose.
One of the struggles that weseem to have as humans is the
struggle of seeing and acceptingreality for what it is, seeing
things as they are, not betterthan they are and not worse than
they are.
Why is that important?

(01:36):
Because as a result of thismindset we tend to repeat
behaviors that fail to yield theresults that we want, all the
while lulling ourselves into thebelief that this time the
outcome will somehow magicallybe different.
We tell ourselves a story thatwe're being optimistic.

(02:00):
But in fact, what seems to behappening is that we're in
denial, that the optimism is notgenuine, that it is in fact
unfounded.
A prime example of this is whatwe call the COP, C O P, system
for making decisions onarresting global warming and

(02:22):
mitigating the effects of andadapting to climate change.
You will all have heard in thenews about the latest round of
COP meetings.
These are member states who gettogether annually to negotiate
agreements, that is the hopeanyway, for reducing global
warming and mitigating theeffects of climate change.

(02:43):
As a recent article in Politicoput it, optimism in the face of
overwhelming evidence is one ofthe things that keeps the
delegates returning to theseconferences year after year.
For the past three decades,these annual meetings have been
humanity's main tool to avoidthe nightmare of a planet heated

(03:05):
by two degrees Celsius or more.
Now, the problem with engagingin this kind of behavior, which
is repeating the same behaviorhoping for different results, is
that it is the very definitionof insanity and madness.
We continue to do the same, yearafter year, 29 years on now.

(03:26):
The real problem with takingthis approach, sticking our
heads in the sand and repeatingbehaviors that don't work, is
that this approach stops us frommaking conscious choices about
strategies that could be trulyeffective in tackling climate
change.

(03:46):
Reaching out and makingconscious choices in the face of
reality, I believe, is the truedefinition of optimism.
Let's look at the current systemthat we have in place.
I know for some of you, the useof the acronym COP can be a
little confusing, so let me justgive you a little bit of a
background.

(04:06):
Back in 1992, the world cametogether and created a treaty,
the first proper treaty onclimate change.
It's called the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change.
Its goal was to preventdangerous human interference
with the climate system.
After 1992, there have beenannual meetings of the

(04:27):
Conference of the Parties.
So all the members get togetherannually to hash out agreements
to arrest global warming andtackle climate change.
We just finished our 29th annualmeeting in Baku, Azerbaijan.
You may recall the term, theParis Agreement.

(04:47):
This is an agreement that wasthe result of the 21st meeting
of the Conference of theParties.
In Paris in which the nations ofthe world agreed on a very
specific goal that was thecenterpiece of the treaty, and
that was to limit global warmingto one and a half to two degrees
Celsius over pre industrialperiod, because based on the

(05:11):
science, we figured if we couldkeep temperatures from warming
beyond that, while the resultswould be dire, they would not be
absolutely catastrophic.
So let's honestly assess wherewe are after these 29 years of
meeting after the ParisAgreement.
Here's the truth.
The Paris Agreement has not, itsgoals have not been met and

(05:36):
cannot be met, given the way theCOP system is structured.
Since 1992, when we firststarted this whole sequence of
meetings, annual greenhousegases are actually up, the
emissions are up 44% and theworld is currently, regardless

(05:56):
of our goals, on track to warmmore than two and a half degrees
Celsius.
This is a future that scientistsconsider absolutely disastrous.
Remember we said the goal of theParis Agreement was to limit it.
The goal was to keep it actuallyas close to one and a half
degrees as possible.

(06:17):
At worst, two degrees.
And now we see that we're ontrack to warm the planet by at
least two and a half degreesabove pre industrial period.
We see this in the news all thetime.
We see all these extreme weatherevents: floods and wildfires and
droughts and famine risingwaters, disasters of all kinds.

(06:39):
This suffering that ensues as aresult of these extreme weather
events is simply going tointensify as long as we fail to
recognize that the system wehave in place for tackling
climate change is not working.
As the suffering intensifies, itwill force us to reconsider and

(07:02):
re conceptualize a new system.
We really oughtn't to wait untilthings get so dire, but that
seems to be the way in whichhumanity is going.
However, to give us a chance toreconsider earlier and course
correct, let's look at some ofthe flaws in the current COP

(07:22):
system and why it is that it'sfailing.
And that'll give us a sense ofwhat we need to do to create an
alternative system that works.
So the first flaw is that werely on voluntary pledges.
Let's take a look at that.
Under the Paris Agreement, eachcountry is to tell the rest of

(07:44):
the world what its pledges are,what its nationally determined
contributions are to reducingemissions and adapting to the
effects of climate change.
Now, here's the reality.
Even if all the countries whosigned on to the Paris Agreement
were to fulfill the pledgesthey've given, the current

(08:05):
reports estimate thattemperatures will still likely
rise beyond the two degreesCelsius outer limit we've set
ourselves.
Now that's if all the countrieswere to fulfill their pledges.
The reality is that manycountries are nowhere near
fulfilling their pledges,putting us on the path to rising
temperatures at levels between2.5 and 2.9 degrees centigrade

(08:30):
by the year 2100.
The other really stunning thingis these pledges have failed to
take into account what theInternational Energy Agency has
told us that if we're to succeedin managing climate change,
there can be no new oil and gasprojects.
And we know that there are somany of them.

(08:53):
Okay, so the second flaw in theCOP system is that there is no
system for holding nationsaccountable to fulfilling their
pledges under the agreement.
There's absolutely no mechanismfor ensuring that they're
accountable and that they'repunished or penalized if they

(09:15):
fail to meet their commitments.
The world has got to come upwith a system that ensures that
enforcement is possible.
The third problem is inadequatefunding for activities like
mitigation and adaptation andeven research and development
into alternative clean energysources.

(09:36):
These have all proven generallyvery challenging and
unsuccessful, with poorercountries generally finding
themselves supplicating, cap inhand, while the richer countries
respond by ducking, bobbing, andweaving, and doing whatever it
takes to limit their exposure.
We just saw this with the COP 29that ended in Baku, Azerbaijan,

(09:58):
where the developing nations hadrequested 1.3 trillion dollars
to help them with mitigatingclimate change and at the end of
this torturous conference, thericher countries pledged only
300 billion in support.
The fourth flaw in the currentCOP system is the requirement

(10:21):
--and this is just honestly sucha childish one, given where
humanity is at-- of consensus indecision making.
Essentially what you do is yougrant each member country veto
power, because if one countrydisagrees then the whole
agreement falls apart or theproposed agreement.

(10:41):
This started in 1991, justbefore the first climate change
agreement came into being whenthe Saudi negotiators insisted
that all climate decisions mustbe taken by consensus.
And it's no big surprise thatvery often the result is
paralysis or at very bestagreement based on the lowest
common denominator, which is notwhat we human beings deserve.

(11:07):
We deserve better and we owe itto ourselves to do better.
So these are the four main flawsin the current system that we
need to be willing to look inthe eye and it's only once we do
that and say,"Oh yes, the systemis really broken, is really
flawed, is really not working,is really not serving the best

(11:29):
interests of humanity," that wewill be willing to consider our
options.
There is hope, there is a wayout.
And that hope will not manifestitself until we have come out of
denial about the way the currentsystem works.
We have to be willing to thinkcreatively and out of the box.

(11:52):
This is the hope that we createa global World Parliament or
World Legislature that isessentially a forum for
collective decision making inthe face of collective and
global challenges.
This parliament needs to bedemocratically elected by the

(12:15):
peoples of the world andequipped with the authority to
pass binding international lawsin areas like climate change,
which are global in nature anddemand global solutions.
So let's look at some of the keyfeatures that need to
characterize this WorldParliament.

(12:35):
The first is that the WorldParliament must be endowed with
the authority to pass bindinglegislation.
This means that the Parliamentshould be granted or ceded
authority by all the countriesof the world to pass
legislation, for instance, toschedule a universal phase down

(12:58):
for the quantities of fossilfuels that each nation can burn.
The Parliament should also beable to pass binding legislation
about what kinds of fuels eachnation can burn, and in what
quantities, and then set thatschedule.
It also needs to pass laws toregulate the emissions of
methane.
The parliament could pass a law,for instance, to ban new coal

(13:22):
fired power plants.
Since 2021, for instance, thenumber of these coal fired power
plants has surged in China,sparking fears that policy
makers there are prioritizingenergy security and economic
growth concerns over climatepledges.
The Parliament could also passlegislation to regulate the

(13:43):
production and use of plastics,which are destroying our
environment and severelyimpacting human health.
We need only look to the eventsof the past week to see that an
attempt by the countries of theworld to come to an agreement on
a global plastics treaty hasended in failure.
This is their fifth round ofnegotiations.

(14:06):
The idea was to curb plasticpollution, but a number of
countries who produce plasticgot in the way and objected to
any language that would curbtheir ability to produce
plastic, and they wantedeveryone to focus merely on
recycling more plastic.
Once again, the system washampered by the requirement

(14:28):
imposed by the same countrymentioned before that all
decisions be made by unanimityor by consensus.
And so all it took was a coupleof oil producing countries who
also produce plastics that are aproduct of oil to say, sorry, we
object.
And the whole thing fell throughin the work of all these

(14:49):
nations.
All this laborious work came tonaught for now.
Now, another feature of the ofthe world parliament is that it
needs to be democraticallyelected.
I just wanted to make sure thatwe understand that just as we
elect our representatives to ourstate councils, local councils,

(15:10):
national councils, federalcouncils, or bodies, so too we
should be able to elect ourrepresentatives to a World
Parliament so that our voicesare heard.
Okay, the other feature that theParliament must be endowed with
is the ability to raise fundsthrough a limited power to levy

(15:31):
taxes.
We need to have these taxes.
Again, just as we pay taxes atthe local, state, national,
federal level, so too we shouldhave to pay taxes at the global
level so that the funds existfor adaptation and mitigation of
climate change and research anddevelopment and to create things

(15:51):
like the loss and damage fundintended to help the developing
world tackle climate change, thedamage wrought by climate
change.
The Parliament could also, forinstance, impose a carbon tax.
And if it's binding on allnations, because the Parliament
has the power to pass bindinglegislation, then we won't end
up with situations that severalcountries have faced.

(16:13):
For instance, in Canada, Mr.
Trudeau had a flagship climatepolicy that he's had to back
down on in some aspects becausethere was so much public
resistance.
He essentially ended up agreeingto a three year delay on the
imposition of levy on homeheating oil because of public

(16:36):
resistance.
Similarly, Mr.
Macron in France, who wasimpacted by the Yellow Vest
protest movement that began in2018, you'll remember, over fuel
taxes, called for a regulatorypause on new green measures.
And in the UK, we had formerPrime Minister Rishi Sunak, who
delayed bans on the sale of newgas boilers and new petrol and

(17:00):
diesel cars, again, becausethere was stiff public
opposition.
These are all problems that wecan forestall by having these
decisions made at a global levelby a democratically elected
Parliament in a way that isbinding on all nations.
Now, the other feature of aWorld Parliament is that we
would shift the decision makingfrom consensus to majority

(17:25):
voting.
We'll have to come up with somesystem of majority voting that
appeals to the nations of theworld, maybe a two thirds or
other sort of majority vote, asopposed to unanimity.
As we saw, the Global PlasticsTreaty was stillborn because the
Saudis, again, requiredunanimity in decisions and so,

(17:46):
with objections from a handfulof nations, the whole agreement
was scuttled before it was born.
And lastly the World Parliamentwill need to have a system by
which nations are keptaccountable.
So certain reportingrequirements, which are at the
moment very confusing, to theextent that they exist, because

(18:10):
there are different levels ofreporting required by different
jurisdictions.
There are different regulatoryregimes and it's very hard for
governments to keep up.
Fortunately, there are a coupleof initiatives like the Global
Reporting Initiative and theISSB that are trying to get a
hand on these and trying tocreate a global disclosure

(18:30):
system, which is the first stepin keeping nations accountable,
but we also need a mechanism ofenforcement.
So these are just some of thefeatures of a World Parliament
that it is time that we createas an alternative system to the
COP.
We need to drop the COP, so tospeak, and try something

(18:51):
different.
If you are interested in a moredetailed exposition on the
structure of this WorldParliament, then I urge you to
go back to some episodes inwhich we covered this in more
detail, episodes 9, 10, and 11of Reimagining Our World, that's
available now on audio podcastas well.

(19:12):
So that's it for now, and I hopethat this particular episode has
been useful to you in helpingunpack why it is we don't seem
to be able to get a handle ontackling climate change, what
the flaws are in the currentsystem, and what is possible.

(19:32):
That's the exciting part.
Reimagining our world, right?
Recognizing that we can reachfor and choose something
different.
We can choose something moreconstructive, empowering,
effective, efficacious, thatactually meets the needs of
humanity at this stage in itsgrowth and development as it

(19:55):
approaches collective maturity.
All right, thank you very much.
I'm going to take a quick lookat the comments.
Interesting point, Nola, you saythat to move towards a World
Parliament there needs to be aninfusion of trust in
institutions.
I would suggest that we need tocraft institutions and processes

(20:16):
that inspire trust in people.
In other words, they need to becrafted in ways that ensure that
all our voices are heard, thatwe're all represented.
That in itself creates trust.
But also to ensure that they'reincapable of being taken over
and being corrupted.
And there are ways of doingthat.

(20:36):
Unfortunately, systems in manyparts of the world and
governments lack thosesafeguards.
And so we're seeing misuse ofsystems and corollary decline in
trust in public institutions.
And yes, we need to raiseclimate issues to a higher level
and public discourse, hence thispodcast.
So feel free to share it withyour circles of friends.

(21:00):
We're in the middle of it.
The truck is barreling down theroad right at us.
In fact, it's already started tosteamroll over us.
We're all suffering the effects.
And what's fascinating is thateven communities that thought
they were immune from climatechange, and we heard about the
poor folks in Asheville and whathappened to them with the
flooding and the landslides andso on, who thought we live in a

(21:22):
part of the country in theUnited States where we're not
going to be, we're going to besafe from climate change, the
ravages of climate change.
And oh, how wrong they ended upbeing.
There is no safe haven foranybody.
So we're all in this together.
The ship of humanity is sinking.
It's hit an iceberg and we needour life rafts.
And I would submit that creatinga World Parliament is one of

(21:45):
those key life rafts that willget us all to safety.
All right.
Thank you until next month.
Bye bye.
That's all for this episode ofReimagining Our World.
I'll see you back here nextmonth.
If you liked this episode,please help us to get the word
out by rating us and subscribingto the program on your favorite

(22:08):
podcast platform.
This series is also available invideo on the YouTube channel of
the Center for Peace and GlobalGovernance, CPGG.