Good COP, Bad COP or Over the COP? Dispelling the UN Climate Change Conferences myths.

Attending the last three Conferences of the Parties (COPs) and listening in at the powerful climate negotiating tables through the lens of an advisor in the sustainability, resilience and ESG space, it's evident that the intention of driving transformative, positive change is there. Though the execution remains complicated. Let me explain.

Having a seat at the table at COP means coming together as a united front of countries to act on the climate crisis and mitigate further harm. Of course, each country brings its unique climate circumstances, pressures, priorities and limitations to the meeting and must balance this alongside any global discussion. Below are some common misconceptions and perceived limitations of COP, coupled with some on-the-ground insights on what takes place.

1. Oil-producing countries enable other countries to gain cheap access to fossil fuels and are slowing down any incentive to transition to a net zero economy.

Countries producing fossil fuels rely on them to maintain their economy, and for many reasons, it's unrealistic to assume that they can immediately hit the stop button. Any modern organisation navigating an energy transition can relate to ensuring an adequate supply of the alternative energy source first before pulling the plug. Planning the transition to other, cleaner energy sources takes time, and the learning curve for industries to make this shift is steep.

As an example, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is in the process of transitioning its economy towards alternative means. They are pioneering solar, nuclear and hydrogen energy sources as a viable way to transition from fossil fuels. The UAE Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure recently unveiled its national hydrogen strategy preview.

GHD Advisory is collaborating with the Fraunhofer Society to develop the framework and implementation phases of the hydrogen strategy, prioritising energy transition, driving job creation and supporting new industries. Until these plans are embedded in a feasible capacity, we need fossil fuels as a buffer during the transition. COP also provides a way to share best practices across the net zero journey, allowing other fossil fuel dependent nations to learn from the UAE and their transition.

2. Developing countries continue to build coal power plants despite the need to invest in renewables.

Transitioning to net zero requires investment funding for new technologies and so much more. Emerging economies are struggling to do this without sacrificing basic public policy necessities. This doesn't signal low ambition but indicates the need for more support and resources from developed countries.

The topic of finance has an ongoing reputation of strong contention at COP negotiating tables.

Developing countries believe it's unfair that they are being forced into higher-priced renewable energy practices despite the state of their economies. Developed countries had the opportunity to build their economies on said fossil fuels. On the other hand, developed countries disagree with having to finance everyone’s transition.

Although supporting mitigation and adaptation has yet to be made clear, COP27 illustrates progress on this issue, with an agreement to create a new ‘Loss and Damage’ fund where developed countries may support vulnerable countries suffering from climate impacts.

3. The negotiations don't achieve the progress needed to drive real change.

Some countries use the conference to be more ambitious with climate change goals and impact. The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) sit at the core of achieving long-term goals and embodies efforts by each country to reduce national emissions and reach net zero. The NDC requires each country to prepare, communicate and maintain steps and actions. The adaptation fund also supports governments to be better prepared to resist the impacts of the warming climate, financing projects and programs that help vulnerable communities in developing countries, pointing towards tangible output and change.

Despite the complexities of reaching a consensus on agenda items, almost all issues are discussed and eventually arrived at a conclusion. The misconception that some countries are trying to slow down the process isn't based on being difficult, but rather concerns whether they are nationally equipped to take steps forward.

Each year, the COP is becoming more than just a reputation exercise. It's an opportunity for countries to find a solution to one of the most complicated global circumstances humanity has ever had to resolve collectively. Finding a path that caters to everyone is nearly impossible, but work is firmly underway to find a balance, trust the process and continue working toward meaningful action.