Will this fiasco be the last Cop?

The COP process, by contrast, is simply descending into a prolonged farce. COP29 is still in session at time of writing, in the capital of the authoritarian petro-state of Azerbaijan. But last week, to the outrage of climate campaigners, it opened with a paean of praise to fossil fuels and was swamped by no fewer than 1,733 lobbyists for the coal, oil and gas industries together with 132 of their bosses.

Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, not only used his opening speech to hail fossil fuels as a “gift from God” – deftly swerving the issue of why God wants to destroy conditions for human life on the planet – but called France a colonial oppressor, causing its climate minister to walk out. In the run-ip to the conference Aliyev ordered the arrest of 33 social justice campaigners. The US State Department, meanwhile, says there are credible reports that his regime has perpetrated unlawful killing, torture, arbitrary detention, and the persecution of journalists.

How did such a lovely set of people get to host COP29? Well, the rules stipulated that it was the turn of an East European country to host the talks, but Russia blocked most of them, leaving Armenia and Azerbaijan with rival bids.

Armenia, which has just seen a chunk of disputed territory invaded and ethnically cleansed by Azerbaijan, then dropped its own bid in order to secure the release of some prisoners of war. The alternative would have been deadlock, and no COP 29.

These events have triggered outrage among the great and good of the global community. An open letter, issued by the Club of Rome and signed by among others former Irish president Mary Robinson and former UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon called for the whole COP process to be reformed. 

Not only have the last three conferences been held in countries whose commitment to the Paris Agreement is questionable – Egypt, the UAE and Azerbaijan; the signatories point out that science is increasingly sidelined from the COP process, that it has become the site for horse trading between oil companies and dictators, and that there is no accountability mechanism for ensuring agreements are observed.

Supporters of the COP process say this is what you have to endure in order to achieve progress, however meagre, towards the decarbonisation goals set out in the Paris Agreement. If thousands of salmon have to be smoked, and hundreds of hotel masseuses need to work overtime to keep the oil execs happy, then let it be for the greater good of humanity.

But that only illustrates the wider problem of the so-called multipolar world. We live in an age where major economies are walking away from collaboration; where the international rule of law is shattered; where economic globalisation is in retreat; and where competition between the major economic blocs is framed as a zero-sum game: when you win, I lose. 

It only remains to be seen how greatly Trump’s victory will accelerate the process, and whether – by pulling the plug on Ukraine’s resistance – he succeeds in plunging Eastern Europe itself into jeopardy.

It is, of course, in the self-interest of humanity to see global warming kept below the 1.5 degree target set at Paris. The unresolved question is who will suffer and who will prosper in the process.

Up to now, the brilliant fiction – from Kyoto to Paris – was that it could be done without losers. 

Despite Keir Starmer’s recent commitment to an emissions reduction target of 81% (compared to the 1990 baseline), we in the UK continue to delude ourselves that we can decarbonise without major changes in the way we live, and rising opposition from communities, demographic groups and workforces that will genuinely lose out.

Perhaps, by the time you read this, COP29 will have collapsed in acrimony. But its more likely outcome is to issue a meaningless communique, while the moustachioed strong-men of the petro-states get ready for the next circus, to be held in Brazil, and haggle over whether Turkey or coal-addicted Australia should host the one after that.

But COP29 is – if you will forgive the pun – the canary in the coalmine for the world system. Its paralysis is a symptom of the failure of all multilateral processes, and the powerlessness of its sponsor, the United Nations itself.

If we are coming to the end of the Charter system inaugurated in 1945, then coalitions of willing states, prepared to make and stick to agreements in pursuit of an open, collaborative international order, will need to replace it. 

If COP fails we need swift progress towards a binding agreement to phase out fossil fuel production, sponsored by a coalition of the willing.

There is a growing movement of small states calling for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of the strongest signals the UK could send amid the spectacle of entitlement and greed playing out in Baku would be to sign up to it.