World climate conference faces uphill climb on goals

It is by some estimates the most important or most awaited conference on the subject since the one in Copenhagen in 2009 which chroniclers say it was a failure as it concluded with only a simple political statement affirming the need to limit the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5degrees Celsius. Experts now say that on the basis of global emissions as they stand, the world is on course to reaching 2.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, even as climate is a catastrophe even at present.

The Glasgow climate summit kicked off October 31 and is billed to wind up by November 12 so there is still a long way to go before anyone can say what the chances of success and failure will be. But there are some pointers to rugged talks ahead, especially on account of a sharp rise in the global Cold War stance in the past few years. Relations between China and the United States are getting steadily worse and China is setting limits to its climate goals that US President Joe Biden made a point of questioning in his remarks to the Glasgow gathering, implying that discord is likely on that regard. Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t personally attend the conference, and experts say Russia sees warmer Siberia as a positive resource.

Even darker disagreements are likely in relation to readiness to reduce consumption of fossil-based fuels as the general rise in petroleum and gas prices is beneficial to a whole swathe of countries especially the big exporters in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter is at this time united with Russia in maintaining a steady course in rising prices, a posture beneficial to Iran, a traditional rival or outright foe in the region, while the United States is incapable of actually pushing up pumping out shale oil, given the intense environmental concerns. These issues are more espoused by this administration than the previous.

Rising oil prices mean harder conditions of living all over the world, which implies that more oil shall have to be pumped out to ease the shortage, and indeed it is in the interests of exporters to pump out more oil. Change is likely to rely on technological shifts, for instance into more hydropower for a part of the world and more solar or wind sources, which the bigger economies lead the pace, with debate as to whether it is China or the US which leads the world. China leads in the proper adoption of other sources while the United States has investments all over the world and in key industries driving effective change.

Each country will have to make own accommodations to assist dislocated people or change ways of life.