The Empty Promise of Climate Agreements
Why Greta Thunberg said blah, blah, blah to world leaders at COP26
Suppose global leaders gather annually for decades and make grand promises about saving the planet, yet the Earth continues to warm alarmingly.
This isn't the plot of a dystopian novel—it's our reality.
When teenage activist Greta Thunberg boldly declared "blah, blah, blah" to world leaders attending COP26, she wasn't just being cheeky. She pointed out a disturbing truth. Despite decades of climate talks, emissions keep rising, and the climate keeps changing.
In this issue of Become a Mindful Sceptic, we'll examine why CO2 levels continue to rise despite international accords and the surprising impact of climate conferences on carbon emissions.
Cut through the noise and see what it takes to move beyond the "blah, blah, blah".
From Rio to Paris
You are about to see a graph explaining why Greta Thunberg gave a deserved earful to global leaders before the COP21 climate summit in 2021, calling their promises to address the climate emergency “blah, blah, blah”.
Despite international agreements, accords, protocols, frameworks, and conferences dating back to the 1970s and a host of national-level promises, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have continued to rise.
Indeed, the trend has barely seen a blip, having increased by 30% in my lifetime.
I’ll just say that again. Not even a blip in the upward trend.
We are talking about measured concentrations from reliable machines in one of the least contaminated places on earth, with data runs that go back over 60 years. This is good, reliable evidence.
Some of the headline commitments are worth remembering.
At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), often called the Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, 154 states created an international environmental treaty to combat "dangerous human interference with the climate system".
They called it the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and it was supposed to trigger collective actions to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
The treaty called for ongoing scientific research, regular meetings, negotiations, and future policy agreements designed to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure food production is not threatened, and enable sustainable economic development.
The first measure under the UNFCCC was the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997 and ran from 2005 to 2020. In this protocol, 192 state parties agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and human-made CO2 emissions are driving it. The details of commitments and the geopolitics of who did and didn’t follow through are for another time. The graph above tells us what happened—nothing.
In 2009, countries representing over 80% of global emissions engaged in the Copenhagen Accord, which endorsed, without any legal obligation, the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. It included reduction pledges and raising funds to help developing countries cut carbon emissions and adapt.
The Paris Agreement, negotiated and adopted by 196 parties at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference near Paris, France, covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Agreement changed the rhetoric to a long-term temperature goal rather than a set of emission targets. Its goal is to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels and preferably limit the increase to 1.5°C (2.7°F), recognising that this would substantially reduce the effects of climate change.
It's a sleight of hand because the CO2 concentration graph is unequivocal. It represents the evidence from a continuous, direct recording of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from a remote and isolated location with precise measurement tools.
By comparison, global temperature averages are messy and more challenging to determine. A mindful sceptic detects an unpleasant smell whenever a reliable, readily recorded indicator is replaced by a fuzzy, complex one.
But I digress.
It is clear that all the agreements, their various targets, and the many conversations in vast conference centres worldwide had no consequence. The CO2 concentration trend is still going steadily upwards.
Someone had to call it.
Why Greta Thunberg said blah, blah, blah
At age 15, Greta Thunberg parked outside the Swedish Parliament to call for more decisive action on climate change by holding up a sign reading Skolstrejk för klimatet (School strike for climate).
Her no-nonsense calling to account resonated, made her world-famous and put her in line for a slew of awards, including multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations. She was 17 years old when she gave her "blah blah blah" speech, which was delivered at the Youth4Climate summit in Milan, Italy, in September 2021, just before COP26, the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference, held in Glasgow, Scotland.
Thunberg criticised world leaders for their lack of concrete action on climate change, dismissing their promises as empty words. She mockingly repeated phrases like "build back better" and "green economy," arguing that these were just slogans without substantial policies behind them.
Thunberg's use of "blah blah blah" throughout the speech was a rhetorical device to emphasise her frustration with what she perceived as hollow rhetoric from politicians. She called for immediate and drastic action to address the climate crisis rather than more discussions and distant goals.
All the while, she has tried to walk her talk, often literally.
She called it out. The blah, blah, blah merchants and their extensive entourages have attended numerous conferences in the last 50 years—almost 40,000 registered for the Glasgow summit—with no result.
I’ll pause on those attendees for a moment.
They came from all over the world, but let's assume the average flight distance per delegate was a Paris to Glasgow round trip (1,800km) with emissions of 0.4 tCO2e per passenger.
In flights alone, the representatives caused emissions of 16,000 tCO2e.
A typical passenger vehicle with an internal combustion engine emits about 4.6 tCO2e per year—that one conference added the emissions equivalent of 3,500 cars to the global fleet.
And this is the problem.
Promises are all very well, but the machinery of modern life is a massive guzzler of fossil fuels and emitter of greenhouse gases—it has delivered a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the 1960s.
An exponential rise in CO2 concentration has maintained its trajectory through the GFC, COVID-19, and all the commitments. The global economy keeps going, consuming energy to fuel its activity.
Here is another graph, this time from Our World in Data, explaining why the CO2 concentrations have remained on their upward trend.
Everyone, everywhere, keeps using energy.
Apart from the occasional brief declines during the oil crisis of the 1970s, the global financial crisis in 2008, and the COVID-19 pandemic, global energy consumption has risen steadily. Energy use that generates emissions when the source of global energy is still predominantly fossil fuels and biomass.
All the talk and the promotion of emission reduction and alternative fuels haven’t shifted demand or the energy mix. The best we can say about renewables is that they took up some of the increased demand.
PQ Despite decades of international agreements, CO2 concentrations have risen 30% in my lifetime
What the ‘blah, blah, blah’ delegates couldn’t bring themselves to do was address the real problem of the global economy’s dependence on energy and the fact that the bulk of that energy still comes from fossil fuels.
The conversation is always about cleaner, never about less.
Embracing Complexity in Climate Discourse
A mindful sceptic is confronted by the undeniable evidence of rising CO2 levels despite decades of international agreements. It's tempting to dismiss global accords and the political will behind them and join in the "blah, blah, blah" jibes.
However, our commitment to balance means we recognise these international dialogues' less tangible yet crucial role in shaping global cooperation and awareness. For all their apparent failures, these gatherings have kept climate change on the world stage, fostering a shared vocabulary and common goals among nations with vastly different priorities and resources.
A mindful sceptic readily holds these two seemingly contradictory ideas simultaneously—the failure of international agreements to curb CO2 emissions and the vital importance of continued global dialogue on climate issues. Such contradiction is uncomfortable, but it's precisely this discomfort that drives us to seek more nuanced understanding and innovative solutions.
We can remain critical of empty promises while engaging constructively in the ongoing conversation about our planet's future.
No, I was just kidding.
The talkfests are just that. They achieve next to nothing other than allowing the privileged to cut a few deals in the corridors while a scientist or two reminds everyone about the data in the auditorium.
The Value of Climate Diplomacy
Of course, what Thunberg said is correct.
Diplomacy has failed to deliver on its promises with 30 years of blah. The hands that signed were overtaken by the immediacy of the economic system, the politics and the dissonance that comes with it.
She is also one of many with this view.
Contrarian economist Steve Keen is convinced that international agreements are useless. He suggests that the best we can do is national agreements and perhaps at the next level of governance down from countries. Local is better than global, even for an atmospheric problem. I recommend listening to Nate Hagens talk Mythonomics with Steve Keen on The Great Simplification podcast.
A mindful sceptic might be tempted to join in the rhetoric. But more likely, she will pause, breathe, and think critically.
Criticism of world leaders and so many delegates at talkfests is an easy sledge. The reality is that all those people sat around, drank coffee, attended talks and went out to dinner with each other. The leaders in fancy hotels and activists in the local fast food outlet. But they were talking, conversing, and sometimes arguing. What the media showed us all was the fluff. The real work went down in the corridors and at the restaurant tables.
Opportunities for face-to-face communication to eyeball the opposition must be considered.
We need as many of them as possible.
Greta said blah, blah, blah because it is true. Blah has done nothing to slow us all down. But at least we are talking about the climate crisis, which is better than ignoring it altogether.
Key points
A significant disconnect between international agreements and the reality of rising CO2 emissions marks the global effort to combat climate change. Despite numerous summits and accords spanning decades, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have continued their steady upward trajectory. This stark contrast underscores the limitations of diplomatic efforts and points to the need for more tangible, results-oriented approaches to climate action. The promises made at international gatherings have yet to translate into meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting the complexity of implementing global environmental policies.
Mindful scepticism emerges as a valuable approach when grappling with complex issues like climate change. This perspective encourages simultaneously holding seemingly contradictory ideas–acknowledging the shortcomings of international agreements and the importance of continued global dialogue on climate issues. Such a balanced viewpoint allows for a more nuanced understanding of our challenges and potential solutions. By adopting this mindful scepticism, one can better navigate the often-confusing landscape of climate news and policy, avoiding both blind acceptance and cynical dismissal.
Large international climate conferences, while providing a platform for global dialogue, face criticism for their effectiveness and environmental impact. The irony of these events contributing to carbon emissions through travel highlights the disconnect between climate action rhetoric and the reality of our continued reliance on fossil fuels. However, these gatherings also offer valuable opportunities for face-to-face communication and behind-the-scenes negotiations. This dual nature of climate summits emphasises the need to look beyond grand promises and focus on concrete actions and measurable outcomes while still appreciating the role of international dialogue in addressing a global issue.
Individual action and local initiatives are crucial in combating climate change, complementing global efforts. While the problem is international, effective solutions often emerge from national or sub-national levels. This perspective empowers individuals to consider their role in climate action and to engage with local and grassroots efforts. It reminds us that while global cooperation is crucial, real progress often begins at home. By focusing on what can be achieved at local and individual levels, we can create tangible impacts and build momentum for larger-scale changes in how we address the climate crisis.
Mindful Momentum
What's your take on the effectiveness of international climate accords? Have you seen any tangible effects in your local community? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's continue this crucial conversation.
In the next issue
Every hour, $456 million is spent on new infrastructure worldwide. But what if nature already built what we need?
Next week, we'll explore why $4 trillion in annual infrastructure spending might be headed in the wrong direction. Join me for a journey from a rickety 707 landing in Uganda to Boston's Public Garden, where nature's been quietly showing us a better way to build.
The answers might make you question everything you think about progress.