As the sun set in Cali, Columbia where delegates from around the world met to discuss international targets on halting nature loss; the sun rose—as delegates from the same nations—arrived in Baku, Azerbaijan to discuss “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) to address the climate crisis.
You might imagine the headlines are about ambition, global commitments, record climate finance—and a roadmap to address the biggest dual crisis of our lifetime. Instead, the headlines are about Elnur Soltanov, COP CEO, offering continued oil and gas; and even stories of nations pulling out of attending at all. This ended a week that continued to go from bad to worse after Donald Trump, the US President-Elect, who wants to remove one of the world’s biggest emitters from the Paris Agreement altogether—so America can “drill, baby drill”.
This is not only bad news for our international climate goals, but also undermines the work done to reverse nature loss—as discussed at this year’s Convention on Biological Diversity, COP16. It begs the question, when there’s such a growing understanding of the interconnectedness between biodiversity and climate change, why are these international conferences completely separate from one another? There are separate international conferences to solve biodiversity loss, another conference to tackle desertification, and the most globally-recognised conference; the annual UNFCCC climate conference.
Controversy and under-delivery appear to follow the COP conferences like a bad smell whether it’s COP28 assigning an oil CEO as its chair—COP29 stories of sexism and cosying up to oil and gas—or the failure to deliver adequate NCDs to meet the Paris Agreement of keeping warming 1.5°C below pre-industrial levels (a pledge made a decade ago).
We need to bridge the gap, not only between the biodiversity conference commitments and climate commitments, but also between international commitments and national legislative frameworks.
A decade ago, the Conservative Government under David Cameron’s premiership agreed alongside 196 countries to limit warming to 1.5°C. Despite this, UK law on both climate and nature are inadequate. The failure of COPs to garner international trust in their ability to deliver is not only a failure to deliver the competence of the conference, but also a failure of the COP Parties, i.e. Governments, to commit to changes in national law and policy. This has to change if we are to have any hope of securing a liveable future.
But there is hope. The Climate and Nature Bill was drafted by scientists precisely to deliver on (1) keeping within the UK’s fair share of emission reductions to meet the UNFCCC COP21 pledge of 1.5°C, and (2) the CBD COP15 promise to reverse nature loss by 2030.
On 24 January, MPs can choose to show up at the Second Reading vote of the CAN Bill and help deliver the UK’s national and international obligations. Or, they can choose to fall short; as the COP process has done repeatedly since the 1990s—and risk losing the confidence of their constituents—who want to see their MPs taking action.
We believe MPs can and will make the right choice on 24 January by turning up to the House of Commons to vote in favour of the CAN Bill. But we need your help to remind them of this critical moment.
Will you write to your MP today? We’ve made it easy to email your MP: just click here.
WhatsApp
