Two Rhetorical Questions

An Astonishing Omission

Understand Physical Realities
Accept and Adapt
Live within Gaia

The Two Rhetorical Questions

Question #1

What was the most important political event of the year 2024?

The answer that most people would give was the Presidential election in the United States. That is the correct answer.

Question #2

What should have been the most important political event of the year 2024?

The answer to this question is COP29.

What Is COP29?

I conducted a highly informal survey at my church. I asked my friend, “What was COP29?” Not one person knew ― the closest reply was, “I seem to have heard of that”.

In fact, a COP is an annual Conference of the Parties on Climate Change organized by the United Nations. COP29, which was held in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2024, was the 29^th of these events. At a Climate COP representatives from countries around the world come together to ‘discuss, negotiate, and coordinate efforts to address climate change, including setting global goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change’.

COPs are very high level events; the representatives should include the world’s Presidents and Prime Ministers. At least, that’s the theory. In fact, leaders from the United States, France, Germany, China, Japan and Canada (in other words the nations that emit the bulk of our greenhouse gases) decided that they had more important things to do.

The lack of a commitment from the world’s largest polluting nations was not a surprise. But what was truly astonishing (at least, it should have been astonishing) was the agenda at COP29. There was no meaningful discussion about ‘reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change’. Instead, the talk was all about financial compensations from the richer countries

From the Azerbaijani web site:

The Baku Finance Goal sets new global target to channel $1.3tn of climate finance to developing countries by 2035 in significant uplift. This includes a new core finance goal of $300bn that triples the previous $100bn target. 

One does not have to be unduly cynical to question how much of that money will actually wind up in the hands of the people who need it.

As is so often the case, a redditor provides the best explanation,

. . . the bulk of the meeting was arguing about how much to compensate exploited countries that are being destroyed due to the actions of the exploiting powers rather than any collaborative efforts to fight global environmental collapse.

It feels like an insurance agent shooing away the fire dept as your house is on fire so they can start haggling with you over how much the pay-out should be.

The Episcopal Delegation

The Episcopal church had a delegation at COP29. Three members of the delegation attended in person, the other fourteen attended remotely. The church’s web site has a page to do with  the work of this delegation. The page includes a video that starts with a quotation from Deuteronomy 8:7-18. I wonder if Mark 11:15 would have been more appropriate.

And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers.

The Church’s Role

The Episcopal Church used COP29 to call for social justice ― particularly those whose lives are being ruined by climate change. But we are faced with two questions. The first is fairly obvious. Given that the church, like all organizations, has limited resources, is attending meetings such as COP29 (even via a remote connection) a sensible use of time, money and talent?

The second question is to do with the church’s message, or, to use a more modern term, its meme. What differentiates the church’s message from that of the many other organizations that were present at COP29? The church rightly sees the need for social justice as related to climate change. But what does this concern mean at 8 o’clock on Monday morning?

For example, even if the wealthy nations do give a hand-out to developing nations, how will those nations ‘develop’ without using fossil fuels? (The manufacture and maintenance of solar panels requires the use of immense quantities of fossil fuels, so that’s not the answer.) Instead, should the church be questioning the use of the word ‘develop’? Could ‘development’ mean moving toward a low-energy lifestyle?

Humility Check

In posts such as this I am somewhat critical of the church’s role, but I have to be careful. In Understand Physical Realities: A Million Miles I note that my CO2 emissions on United Airlines have been 2,500 times my own body weight. And a calculation at Global Footprint Network showed that, were everyone to live my lifestyle, we would need 6.5 Earths to support us all.