When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Smoke and mirrors
Smoke and mirrors
Philipp Fritz and Daniel Wetzel

KATOWICEAs a member of Germany's federal government, Gerd Müller knows what UN climate change conferences cost. The Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development spearheaded the organization of last year's edition in Bonn. At that time, the COP23, which Germany hosted to help the financially troubled Fiji Islands, cost around 60 million euros.

And these are only the costs in cash — and don't include the environmental damage caused by the fact that, every year, more than 20,000 diplomats, scientists, and lobbyists ride in planes and limousines to travel to the next Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Such a massive effort would be justifiable if something actually came out of it. But apart from overblown declarations of intent and grandiose promises, the UN conferences have done practically nothing for a quarter of a century. The world's CO2 emissions continue to rise almost unchecked, and once the annual Sunday speeches on climate change are over, the big climate sinners like China or the U.S. send their emissaries off to finance new coal mines in Africa or to lower the oil price in Saudi Arabia.

The same goes for the current COP24 summit in Katowice, Poland. There too, the inefficiency of these climate change conferences is palpable: In his opening speech, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres himself complained that only 17 out of more than 190 countries were "on course" to fulfill the pledges they'd made in Paris in 2015. This balance sheet appears even grimmer when we note that the CO2 reductions promised in Paris wouldn't even suffice to achieve the two-degree target if all states were to fully implement the promises they made at the time.

So Gerd Müller is now calling on the United Nations to finally draw conclusions. "The fact that it takes three years alone to make the Paris Agreement work at all with a rule book is an aberration in view of the enormous time pressure in protecting the climate," Müller said in Katowice, during an interview with Die Welt. "Against this backdrop, it's necessary to question the meaning of major events such as the UN climate summit, which always attracts more than 20,000 participants."

Put an end to the unproductive hustle and bustle.

Müller does not want to abolish the global climate talks. Rather, he wants to make them more efficient and leaner. The fact that Brazil's new president, Jair Bolsonaro, recently withdrew his country's invitation to organize the 2019 climate change conference is seen by Müller as an opportunity to finally put an end to the sort of unproductive hustle and bustle that these annual summits have become.

Müller's suggestion: Cancel the world climate conference next year, and then only meet every other year, but upscale the efforts to make them count. The German Development Minister proposes to continue negotiations at civil servant level, but to no longer put up the big stage for politicians every year. In the end, Müller believes this would not only be cheaper and more environmentally friendly, but also more productive for climate protection: "While the experts' commissions continue to negotiate, a meeting of the heads of state and government every two years should suffice to then also achieve substantial progress."

It is unclear, however, whether a sufficient number of politicians in the United Nations would support the idea of missing the limelight every other year.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

When Did Putin "Turn" Evil? That's Exactly The Wrong Question

Look back over the past two decades, and you'll see Vladimir Putin has always been the man revealed by the Ukraine invasion, an evil and sinister dictator. The Russian leader just managed to mask it, especially because so many chose to see him as a typically corrupt and greedy strongman who could be bribed or reasoned with.

Putin arrives for a ceremony to accept credentials from 24 foreign ambassadors at the Grand Kremlin Palace on Sept. 20.

Sergiy Gromenko*

-OpEd-

KYIV — The world knows that Vladimir Putin has power, money and mistresses. So why, ask some, wasn't that enough for him? Why did he have to go start another war?

At its heart, this is the wrong question to ask. For Putin, military expansion is not an adrenaline rush to feed into his existing life of luxury. On the contrary, the shedding of blood for the sake of holding power is his modus operandi, while the fruits of greed and corruption like the Putin Palace in Gelendzhik are more like a welcome bonus.

In the last year, we have kept hearing rhetorical questions like “why did Putin start this war at all, didn't he have enough of his own land?” or “he already has Gelendzhik to enjoy, why fight?” This line of thinking has resurfaced after missile strikes on Ukrainian power grids and dams, which was regarded by many as a simple demonstration of terrorism. Such acts are a manifestation of weakness, some ask, so is Putin ready to show himself weak?

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

However, you will not arrive at the correct answer if the questions themselves are asked incorrectly. For decades, analysts in Russia, Ukraine, and the West have been under an illusion about the nature of the Russian president's personal dictatorship.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ