OPINION:
Like the many United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings before it, the “Conference of the Parties” (COP30) gathering in Belem, Brazil, this week is browbeating the world for its supposed lack of effort to protect the planet and climate. Yet it’s hard to take seriously any delegates attending these lavish affairs when the meetings place such an enormous, hypocritical burden on the ecosystems that attendees claim to be concerned about.
There are a host of ways COP30 attendees hypocritically ignore their claimed environmental aspirations. Here are the top 10.
The first, and most obvious, is that the meetings focus on measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change as claimed. However, the air travel associated with the COP26 meetings in Glasgow, Scotland, emitted approximately 102,500 tons of carbon dioxide, and each COP27 delegate was estimated to have a carbon footprint of 3.42 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. A study in PubMed Central explained that the emissions from that one conference were similar to the annual emissions of a small island nation, such as Samoa.
Although COP attendees talk a good game about their climate concerns, their actions demonstrate that they live the very high-carbon lifestyle they refuse to allow you to enjoy.
Second, the preferred mode of travel for many high-profile delegates is, ironically, private jets. The University College London “carbon footprint calculator” argues that private jets are “nine times more polluting” than commercial air travel and 52 times more polluting than coach (bus) travel.
Former Biden climate czar and U.N. climate event aficionado John Kerry personified the entitled attitude of COP delegates when he defended his use of private jets as “the only choice for somebody like me.” While elite U.N. climate delegates such as Mr. Kerry justify this extravagance, they demand that people around the world restrict their travel and energy use.
Third, COP delegates claim to represent the poor and dispossessed, but they do so from some of the most luxurious and expensive resorts and cruise ships on the planet. These meetings are held in locations where most of humanity couldn’t even imagine staying.
Fourth, COP delegates and U.N. climate activists often advise climate consciousness in dietary choices, especially when it comes to meat. Although more recent COP meetings have begun offering what they deem to be more sustainable meal options, delegates still routinely enjoy gourmet meals that extreme green activists attack for being supplied by “global agribusiness.”
Fifth, conference delegates fly around the world to attend these events in person when they could attend virtually and demonstrate a commitment to the green values they demand you and I embrace. Of course, if they did that, they would have to skip the fancy hotels and gourmet food.
Sixth, the United Nations and host nations spend billions of dollars preparing for and hosting these conferences. That’s money they could use to help the poor, protect the environment or cover the costs of the policies they support.
Compounding the sixth challenge, the seventh issue is that these events often produce grand pronouncements and impressive agreements. However, even when funding is initially provided, the projects promoted frequently fail to yield tangible results. For example, the “Great Green Wall” effort, which aims to stop desertification by re-greening tens of thousands of acres across Africa, has stalled. Ironically, increased carbon dioxide emissions (and carbon dioxide fertilization) are doing far more to promote global greening than many of these U.N.-funded aid projects.
Although many environmental groups are quick to complain about the eighth issue, the hosts of these massive climate conferences appear comfortable ignoring the environmental policies of the host nations. The most obvious example is that Brazil, the host country of the COP30 meeting, logged a significant portion of the Brazilian rainforest to build a highway to allow tens of thousands of conference delegates to reach the event.
Ninth, Western nations participate in these meetings and habitually demand restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. As a result, developing countries often face restrictions in accessing funding or building much-needed, reliable energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, these developed nations continue to rely on these essential energy sources to maintain their own economies and to meet 80% of their energy needs while pushing the developing world to use inherently unreliable sources such as wind and solar.
Tenth, U.N. officials have been widely criticized for accepting funding and sponsorships for the events from the very companies and fuels they attack as “polluters.”
Over and over, COP delegates and supporters use these meetings to promote policies that would restrict access to reliable, affordable energy sources while ignoring them in their own lives. Rather than issuing more failed anti-energy pronouncements, hypocritical U.N. bureaucrats should take action to help developing nations expand their economies, as rich countries can do far more to protect the environment.
• Jason Hayes is policy director of energy and environment at the America First Policy Institute. Carla Sands is a former U.S. ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark, current chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Foreign Policy Initiative and a distinguished senior fellow for energy and environment at AFPI.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.