The Circus of the Parties. 🎪

Today I mourn our forests. The mighty Amazon above all. The COP is now officially the Circus of the Parties. 🎪

Only that there is nothing to laugh about.

Nothing to be in awe of.

And certainly no one going home with any candy.

An alternative reality is built for a week year after year, where big words are proclaimed at the opening only to be hollowed out beyond recognition by the end of the conference.

There are many things to be disappointed about as the COP30 closed, the lack of strong commitment to protect the forests being one of them. At the opening in the symbolic location of Belem in the actual Amazon, the Brazilian President said:

“We need roadmaps so that humanity, in a just and planned way, can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation, and mobilize resources for these purposes.”

Now, ten days later and as the circus ends, no such roadmaps are to be found in the final text.

The protection of forest and reversal of deforestation are nowhere to be seen, and worst of all, no phasing out of fossil fuels.

I read a lot of “better than nothing” comments, applauding the minute “progress”, “strong statements and signals”, and the list goes on…

But it's just more of the old. We lost a decade.

A DECADE.

It was clear 10 years ago and the Paris Agreement was indeed a milestone. And it could have been the turning point.

It should have been .

Now we're past many tipping points and have crossed 7 of the 9 planetary boundaries.

And somehow there still is the notion that there is time…

Well, news flash: We don't have time.

When a delusional Executive Secretary states that the “COP30 showed that climate cooperation is alive and kicking, keeping humanity in the fight for a livable planet, with a firm resolve to keep 1.5C within reach.”, I can't help but wonder whether we live on the same overheating planet. Alive and kicking? Seriously?

After the debacle over the last two weeks it looks more like being on life support to me.

He continues: “I’m not saying we’re winning the climate fight. But we are undeniably still in it, and we are fighting back. Here in Belem, nations chose solidarity, science, and economic common sense.”

What?

If we chose solidarity, we would no longer run such a circus and keep delaying adaptation funding.

If we chose science, we would phase out fossil fuels and look reality in the eye.

If we chose economic common sense, well, I guess that's where the crux lies.

Because whatever that “common sense” is supposed to be, it certainly does not look like this.

Bill Gates’ memo got a lot of backlash, I fell into this too. Many critizised his words on moving focus onto other things than just reducing the heating.

I guess what many failed to highlight is that he put human welfare at the top of the priority list. Which I totally agree with.

What I don’t agree with is the way to get there.

The techno-optimism and narrative that growth for all will fix everything is completely blind to the energy and resource needs to get there. And he puts way too much emphasis on the developing countries, not in a single sentence mentioning how the developed (and priviledged) world should adapt to the situation (”offsetting with legitimate carbon credits” are not the answer).

The intention may have been good to get people at COP to focus on more than just mitigation of rising temperature, but that didn’t do any good, did it?

Anyhow, he states three “truths”, and here is why I think those statements are problematic.

#1 Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.

First, no one can know. Not even you Bill. And how do you define civilization? What about all the civilization that have ended because of colonialism? What makes you so sure that this civilization will not end? Our way of live is not sustainable. Period.

All the techno-optimism that is being spread in the memo assumes that we can lift everyone else to those standards and that the developed world can carry on, as long as we can do the right “transition” into “green energy” and other technological wonders. The issue is that the development and deployment of all those “solutions” will need massive amounts of resources of fossil fuels and other resources that we will have to dig out of the ground. That is what I mean with the blindness to energy and resource needs. (If you wonder what I’m talking about, I can recommend you listen to Nate Hagens and the Great Simplification.)

#2 Temperature is not the best way to measure progress on climate.

Well, of course not. Our world is an incredibly complex system which is impossible to caputre in a single metric. We need a whole load of metrics, just like the Stockholm Resilience Centre does. And the latest Planetay Health Check speaks a very clear language. The 7 boundaries breached are not even mentioned in the memo. And I also struggle to see how the proposed solutions are going to address some of them.

Back to the focus on the developing world, in this part he elaborate on the need to improve agricultural practices and technology. Well, what about shifting to food systems in the developed world that don’t have a massive carbon footprint, are unhealthy, and cause deforestation? Maybe Bill should eat less Cheeseburgers…

#3 Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.

Again, I don’t disagree with the underlying concept. Yet, the dissonance is enormous. He compares smallholders with American farmers. Well, imagine if everyone farmed like America, then we’d be collossally screwed. And he makes it sounds like this global crisis is solvable without serious changes in paradigms, which essentially is clinging onto the growth imperative, which we all know is impossible on a planet with limited resources.

Like in this sentence:

To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.

The problem here is the framing. Malaria and malnutrition are problems with discrete solutions. Climate change is not. And the focus on improving life conditions in the poor parts of the country while not having to make any concessions in the wealthy areas is not going to bring universal human welfare.

We have to meet in the middle. We have to create an equilibrium. We have to lift the people out of poverty, but also have to actively reduce the damage that the wealthy nations are causing. And no, we can’t invent our way our of it with technology and AI. It does require a shif in consciousness and behaviors, where we start to consider what human welfare is in those priviledged parts of the world.

It’s not having more. It’s not continuing to grow. We know where that leads.

So I applaud the courageous voices that time and again point out the inequality that is widening and that keeps pushing our planetary system way from any equilibrium, human and non-human. Those are the voices we need to listen to. Those that are living the collapse today.

If there was one silver lining, it was the COP President’s final words, where he took a first step for two important roadmaps for the phase-out of fossil fuels and to end deforestation.

I truly hope that outside the cirucs, there will be action!

With love for our forests 🌳

If you enjoyed this article, why don't you subscribe to my substack? I publish my most important pieces there too and it's the best way to receive the latest articles straight to yout inbox!