The call to overhaul the Cop process is inevitable, given the frustrations with this year’s underwhelming conference in Baku (Cop summits ‘no longer fit for purpose’, say leading climate policy experts, 15 November). Yet restricting host nations or abandoning the inclusive framework of the Cop summits risks undermining the very cooperation required to combat climate change.
The suggestion to exclude petrostates as hosts risks alienating critical players in the energy transition. The world’s largest oil and gas producers have to be convinced – or forced – to change, and Cop summits without them would have a huge elephant in the room and risk being irrelevant from the start.
It is also important to remember that the climate summits are about much more than the hosts. The Paris agreement’s framework allows nearly 200 nations to participate in a process of shared accountability. This inclusivity has led to landmark agreements like the Paris accord itself, the loss and damage fund, and mechanisms for climate finance.
The real issue is always implementation. The call to shift focus from negotiating to action is, of course, correct. But dismantling the negotiation framework to do so would be counterproductive. The ratchet mechanism that drives nations to increase their climate commitments is critical. Weakening this would remove one of the few accountability tools we have.
Reforming Cop is difficult, but abandoning the summits would make addressing the climate crisis impossible.
Sebastian Leape
CEO, Natcap, London
• Your coverage of climate finance ideas (Cop29: which climate finance ideas are most likely to work? 11 November) misses the simplest workable scheme – Prof Raghuram Rajan’s Global Carbon Reduction Incentive. This would see countries with above-average per-capita emissions pay a per capita levy into an incentive fund, which would be paid out to countries with below-average emissions.
Both would have the incentive to cut emissions, the rich to pay less and the poor to receive more. This scheme could be introduced in stages, with the carbon levy rising from, say, $30 to $160 per tonne over the years.
Given the difficulties of getting all countries to agree, the UK should create a north-south coalition to launch the levy. (The Commonwealth would be the ideal body to do that.) It would accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future and benefit from first-mover advantage. What’s not to like?
Ulrich Loening East Lothian; Titus Alexander Galashiels, Scottish Borders
• Your coverage of the climate crisis is valuable and much-needed, but your verdict on carbon taxes is misleading. Far from being a “utopian concept”, carbon pricing, either via carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes, is up and running in 53 countries and now covers 24% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon pricing’s global effectiveness will soon play out as the EU’s and UK’s carbon border adjustment mechanism initiatives are implemented. Moreover, a recent study of the real-world effectiveness of more than 1,500 policies implemented to combat climate change in 41 countries over two decades concluded that carbon pricing stands out as an effective policy, particularly in developed economies.
For sure, carbon pricing has a long way to go – coverage needs to be broader and prices higher. But this will only be possible when policymakers have the political headroom that greater public awareness and understanding can provide.
Paul Mottram
Pokfulam, Hong Kong
• Do you have a photograph you’d like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
