Conference of Parties (COP) - A High Expensive Therapy Sessions for Global Leaders?

The Conference of Parties depends on normative assumptions where it assumes the humans' actions as collective, yet wealth, living standards, and health are the main dividing forces of humans as agents of the Anthropocene (Whiteman et al., 2013 ). A fundamental principle of the COP meetings follows the doctrine of the theory of the tragedy of the commons, in which the global risks posed by climate change seem to be a global collective responsibility (Hardin., 1968). However, the industrialised nations are complicit in catastrophically propagating climate change by using resources selfishly for their own gains (Hardin, 1968 ). The critical question that lacks answers within the COP is how to hold the accountability of different industries, geographies, individuals, and states collectively for the net decline of the Earth system? Still, The COP does not have an empirical understanding to quantitatively measure the role of companies, states, and other proprietors within the decline of the Earth System (Whiteman et al., 2013 ).

The divide between Global North and Global South is also mirrored in the World Bank's report where the world's wealthiest individuals in the Global North are worth over three trillion United States of America Dollars (USD), which is double the gross domestic product for the entire African continent or that of India (Biermann., 2012 ). Due to these inequalities, the Global North government fundamentally prefers a risk-averse approach to conserving the environment (Timperley., 2021 ). In contrast, the governments in the Global South would prefer a risk-taking economic development model to alleviate the people from chronic and extreme poverty (Biermann., 2012 ). Global North nations, therefore, are left with a porous setting of global targets, especially when it comes to conferences of the parties to global treaties and United Nations agencies and committees, as witnessed in COP26, where countries like India and China declined the universal treaty of cutting down the use of fossil fuels in 2021 (COP26., 2021).

Consequently, the climate change uncertainty has created an avenue for poisonous political inactions for a consensual agreement between the Global North and Global South, where still there is a lack of transparency and integrity challenges of 100 billion USD financial flow from industrialised nations to developing nations for climate change adaptations (IPCC., 2022 ). Nevertheless, Steffen and Morgan (2021) note that the use of climate negotiations in politics is still limited due to its uncertainty - we see a situation of policy asymmetry in which the political spectrum does not necessarily welcome the precautionary principles promoted by scientists. For example, Rosa (2015) writes how, as early as 2009, Stern and Edenhofer outlined several ways the G-20 could lead global efforts for green transitions. These proposals went unheeded. Instead, in contrast, many states developed schemes to get rid of old cars by offering premium services to scrappers, often disregarding the catastrophic environmental outcomes, which resulted in the highest emissions among the G-20 member states in 2010 (Rosa., 2015 ).

In addition, scientists' uncertainties have been shown to affect other environmental policies, such as the Kyoto Protocol of 1992, an initiative under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change framework that committed states to reduce emissions based on scientific consensus (IPCC., 2022 ). This protocol has been rendered unresourceful; compared to 1992, greenhouse gas emissions have grown from 22.57 billion tonnes to 34.81 billion tonnes per year by 2022, representing a growth rate of over 54.23% per year (Our World in Data, 2022 ). Due to its climate uncertainty, like the Kyoto Protocol of 1992 and Stern and Eden's proposal, COP meetings provides a conceptual framework for a study and assessment program rather than a clear direction for political action. Additionally, scientists' roles are also politically impacted by the translation of climate target from assessment to action through political negotiations and agreements; this raises serious concerns about the scientific evaluation procedure's legitimacy and accountability (Dress et al., 2021 ). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which began as a small group of scientists from developed countries and grew into an international organisation with tens of thousands of experts, is the best example of how science became entangled with governmental oversight, political conflicts, and geographic quotas (Biermann., 2012 ).

Humanity is now confronted with a multi-causality dilemma of a more complex type at the global scale, just as humankind is finding some solutions for environmental concerns on the local and regional scales—at least in industrialised countries (Biermann., 2012 ). In the post-industrial era, practical solutions for living sustainably necessitate novel concepts and implementation methodologies (Dress et al., 2021 ). According to Barnes (2006), the solution is to considerably expand the global economy's "commons sector" with how defining we can transfer structures that can maintain humankind inside a safe operating environment. These new types of commons institutions must be built at many scales, from local to global, with the involvement of all concerned parties to develop issue-specific, tailor-made solutions that are more promising for allowing cross-scale interactions (Barnes., 2006 ). Lastly, as Biermann (2012) writes, if major technological breakthroughs do not materialise anytime soon, production and consumption patterns will need to change fundamentally. In addition, humanity must advance the understanding of non-linear, rapid social transitions and "social tipping points" for better environmental governance (Lenton et al., 2008 )