Phasing down vs Phasing out - Why does it matter?

The outcome of COP 26 was summed up in one?tiny?preposition:?

"Phasing?down"?

Instead of?

"Phasing?out"?

But, there is an abyss in its significance.?

This begs the question -

If we are not "phasing out" coal definitively, then what would have been a gradual process (argued by some to be too slow); may potentially be reduced to something that may not happen at all.??

It would appear 1.5 degree target is?science fiction; we are presently heading towards 2.8 degree increase in temperature (according to some scientific estimates) and that spells disaster in many parts of the world and large-scale displacement of populations; not to mention re-occurring viral threats due to our miscalculated interference with the biosphere and the “natural” dynamics of evolution.?

As a mathematician puts it - numbers without context are meaningless. In other words, we cannot simply rely on the data.

Talk of "energy security" (referenced by President Joe Biden, in his closing speech) with a hint that it might be a short-term measure, as we negotiate the difficult transition, has failed to convince many; and the intense "talks" between the parties, belie some more troubling implications.

There may be a subtle difference in the words being used, but it is worthwhile reflecting upon the significance of this outcome. There is an abyss both in the intention and meaning behind the verb particle "down" and "out."

It was visibly painful for Alok Sharma to announce that agreement has been reached on some watered down terms (as vague as the original language in my view). "Phasing out" may have been a slow and gradual process, possibly too slow; but "phasing down" implies that at best we may only hope for a reduction in the use of coal ongoing, since emerging economies have been reluctant to subscribe to the "pledge" of eradicating its use completely.

As one commentator put it succinctly:

Promises have been made over a 40-year time span, whilst most political figures are in office for up to 4 years.

Is it likely then that the promises will be kept??

And where is the sense of urgency that something must be done?

If societal norms, institutions, legislation and regulation appear slow to change, then there is a new imperative: business practices must change rapidly.

Businesses need to consider some important questions beyond their boundaries; we are after all operating in an increasingly inter-connected world. Ecosystems are such that the parts are greater than the sum of the whole. Therefore, we must be seeking to work towards "win-win-win" outcomes.

Since fossil fuel extraction will continue, we should stop to ask a seemingly naive question and consider our response more deeply - are we not heading down the same pathway of old, whereby new coalmines are set to continue for the foreseeable future????Instead of accelerating technological innovation, so that we can switch to “clean” sustainable energy much faster?

Before we export more of our waste products to the moon and beyond, shouldn’t we use our human ingenuity and technology to stop creating destructive processes and move towards regenerative processes; leaning increasingly towards a symbiotic harmonious relationship with nature, recognising the dynamic interdependencies within very planet that sustains us??

Granted there is complexity, and difficult decisions need to be made; but the most likely scapegoat should not be the citizen consumer, who is being asked to pay a substantial amount of the cost for the required energy transition.??

After successive governments have failed to properly address requirements on the global stage for decades. Cf. Carl Sagan's address to US congress in 1985.

Each economic actor, including governments, institutions, businesses, and citizens need to claim ownership, actively taking responsibility and accountability for their actions.??There is no point in persisting with destructive "boom-bust" cycle in the economy, knowing what we know now, or else we have learnt nothing from recent crises.?

Is there an alternative approach to the problem???

A new way of thinking?

We need to consider the fundamental question:

What is the difference between possible or probable extinction of life on our planet, as we know it?

Whilst the best case scenario seems to be an "unhealthy planet" with populations whose very survival is endangered all around the world. Prevailing sickness and anachronistic methodologies pervade society and the institutions created to support progress. The worst case scenario is that we may all be headed towards extinction.

The world got together and rolled out the vaccine in record time (leaving aside for one moment the difficulties in distribution and supply); can the world not come together and facilitate growth (human progress, evolution of civilisation on a global scale) by working with nature, using clean, sustainable energy?

Surely, therein lies an equally compelling moral imperative:?

Healthy planet = Healthy populations = LIFE on earth being sustainable?

If costs are falling for renewable energy sources, why are we persisting in the extraction of fossil fuels?

It's political more than economic or social considerations which have come to the fore once again.?And so, we must try harder to reach a workable consensus, and pursue a just transition vigorously.

The second outcome:?

130 TRN USD has been promised to reverse the damage. Mark Carney has been soliciting interventions from the financial sector. But, HOW will the funds be deployed? And WHEN???Will the debt based financial system seek support from the citizen in the right way or the wrong way??

How will businesses respond to the challenge of accelerating breakthrough innovations that are required to solve the problem?

There are many unanswered questions. It's difficult to understand what the real achievement of COP26 has been and only time will tell.?There is so much "noise" that is unhelpful.

But, if there is renewed momentum and a willingness to tackle the enormity of the challenge head on, taking an inter-disciplinary approach and constructing a robust integral vision of where we are headed, that in itself is a massive achievement.?

16.11.2021