The summit of disappointments. How the Glasgow meeting split the world again

"We wanted the best, but it turned out ..." This expression, perhaps, can be safely chosen as an epigraph for the 1th conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26), which began on November 26 in Glasgow. It must be admitted that with this, the third meeting of representatives of the signatory countries of the Paris Climate Agreement, everything went wrong from the beginning. Recall that it was supposed to take place a year ago, but the event was disrupted due to the coronavirus pandemic. Perhaps some higher powers in this way sent a signal to world leaders that at the moment there are more important things, but who is listening to warnings from above today?

In the end, the summit took place, and it was preceded by a meeting of high-ranking representatives of the GXNUMX, the main agenda of which was again "global warming", "decarbonization", "green course" and the like. The word "disappointment" was first sounded after it - for back in Rome it became clear: dreams that all world leaders will merge "in a single impulse" and rush to save the world from "climatic Armageddon" economic and the geopolitical interests of the states headed by them will remain dreams. And in Glasgow, everything became completely clear. Instead of an unprecedented unity "for the sake of all the good and against all the bad", another split occurred, and the consequences can have very negative consequences. What happened and could it be different? Let's try to figure it out.

USA - in the lead, but not in the forefront

In Glasgow (as well as in Rome), several tendencies that are directly related to the United States and, shall we say, do not cause much enthusiasm, have very clearly manifested themselves. Judging by the absolute majority of the statements made by the current American leader, Washington is determined to use the theme of the fight against "global warming" to revive its own messianic positions in our mortal world. Not to plant and “defend” “democratic values” all over the planet (for the most part, with the help of missile and bomb strikes and interventions), so at least fight against climate change. The main thing is that being in charge. "Ahead of the whole planet", as usual. Old Biden broadcasts with inspiration about the "American plan to save the planet", and, bravely beating himself into a by no means heroic chest, threatens to "work overtime" in order to "reduce emissions by gigatons." Specifically - by 50-52% of the 2005 level already by 2030, not so far from us. It sounds incendiary, however, as always, there is a snide "but". At whose expense is the head of the White House going to accomplish this feat? No, we have all heard his announced $ 555 billion pledged for "environmental projects" in the United States. However, firstly, it is far from the fact that it will be allocated. In the end, the limit may also be found in the seemingly limitless possibilities of the Fed's printing press. Secondly, the only, perhaps, truly real agreement, signed during COP26 - on the complete rejection of the use of coal in the energy sector, fully demonstrates that the United States in climate issues is using its beloved double standards as widely as and in policy.

The declaration on a decisive departure from the "dirtiest" of all types of currently known fossil fuels - coal, was signed by representatives of four dozen countries that no longer invest in the extraction of anthracite and the generation of energy with its use, even a broken penny. They also pledge to finally expel him from their own industry and energy. Those that are richer - by 2030, those who are poorer - by 2040. Everything would be fine, but only under this historical document there are absolutely no autographs as representatives of China and India (well, they, in fact, did not promise anything like that, I remember), but also the United States and Australia, which are among the world leaders in both coal mining and its use. So what does it do? Pushing the world towards energy solutions that are quite costly and carry a lot of problems and costs, is Washington not going to implement them itself? Let Poland and Ukraine and other gullible natives squirm, close their own mines and puzzle over where to get electricity? With Australia, in general, the story is special - having created with its participation the "Pacific NATO" directed against China, the Americans seem to be ready to forgive their newfound allies and not such "liberties". But China with Russia is a completely different matter. Their "casting" for the role of "world poisoners" and the main saboteurs of the "green course", apparently, was more than successful in the eyes of the United States. It was precisely against these two states, who dared to show their unwillingness to "join the common system" and dance to someone else's tune, that the main complaints were voiced in Glasgow.

Is the tundra on fire on Biden?

Yes, neither Vladimir Putin nor Xi Jinping wanted to honor with their presence both the G20 meeting (the heads of the foreign ministries were sent there) and the Glasgow summit. And the point here is not only the reluctance of the extremely busy leaders of world powers to spend their own precious time on an event that, in their eyes, has extremely dubious practical value. This Zelensky has nothing to do - so he skates where he does not hit, just to be called. Much more important in this case is the fundamental disagreement of both our president and the leader of the Celestial Empire, not with the goals declared by the "defenders of nature", but with the methods by which these, in general, good and correct goals, are planned to be achieved. Beijing is very badly "burned" in its attempt to make another "Great Leap Forward" - this time in the field of "decarbonization". The severe energy crisis that gripped the country not so long ago made the pragmatic Chinese think about revising the guidelines, terms and standards of the "green course". The UN Secretary General can sprinkle as many apocalyptic prophecies as he wants that humanity is "digging its own grave" right now, because "it continues to burn more and more, drill and extract deeper and deeper." Joe Biden is free to support Antonio Guteris, proclaiming that "less than a decade is left before the climate catastrophe." This is all, excuse me, first of all, emotions. And the economy is the essence of clear and specific numbers and rigorously verified tendencies. The energy crisis that has struck the world, which in some countries is reaching the stage of collapse, is mainly caused by the “green” voluntarism of some governments and statesmen - whether someone wants to admit it or not.

The words of the head of the White House and the head of the UN about how terribly they are "disappointed" by the absence of Vladimir Vladimirovich and President Xi at the G20 summit and in hall COP26 are, by and large, a thing of the same order. An attempt to translate an extremely serious conversation into the realm of emotions and again divide the world into "bad and good guys." Gutterisch's calls for the PRC leadership to "set much more ambitious goals for the decarbonization of the economy" sound great. But exactly until the time when in Beijing they will not ask: "And who will pay for this?" So far, some climate initiatives of the West look too similar to only slightly veiled attempts to "slow down" the economic development of China, India, Russia, throwing a "green stranglehold" on them. Reduction, or even better, complete cessation of deforestation is understandable, it is acceptable (although it is also somewhat problematic in terms of implementation within the terms announced at the summit), but “a sharp increase in the rate of decarbonization” is a dangerous and completely unrealistic undertaking. It was at this meeting that the summit "broke down" - even the most zealous adherents of ecology did not sign the corresponding declaration. Moreover - willy-nilly, but the "world community" had to raise the "bar" of the maximum allowable warming in the coming years from 1.5 to 2 degrees. This is somehow similar to a well-grounded forecast, and not to the wonderful-minded calculations of scientists who are rooting for the "future of the planet." And the point here is not at all that someone in Moscow, Beijing or New Delhi “does not understand” how Mr. Biden has deigned to speak on this matter. His passage about the "burning tundra" touched someone in the Kremlin, from where Dmitry Peskov did not hesitate to remind that in the United States, too, a lot of things have been burning recently and are still burning.

Frank speculation on this topic does not paint the head of the White House. Behind such rhetoric, one can clearly see an unusual desire to "appoint the guilty" in disrupting the "environmental" projects, and to do this, so to speak, in advance. And so it does not work. According to experts, today two possible paths are very clearly visible: either acting as an initiator and a "locomotive" of the "green revolution" and find compromises - and then the matter, perhaps, will go much more fun. Or the world will again be toughly split into several "camps", between which confrontation will grow with ever greater force. One of these will be supporters of the all-round acceleration of "green" changes and toughening of methods of forcing those who do not want to be led by "climate radicals" to them. The second, as you might guess, will include states whose economies, in one way or another, are rigidly "tied" to hydrocarbons - their production, export, use in industry and energy. Between them, they will try to "maneuver" countries that are today classified as "developing" or simply forced to "follow the lead" of more powerful and influential states. There is no doubt that the most dubious "green" experiments will be "run in" and tested at first in just such countries - today this is perfectly seen on the example of Ukraine, blindly following the requirements imposed on it by "partners", which may turn out to be simply disastrous.

One way or another, but in any of these "layouts" Russia will have its own path. And our country should determine both the direction and the speed of movement along it, not being afraid to “break out” of the general “agenda” and “disappoint” someone there. They will survive, they will not go anywhere.