From December 2ndto 14th, 2018, nearly 23,000 delegates gathered in Katowice, Poland for the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (COP24) with the common goal of tackling climate change. The purpose of the negotiations at COP24 was to produce a “rulebook” that adhered to the goals set out in the Paris Climate Change Agreement, which would come into effect in 2020. The United Nations states that the mandate of COP24 “Promoted trust among nations that all countries are playing their part in addressing the challenge of climate change,” although the outcome of the conference shows that the “part” many countries are playing will not be nearly enough.

The COP24 conference kicked-off with minimal fanfare despite being the most important climate summit since the Paris Agreement in 2015. The lack of enthusiasm and skepticism regarding COP24 stemmed from the conference being: i) held in Poland’s coal country; ii) sponsored by coal companies; and, iii) undermined by U.S. President Trump’s relentless statements about his disbelief in climate change. Experts from a variety of backgrounds doubted whether the conference would produce any rules at all. “I think everyone acknowledges [the rules] won’t be fully finalized” said Alden Meyer, an international climate expert.

The COP24 Polish President, Michał Kurtyka,envisioned that COP24 would highlight three key topics: using technology to develop climate-friendly modern solutions, using a consensus in the just transitions of industrial regions, and supporting the achievement of climate neutrality by absorbing carbon dioxide in nature by forests and land. With international collaboration on these three topics, Poland wanted the COP24 to result in the solidary pursuit of improving transportation-related pollutants, environmentally-friendly economic growth, and greenhouse gas sinks, a reservoir that takes up greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from another part of its natural chemical cycle, set out by the Paris Agreement.

Although these themes indicate the progressive action to mitigate climate change, as the conference unfolded, several challenges arose. A group of countries including the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia refused to “welcome” the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific report, and instead only “noted” its existence, leading to a struggle in achieving  international compromise. Leaders of countries who acknowledged the significance of the climate change crisis, such as Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu, believed that the U.S. was a key player in obstructing an effective agreement. Sopoaga stated, “What we have on the table is very disappointing, very frustrating. We are unhappy. We are going back on the Paris Agreement — what we agreed to three years ago. It looks like people still do not trust each other.” He followed with “It’s the White House alone that’s dragging their feet… our country is already going underneath the water. I hope the White House reconsiders its position.” In addition to reneging on its previous commitment to provide financial support to developing countries to help combat climate change, the U.S. delegates actually promoted the use of fossil fuel technology at the conference.

At the end of a gruelling two-weeks, negotiators from over 190 countries seemed to celebrate the landing of the rulebook, known as the Katowice Climate Change Package. However, many believed that this formalized agreement did not go far enough. The rulebook states that countries should monitor and report greenhouse gas emissions and their respective efforts taken to reduce them. It also includes binding assurance that poorer countries will receive financial support to reduce emissions. Although these Articles sound encouraging, the finalized agreement failed to encompass a global carbon market mechanism, explained by Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Article 6 allows richer states to financially support their less wealthy counterparts in tackling climate change, but it does not allow emissions generated by a single state to be counted twice. A global carbon market mechanism would prevent richer countries from claiming the emission reductions generated by poorer countries receiving their financial support as their own, which would ultimately produce inaccurate emission reduction data. Green MEPs and NGOs agree that COP24 has “failed to deliver.” Both scientists and negotiators know that this disappointing rulebook will not be sufficient in stopping carbon pollution from reaching critical levels. The lack of aggressive rules is concerning as the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres has asserted that the failing of COP24 would be “suicidal” and “immoral.”

Perhaps the most remarkable product of this conference was the presence of young voices. Greta Thunberg, a 15-year-old from Sweden, inspired people around the world when she publicly shamed negotiators at the Summit. “You are not mature enough to tell it like it is… I don’t care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet,” she said. Thunberg had a clearer message than many negotiators at COP24, “We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.”

In response to the disbelief and disregard of scientific evidence, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe stated,“It’s not a religion. It’s not up to us whether we choose to believe in it or not. If you say ‘Well, I don’t believe in gravity,’ but then you step off the cliff, you’re going down.” Hayhoe’s words illustrate the crux of the problem: world leaders cannot avoid the reality and inevitability of climate change.