For those of us following the progress on climate talks, one can not help noticing the scant progress made in all these years. From the agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 to the recently concluded COP27, it would seem that all that has been achieved is the consensus that there is a problem and many non-binding commitments and targets.

Global CO2 emissions in 1990, the base year for greenhouse gas figures, were about 34 billion tonnes every year, which increased to nearly 50 billion tonnes in 2020. During the same period, the use of fossil fuels grew by nearly 50 percent. This was a period of stabilising, yet very high per capita emissions by the developed countries along with explosive growth of emissions by the developing countries led by China and India.

A notable feature of climate negotiations from the earliest days has been a persistent deadlock between developing and developed countries. Developing countries like India and China contend that the major burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions should fall on the developed countries who have been historically the largest emitters. They point out that even today, the per capita emissions in developed countries is several times greater than that in the developing world. For instance, the average person in the United States emits more than 18 tonnes annually, compared to 8 tonnes in China and just 2.5 tonnes in India.

Developed countries, on the other hand, argue that the most incremental increase in emissions since 1990 has come from developing countries. They acknowledge their high per capita emissions, but argue that action on climate change would be meaningless without the contribution of the world's largest emitters, including India and China. They further point that while the population in the developed world has long stabilised and is falling in many instances, the developing world, including India and the African continent, will continue to add millions of people for several decades.

The impasse and inaction were on full display at COP27 as well. Developed countries wanted to put focus on coal and oil, mainly used by India and China, while the developing bloc retorted that all fuels, including the natural gas used by Europe, are part of the problem. The developing bloc wanted funding for climate change mitigation measures which the developed bloc argued should be reserved for small and vulnerable economies rather than large economies such as India and China. What emerged from the weeklong conference was a compromise of sorts pushing any concrete commitment to another date.

A direct outcome of this impasse is the very slow progress on climate change action. The International Energy Agency reported that the use of coal rebounded sharply in 2021 and rose to an all-time high in 2022, and so did emissions. Not only are global emissions increasing year by year, but also the reductions shown by countries falling well short of the targets. Studying the fall in emissions for the period 2016-19, researchers from the University of East Anglia and Stanford University found that emissions dropped in just 64 nations out of 214, amounting to an average of 160 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. This was far less than the 1 to 2 billion tonnes required to hold global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

What is the way out? First, the developed world is guilty of not moving fast. While renewable capacities have grown remarkably in several developed countries, what we have are minimal reductions in emissions in the order of 1-2 percentage points every year, which is not sufficient and commensurate with their historical responsibilities. It is also striking that within this large group, there are large variations in emissions. The average person in the US and Australia is responsible for twice as much emissions as one in Western and Northern Europe, showing it is possible to enjoy a higher standard of living at a lower level of emissions.

There is already a broad consensus in the developed world about the need to fight climate change, yet fearing resentment, governments have shied from taking measures that would lead to a perceived drop in living standards and personal comfort. Yet, this need not always be so. When faced with necessity, people and societies are good at adapting. A case in point is the energy saving measures implemented since the war in Ukraine in several Western countries. In Germany, for instance, street lighting was curtailed in many cities, and businesses were asked to close the doors and limit the use of heating.

As for the developing countries, it is clear there is little chance climate action can succeed without binding and ambitious targets from them. Both India and China have grown renewable capacities, however, even in the best-case scenario, their emissions will continue to rise for the next several decades. Climate justice means that some of the more vulnerable countries like Nepal and Bangladesh should be provided assistance to make the transition to green energy. But it does not mean that large developing countries keep going on the same path to development as the one that led to the problem in the first place.

One must appreciate that the climate change crisis is not an isolated event, but rather one of the many different crises resulting from our way of living. Air and water pollution, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, and depletion of natural resources; and all at a scale unparalleled throughout the history of mankind. The common thread to all of these is increasing human consumption, aka ecological footprint. Much of this consumption is unnecessary and not worth the price of climate change and environmental destruction. Ultimately, the world as a whole will have to learn to move away from the fossil fuel-driven, consumption-centric economic model. Our collective future hangs on this.