National Council of Applied Economic Research
Opinion: Isha Dayal.
The emissions from air travel, local transport and accommodation for COP delegates are staggering.
The COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11-22, will take stock of climate commitments made by countries as well as advances in curbing carbon emissions. However, conducting such large-scale international conferences comes with its own costs, particularly additional carbon emissions — that is above what are already being emitted by citizens worldwide as they go about their daily business.
How many of us have closely looked at our flight ticket to see our own carbon footprint, i.e. the carbon emissions which can be attributed to our air travel? If it is not on your ticket, try out the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (ICEC) (ICAO Environment).
According to this UN recognized tool, round-trip economy class travel to this year’s COP29 conference, from New Delhi to Baku, will result in per-passenger carbon dioxide emission of 236 kg (although business or first-class travel is attributed to a higher carbon footprint). For the shortest flight time from New York (JFK) to Baku, via Istanbul, a business class round trip will result in per-passenger carbon dioxide emission of 3,996 kg.
To top it up comes the emissions from energy use for local transportation and accommodation, and the waste generated from consumption of food and beverages, and other perishable and non-recyclable products. UNFCCC, in its report ‘How to COP’, has acknowledged that “it’s not easy being green” and that the “conferences generate considerable greenhouse gas emissions”.
Sustainability Reports
Host nations are expected to take proactive measures in achieving carbon neutrality and be prepared for questions raised by the media or civil society organizations on sustainability aspects. On their part, the host nations have published ‘Sustainability Reports’, a few months after COP events, giving details of the carbon footprint of the conference.
Like previous COPs, for COP29 as well, measures to make the upcoming event sustainable are published on their official website. At COP27, emissions from international air travel were 44,103.80 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) (COP27 Sustainability Report), for hosting more than 46,000 delegates (COP 27 Sustainability Report) from all over the world (One tonne equals 1,000 kg).
Given that the total carbon footprint of COP27 totalled 62,695 tonnes CO2e, air travel alone accounted for more than 70 per cent of the total carbon emissions from this event. At COP26, more than 38,000 delegates were in attendance, resulting in a total carbon footprint of 131,556 tonnes CO2e, (COP 26 Sustainability Report) though the event’s sustainability report does not provide the amount attributed to air travel. A report for last year’s COP28 is still awaited, though the carbon emissions from event are said to have set new records.
Now, how many delegates are expected to arrive in Baku for COP29? As of October 21 2024, registrations have already exceeded 32,000. It is difficult to give an exact number to the total expected carbon emissions, as neither the data on attendance final, nor has it been cut across countries or originating cities.
Also we don’t have the data on how many of the registered delegates will fly by commercial airlines or use private jets, which will result in even higher emissions.
Still, these numbers help one to reflect on the scale of excess emissions which occur at the time of any major international conference, over and above the emissions already occurring due to other worldwide travel to the destination concerned.
Of course not all conferences decide the future course of mitigating carbon emissions, which is ironically the objective of COP.
Host countries are putting in efforts to account for the emissions and waste generated at COP events and push for sustainability. The attempts to use renewable energy sources, electric vehicles, and waste management practices must be lauded.
Yet, the fact remains that COP events continue to generate carbon emissions, and the statements that these emissions are ‘offset’ through purchase of credits from other certified green programmes appears like greenwashing the event as a zero-sum game: Where COP pollutes, other programmes save equivalent emissions.
Rather, why not try to push for a positive outcome, where everyone tries to save carbon emissions, and set an example on hosting greener events? Why not have a standardized carbon footprint measurement and sustainability reporting criteria to enable year-on-year comparisons of carbon emissions at COP events, and work towards lesser polluting ‘Greener COPs’?
To the extent possible, why not try to limit in-person gatherings to essential negotiations, or even attempt online deliberations? The Covid pandemic has taught us the time-cost benefits of virtual meetings and hybrid events.
Climate measures
Why not save money through these measures and use it to supplement the elusive financial commitments, which are meant to help lesser developed countries mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts?
The ideal way to disregard the carbon cost of COPs, however large or small their contribution may be to the global annual emissions, is by ensuring that the multilateral mechanism is delivering on its promises: Reducing global carbon emissions and helping decelerate the warming of our planet.
Unfortunately, global climate action has been slow, and reports by international environmental bodies, the latest being the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 released on October 24, are constantly reminding us of the clock ticking towards doomsday. Emerging data and research on the ongoing wars, which involve countries that are parties to UNFCCC, highlights the role of these conflicts in further adding to global carbon emissions.
It is therefore important for the international community to seriously reflect on all the contradictions, and consider the above suggestions moving forward — keeping in view the severe impact that extreme weather events is having on not only lives and livelihoods but also the flora and fauna.
The writer is Fellow at National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER). Views expressed are personal