Criticisms about Azerbaijan as host fall into two categories: First, as another gas and oil rich state it must mean the country is compromised as coordinator of the most important annual meeting on the planet. Second, when not a perfectly formed western European-style democracy in our own image it surely cannot speak to the fact that climate justice is a global human right.
Azerbaijan is of course not only an oil and gas economy – it is the world’s first petrostate – where Alfred Nobel (of peace-prize fame) made his name and fortune in the 19th century through, perhaps predictably, selling oil and guns. But while the country still makes most of its money and powers its economy through fossil fuels it is transitioning away from this addiction.
It’s a major supplier of natural gas to Europe, deemed by some a transition energy source, without which the continent would have faced a serious economic crisis once the Russian gas tap was welded shut. The country is also undertaking a major transition of its own, with significant moves into offshore wind on the Caspian Sea and one of the world’s largest solar arrays under construction. The reconstruction of a quarter of the country that was land-mined - the legacy of a regional war and thirty-year occupation by their neighbour Armenia – is underway based on a net-zero plan.
None of this is perfect, but neither is the reopening of coal power stations in Europe, or the demolishing of wind farms in Germany to dig up the coal beneath – both of which have been happening since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It’s not a good look for western countries be lecturing others on the importance of immediate transition away from fossil fuels when so many of us are heading in the wrong direction ourselves.
„We might wish to believe that multi-party systems and western human rights legislation are somehow pre-requisites for climate action“
Beyond the empty talk there’s a pile of evidence to disprove the idea that governance by western-style democracy and propensity to take climate action is somehow linked. The world’s two largest CO2 emitters are the United States and China. One is a democracy, the other an autocracy that couldn’t be further apart on governance. But when it comes to contributions to global heating they couldn’t be closer together. We might wish to believe that multi-party systems and western human rights legislation are somehow pre-requisites for climate action, but clearly they are not when seven out of the top ten global polluters are democracies.
Also interesting: Major utilies intent to raise renewable capacity by 2.5 times to 2030
Neither does this rogues’ gallery of top emitters easily overlap with the size of a country’s fossil fuel production. Azerbaijan may have been where the world’s first oil rush started, but today its produces fewer barrels per day of ‘black gold’ than Britain. Despite this, amongst the world’s largest economies, the UK does have a track record on emissions reduction. Since 1990, emissions caused by methods of electricity production has fallen by two-thirds due to a total phase-out of coal powered stations, and a comparable rise in hydro, wind, and solar. Between 2019 and 2020 alone the UK’s total carbon footprint is estimated to have fallen by 13 per cent. Compare that with our democratic friends in the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions actually increased last year.
„The whole point about climate action is it won’t work unless it includes all of us“
The development of the green-energy industry that has achieved this is a boon for British exports. That’s to the benefit of countries including Azerbaijan where the UK’s BP was last week breaking ground on construction of what will be one of world’s largest solar arrays.
This will never be enough for many in the climate change lobby, and already there are critics who claim Azerbaijan shouldn’t be host. They don’t like the way the country makes its money, and they don’t like its government. They won’t be convinced otherwise.
More from Gerard: How long will European producers last?
We could, if we wish, move to holding climate conferences and negotiations only in and with countries we see in our own image. We’d find we wouldn’t have a planet left in an even shorter time. The whole point about climate action is it won’t work unless it includes all of us: liberal democracies, illiberal autocracies, net and negative carbon emitters and all forms of saint and sinner in between. So, yes, fossil-fuelled Azerbaijan should host COP, not least when they are putting their gas-made money where their mouth is and investing heavily in renewables - case of practising before they preach. (GS/hcn)
