COP27 takeaways: Climate action, loss and damage, and back to business

• With few breakthroughs at COP27, there is a growing sense among civil groups that governments are failing to show leadership in the fight for climate action.
• Instead, business groups could fill the void left by policymakers, as exemplified by the recent ‘We Mean Business’ and ‘We Don’t Have Time’ business coalitions.
• One beacon of hope to emerge from COP27 is the agreement for ‘Loss and Damage’ funding. However, the hard lessons learned by the ‘Green Climate Fund’ suggest that this too may be slow to roll out.

Earlier in October, I don’t think I had ever experienced such drastic clashes of climate in Sweden before in my life. Winter in the north, autumn in the center, and summer in the south.

The following month, when I left my hometown of Stockholm to head to COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, I remember taking off in clear-blue skies and highs of 14 degrees. Just days later when I returned, the sunny landscape had been replaced by a blanket of snow caused by a sudden and intense snow storm weeks if not months before we usually have our first snow fall.

These examples from Sweden of unusual weather are just one of many daily reminders that the effects of the warming climate are things that we all live with every day.

Cop27 recap: Are policymakers really doing enough for climate action?

Going into COP26 last year in Glasgow, the chant was ‘keep the 1.5 alive’—referring to the commitments made in the Paris Agreement to try and limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Now, looking back at COP27, I feel that there has been a real shift in the discourse. We’ve gone from talks about mitigation—keeping the 1.5 target alive, to adaption—already resigned to the prospect that we will probably move past the dangerous threshold of 1.5°C. Now it’s time to figure out how we as humans can live and function in this new, warmer world with swathes of nature loss around us.

A study (link in Swedish) that came out this week shows that we have already gone past 1.5°C here in Sweden. An extensive analysis of SMHI's historical observations shows that Sweden's average mean temperature 1991–2020 has increased by 1.9°C compared to the period 1861–1890. This is roughly double the global average for the corresponding period (0.9 °C).

This warming and lack of climate action has certainly not gone unnoticed here in Sweden. Recently, Greta Thurnberg and 600 other young Swedes filed a class action lawsuit against the Swedish state for failing to take adequate measures to stop climate change. The lawsuit is part of an international wave of climate-related legal action, some of it targeting national governments.

This frustration with the perceived lack of action across the world’s governments was also palpable in the halls of COP27. More than 600 fossil fuel lobbyists and some national governments pushed against India's proposal to agree to phasing down P26.

Also roaming the halls was Frankie the Dinosaur, the UN's climate change mascot. The Utahraptor carried a sign that read: "Don't choose extinction” to warn of the impending doom caused by the rise in emissions from burning fossil fuels, and to discouraging billions spent on fossil fuel subsidies.

But in a twist of irony, COP28 is to be hosted by the UAE, one of the world’s biggest oil exporters. It’s then quite natural to start questioning the whole notion of COP. For example, after returning from COP27, we got the question from a member on the team if we can still expect these conferences to show leadership in tackling the climate emergency?

This brings me to my point: If governments can’t show leadership in the fight against climate change, then who can?

Source: United Nations | UNDP

The role of business and climate action

Step forward business leaders. While delegates at COP27 were fudging the issue of fossil fuels, the ‘We Mean Business Coalition’ brought together hundreds of concerned companies to declare 1.5°C to be a “limit, not a target.” And our partner ‘We Don’t Have Time’ began a “We Can Do It” campaign, signed by 725 business leaders representing a combined USD 180 billion USD in turnover. 

Climate action of course must be collective, and it must reach into the higher echelons of government if it is to be effective. But corporations do have a strong role to play, and many of them are picking up the slack while governments have been stuck in their diplomatic processes.

This is also where the true power of public-private partnerships comes into play: when we join on a common cause, we can deliver exponential results.

During COP27 we did see a lot of business and civil society engagements. As a partner of the COP27 Climate Hub that broadcasted to more than 50 million people outside COP, we hope we have made an impact in raising awareness. The broadcasting is built on stories of action, and as we see more and more companies setting Net Zero targets we also unfortunately see some engagements that are less positive than others.

Greenwashing for example is still visible in these events. That’s why together with our partners, we hope to get out to the world what the right level of climate action looks like and why that should be built on science. It’s our responsibility to question companies that do not adhere to the new and improved standards of Net Zero and the level required to continue on the 1.5°C limit pathway.

Loss and damage: What is it?

You may have seen the news that a breakthrough agreement was signed at COP27 to provide loss and damage funding for vulnerable countries hit hard by climate disasters. It should be seen as a success for climate action, although details of the fund are still yet to be fleshed out.

While the negotiated text recognized the need for financial support from a variety of sources, no decisions have been made as to who should pay into the fund, where this money will come from and which countries will benefit.

It is a breakthrough, and it is important—but also a potential problem.

Setting up the fund will take time, and if we take our eyes off the goal of actual emission reductions, we can fall further and further into a future of extreme weather that will call for even more claims for loss and damage.

We already saw the problems with getting funds to the previous Green Climate Fund that was set up within the Paris Agreement back in 2015 where countries pledged to raise USD 100 billion a year by 2020. It wasn’t until this year that funding pledges were finally realized.

However, we need to make sure that we now work in parallel supporting impacted countries, both for loss and damage, but also for other climate adaptation needs. This can go hand in hand with also avoiding emissions, not letting them into the wrong path that so many countries are in to today and are building their economies on.

We have an opportunity to act, and as I said above, all of us from the business side must step up even more to lead the way and tell our policy makers what we need to make the transition happen, and how to invest in the actions needed.

Let’s make sure we expand our impact and actions for 2023 as well and make COP28 count. Maybe if we all push, we can support our policy makers to be bold and agree on phasing out fossil fuels once and for all.

Read our other COP27 blog posts:

Blog post: COP 27: How can ICT help us mitigate and adapt to climate change?

Blog post: Climate change: A pandemic we must address now

More related reading

Blog post: Net Zero: what does it mean and how do we get there?

Learn more about Ericsson’s commitment to be Net Zero by 2040.

Explore how Ericsson is supporting its suppliers to set their own 1.5°C aligned climate targets.