Najam ul Asar-COP-MDS

Yet another Conference of the Parties (COP) to address the existential challenge to planet Earth and the human species in the form of climate change concluded in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on 13 December 2023. It had to be extended by one day as the required consensus on phasing out of fossil fuels could not be achieved on the final declaration due to the intransigence of oil-producing countries. Eventually, the President of the conference facilitated the participants of the UN climate summit in reaching a final consensus, leading to what was termed as a ‘historic’ climate deal. Ironically however, he himself is head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) whose appointment as COP28 President was strongly criticised by environmentalists.  

Twenty-seven years have passed since first COP on climate change was held in 1995 in Berlin, Germany under the United Nations Framework of Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to address the issues of climate change. In 1997, COP3 adopted the ‘Kyoto Protocol’ to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In subsequent conferences, United Nations and environmental scientists continuously warned the world that being the biggest polluters, not enough is being done by rich and developed countries to mitigate climate change and its subsequent effects.

Poor and developing countries, despite contributing minimally to climate degradation, face the most severe adverse effects. Lacking sufficient financial resources, they struggle to implement essential measures and projects crucial for their survival amidst rapidly changing climatic conditions.

In an effort to provide much-needed funding, developed countries made financial commitments to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), established in 2010. The twelfth report of the GCF, covering the period from 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2023, reveals that the total pledges and contributions during the initial resource mobilisation period (2015-19) amounted to USD 10.31 billion. As of April 2023, for the GCF 1 phase focused on replenishing funds, pledges reached USD 9.87 billion. At the recently concluded COP28, within the first four days, wealthy nations pledged an additional USD 57 billion to the GCF. However, a UN report indicates that developing nations will require USD 5.8-5.9 trillion before 2030 to effectively mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Despite being the worst polluters, developed countries are not contributing substantially to the GCF; instead, they allocate significant funds to defence expenditures. Regrettably, developing countries, despite their limited resources, are also investing heavily on defence. This global arms race consumes a colossal amount of funds annually, resources that could be more effectively used for environmental conservation. Current international tensions, such as the US-China confrontation and the war in Ukraine, have further escalated this trend, leading to a significant increase in global defence spending. When this defence expenditure is compared with the allocation of funds for climate change projects, a stark and troubling contrast emerges, highlighting a disparity in global priorities.

In 2022 USD 1.92 billion were disbursed for 28 low carbon emission and climate resilient development pathways projects around the world. In the same year (2022), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that a total of USD 2240 billion (USD 2.24 trillion) were spent on defence worldwide. The US, China and Russia together constituted 56% of global defence spending. Individually, USA spent USD 877 billion which is 39% of global spending and three times more than China which spent USD 292 billion on defence. The US also provided USD 19.9 billion as financial military aid to Ukraine which alone is almost double the amount pledged for GCF 1 on 31 July 2023 and even in initial resource mobilisation period (2015-19). In the same period, Central and Western Europe spent USD 345 billion; Russia USD 84.6 billion, India USD 81.4 billion, Saudi Arabia USD 75.0 billion and Ukraine USD 44 billion on defence.   

In COP28’s much acclaimed ‘historic’ deal, phase-down of fossil fuels has been included albeit in a watered down language. But again, it’s more of a rhetoric to pacify the environmentalists and portray it as the historic achievement of the conference. The sincerity of the purpose can be gauged from the fact that COP28 was attended by 2400 delegates who were associated with fossil fuel industries.  This figure is seven times larger than the Indigenous People delegation and four times more than last year’s 636 delegates – lobbyists from fossil fuel industry. Similarly, global oil and gas exploration will see an investment of USD 22 billion annually over the next five years. To maintain a temperature rise of 1.50 Celsius, the world needs to reduce the CO2 emissions by 43% of existing figures, however, it is likely to increase by 9% – needing no imagination of its consequences.

In conclusion, a straightforward comparison between the massive expenditures on defence and fossil fuel exploration versus the funds pledged for climate change mitigation starkly highlights the priorities of developed countries. These nations, primarily responsible for the current environmental crisis, demonstrate a concerning lack of seriousness in addressing the very disaster they have largely contributed to. It is not difficult to fathom where the world is heading with no fault of poor nations who, like always, continue to bear the brunt of the selfishness of rich and powerful countries as well as corporations. God save planet Earth.

Air Vice Marshal Najam ul Asar (Retd) is Director at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at: [email protected].

Design Credit:  Mysha Dua Salman


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »