The current heat wave in western Europe has once again brought the subject of climate change to the forefront. This is already a mistake. You cannot deal with a life-threatening issue, only when you come face-to-face with the consequences.

Whatever happened to the proactive mentality, the “Prometheus” spirit?

But even the current public discussion is primarily spent on the temperature new heights and the records broken, on water games and cool drinks, on life-saving protection advice, and occasionally someone mentions climate change as the “probable” cause for all these phenomena…

It’s never a real discussion as to what constitutes climate change, who and what caused climate change and how we’re going to get out of the Climate crisis?

It’s just a superficial approach… Image over content… News media are copying social media and that’s bad for everyone.

So why is the climate crisis not impressed by our climate actions?

Because our climate actions are not of the correct magnitude, the correct depth, the correct breadth and certainly not happening in the correct time. They are just, mostly, actions primarily serving as public relations exercises… unfortunately.

Am I exaggerating? Well, consider this. From COP1 to COP30, carbon dioxide emissions kept rising and they will most certainly keep rising until the next many COPs. Why? Because COPs and especially COP decisions are toothless.

This is underscored by this shocking single fact: “It took 26 COPs to mention fossil fuels.” At COP26 in Glasgow, fossil fuels were mentioned for the first time (and then actually only coal) as the culprits of CO2 emissions.

Up to COP26, Carbon Dioxide was a self-emitted molecule from an unknown source….

This is just an indication of the power of fossil-fuel-producing countries and the lobby that represents them.

It just takes one

Much as I hate it, I must really give credit to them for their ingenuity, for being so proactive and having such foresight that from the beginning of the COP conferences, they instigated this amazing clause for the decision-making process: “COP (Conference of the Parties) decisions are taken by consensus, meaning all member countries must agree before a decision can be formally adopted. No single country holds a veto, so negotiations require extensive political bargaining and compromise to resolve differing national priorities.”

So clever!

A single country’s objection is enough to prevent a decision from being taken, and believe me, this has happened many a time (I have personal recollections from Katowice and COP24).

The result is that all the decisions taken so far are without any real teeth, so they cannot “bite” and cut away a chunk of the climate crisis.

But there is more. The beauty of this clause does not end here. To change this clause, you need a unanimous decision, but even one country opposing… you get the picture. Hence, it will never change.

Brilliant. A self-protecting clause.

Game, set and match to the fossil fuel lobby

But don’t think, even for a moment, that the concession at COP26 marked a real change in climate politics. In the same COP, the fossil fuel lobby made all other delegates sweat over the terminology of “Fossil fuel Phase out or Phase down”.

~Phase Out: The complete and permanent cessation of fossil fuel use and production, aiming for zero dependency by a specific target date.

~Phase Down: A gradual decline in fossil fuel consumption, typically without a strict, legally binding timeline or defined endpoint.

Guess which one was included in the final decision?

Then came COP28 in Dubai and a new phrase was coined, “Transitioning away from fossil fuels” and achieving Net Zero.

The agreement was for net-zero to be reached by 2050, but a number of major polluters have already set their net-zero targets even later (China and Russia 2060, India 2070).

Needless to say, net-zero even at 2050 is already useless as regards efforts to maintain the temperature rise below 2°C.

What is the answer?

Proof of that is the subtle discussion about “temperature overshoot” which in effect is acceptance of policy failure and a shift of focus on how long earth will stay in a temperature overshoot state, before returning to temperatures considered more compliant with life as we know it.

The answer? No one knows.

In spite of this, symbolically, the COP28 was a historic decision, part of the UNFCCC UAE Consensus, and marked the first time a UN climate summit explicitly called for moving away from oil, gas, and coal.

At COP29, the fossil fuel lobby “corrected” the mistake of COP28, and thus failed to reach a consensus on how to implement the historic commitment from COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels.

This success (or failure, depending on where you stand) was repeated at COP30.

Stop for a moment and try to understand this outcome

It took us 28 years to agree on what should have been the premise of the beginning of the discussion back at COP1. And a necessary clarification: this agreement was on principle and not on the details, which of course are essential to achieve any results.

30 global conferences mandated to provide solutions to the galloping climate crisis fail to even name the culprits.

So why are we failing so badly? The science is clear and has been clear for decades. And science is proven right, again and again, and unfortunately, the daily climate change-induced disasters confirm the scientific projections.

And on top, we now all know that it’s going to get worse. A lot worse. So where is the catch?

SBS & NBS versus MBS

In other words, Science and nature-based solutions versus Market-based solutions.

To put it bluntly, the solutions to the climate crisis that are being promoted are primarily the solutions that the market favours because they’re expected to return profit. However, we must consider that the poly-crisis we are facing is not only the result of “what” we used, but also of how we used it.

The consumption craze, the “throw away” society, the “single use plastics” and the “single use everything” mentality … they are equally, if not more, responsible for the outcome.

Unnecessarypractices that served only one purpose: to increase market revenues. And now we are expecting that we can use the same mechanism to solve the crisis?

There is this famous concept, widely attributed to Einstein, stating that if your current mindset, assumptions, or strategies led to an issue, continuing with those same patterns will not resolve it. I would wholeheartedly agree in the case under consideration.

As long as we expect to make a profit out of saving our hind, the climate crisis will continue undeterred. And at the moment, this is the preferred approach. Why? For the same reasons that fossil fuels are still in the clear. Market rules!

SDGs are a good example

According to UN reports and as the 2030 deadline approaches, only 35% of SDG targets are on track or making moderate progress; nearly half are moving too slowly, and 18% are actively regressing.

Why? Because there is no market profit to be made out of achieving SDGs.

655 million people are still without access to electricity and almost 2 billion without access to clean cooking. Isn’t this proof enough?

Let me give you another example. Global gas flaring (the controlled burning of natural gas, during oil extraction, to dispose of unwanted “associated gas”) rose for the third consecutive year, surging to 167 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2025 and wasting an estimated $54 billion worth of gas.

The annual Global Gas Flaring Tracker, released in the last week of June by the World Bank Group, finds that flaring volumes in 2025 are nearly equal to Africa’s entire annual gas consumption.

Hence, this totally revenue-oriented practice deprives people of energy (albeit from fossil fuels) and adds approximately 1-1.5% of annual CO2 emissions.

This is our climate reality.

It’s not only that we have made all the wrong choices up to now, but that we continue to do so. Hence, humanity will live to see the climate get worse, a lot worse, before it starts getting better, over the next many decades.

However, it’s only to be expected since we live in a system dominated by market considerations.

If you allow me, in conclusion, I would, sadly, say: “Market-based solutions talk, science-based solutions walk.”

This article, first published on ESI Africa, was written by Prof. Ioannis Tsipouridis, a Senior Research Fellow at Strathmore University and a Renewable Energy Consultant Engineer and Climate Action Advocate.