The Need and Feasibility of the UN to Lead the Human Community in Creating a Digital Planet(003)
— An Open Letter to UN Secretary-General Guterres and Global
2, A self-deception international joke
In the previous section we said that for more than half a century, more than half of the UN’s time and energy has been spent on the fundamental point of solving the global climate crisis. But it is still a futile effort. Many would disagree with this. Because they believe that the UN has at least made a significant contribution to solving the global climate problem. Yes, the Glasgow Climate Convention does set the global temperature rise at the end of the century at a threshold of no more than 1.5°C. However, with all due respect. This is a goal that is simply not achievable under existing global cooperation mechanisms and governance models. Why? Consider the following facts.
The 《WMO Global Status of Climate Report 2021》, published by the World Meteorological Organization on 18 May 2022, confirms that in 2021, four key climate change indicators: greenhouse gas concentrations, sea level rise, ocean heat and ocean acidification have all set new records. Guterres notes that these records are “a dismal failure of humanity to address climate degradation”. Why is it all a “dismal failure”? Because, as Guterres knows very well. For decades, almost none of the promises humanity has made to address the global climate problem have been fulfilled. And the question now is not whether the promises can be kept, but whether even if they are kept, the goals will still not be reached.
On the eve of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2021: Hot on the Trail reveals that the latest climate commitments by countries, combined with other mitigation measures, will put the world on track to reach a global warming of 2.7°C by the end of the century. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks 2022 Report also states that the current COP26 climate pledges will lead to global warming of 2.4°C, with only the most optimistic scenario remaining at 1.8°C. The International Energy Agency (IEA) also predicts that even if all COP26 climate commitments are met, the world will only be on a global warming trajectory of 1.8°C.
In short, no matter who it is. At best estimates, the latest global climate pledges will only limit warming to 1.8°C, and there is no chance of achieving the 1.5°C target. What’s more, there is no guarantee that the climate pledges of the 100-plus countries will all be met.
In July 2022, Guterres stressed at a ministerial meeting of 40 countries discussing the climate crisis: “We have a choice. Collective action or collective suicide. It is in our hands.” This is not a warning, but a fact. If we fail to ensure that by the end of the century, global temperature rise is limited to 1.5°C, but 1.8°C, 2.0°C, or even 2.7°C. That would all be tantamount to collective human suicide.
Why has the United Nations been unable to make substantial progress for decades on a core issue that concerns the life and death of every global country and every global citizen, despite the high priority, cooperation and support of all countries in the world? In fact, the fundamental problem, expressed in one word, is “money”. In two words, it is “economy”. In three words, it is the “right to development”. It is all the fault of money.
In today’s world, the right to carbon emissions is the same as the right to development, the right to survival. This is especially true for those developing countries and economically least developed countries. The use of low-tech, inexpensive fossil fuels can solve the problem of food and clothing as quickly as possible. Indian scholar Vijay Prabhad, at COP26, angrily criticised Western society, arguing that instead of worrying about the future, the West should worry about the ‘present’ of the world’s 2.7 billion poor people. When so many of the world’s poor are unable to survive today, does tomorrow mean anything to them?
The UN is well aware of this, and without helping economically backward countries around the world to use clean energy and guarantee their right to live. It is simply not possible to get these countries to net zero emissions. So, back in 2009, the UN included climate finance as a core priority. During COP15 in Copenhagen, rich countries pledged to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to poor countries to help them develop green energy and slow further temperature rises.
For this reason, in 2010 the United Nations established the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It was hoped that with this Green Fund of US$100 billion per year, the right to live of the people of these poor countries would be guaranteed, while curbing carbon emissions in these regions. Unfortunately, even with the commitments already made by all, and even with the repeated appeals of Secretary-General Guterres, only a pitiful US$9.7 billion has been raised from 2010 to 2019. This was followed by the COP26 summit effect, and a full push from all parties at the UN. It took until 2022 for the GCF website to show that US$40 billion had been raised.
40 billion, just 40% of the $100 billion that the international community originally pledged for one year, and that’s the sum of 12 years of donations. Isn’t this still a big international joke! If this is only a superficial figure. If this is only a superficial figure, then let’s look at the actual funding of this international organisation, which is responsible for reducing emissions in developing countries around the world.
The figures shown in Figure 7 are laughable. The total assets that can be operated by such an international green foundation, which has been entrusted with such a high expectation and responsibility by the United Nations, will only just exceed US$10 billion per year until 2021. This is a global fund that is supposed to commit $100 billion a year to help economically underdeveloped countries develop green energy strategies. Do you think it is possible to achieve such a goal with such a small amount of operating funds?
Without money, is it really possible that the poor in poor countries should not emit or develop and starve to death now in exchange for saving the people of developed countries and saving the planet? Does it make sense under the sun. But where will the money come from. It can only come from the compassion and kindness of rich countries or rich people. But what if the rich countries and the rich people do not have the compassion or the goodwill? What if they are not willing to give the money?
We acknowledge that the GCF Foundation would like to play a central and active role in the fight against global temperature rise. But it is “difficult for a clever woman to cook without rice.”
On 11 January 2023, the GFC noted in its 2022 Report of the Thirty-Fourth Meeting of the GCF Board that “While more than 140 countries have partnered with the Green Climate Fund, they have provided only 3 per cent of the pledged portion of climate finance. And for many partners here, it may be difficult to find the other 97% of climate finance.” Twelve years on, it has only received 3% of the projected funding. And the other 97% is likely to be out of reach forever. 12 years on and only 3% has been received! Who can imagine?
The figures in Figure 9 show that global GDP exceeded US$60 trillion back in 2009. US$100 billion is no problem at all for the international community. The combined GDP of the 20 G20 countries alone has averaged over US$60 trillion per year for the past 12 years. A mere US$100 billion is only 0.17% of the average annual combined GDP. To solve the global climate crisis, such a small amount of money, which is still committed, is not even willing to be taken out. Who can imagine? What is this if not a big joke? And it has taken the UN 12 years to achieve this big international joke.
This was a promise that could have been kept without any difficulty and was completely deliverable. Surprisingly, it has become an international joke until now. So who will believe it when the international community commits itself to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. This is a thousand or ten thousand times harder than providing $100 billion a year. All discerning people, all people with a modicum of sense, understand that such a promise is absolutely impossible to keep.
Why is that? Because there is really no other way out. Just like today, we know that going down the path promised by the COP26 countries would be tantamount to collective suicide for humanity. But what else can we do when the UN is too big to print money, too big to make money, too big to raise money. Even if this commitment programme has only a 1 in 10,000 chance of saving humanity. But one in 10,000 is better than no hope at all. This is the real state of affairs at the UN in addressing the global climate problem.
The reason why I have repeatedly highlighted this example of GFC and these figures is so that the Secretary-General and the global wise men can see the essence of the matter and its seriousness. The essence of the matter is that even if US$100 billion per year were to arrive, achieving net zero emissions by 2050 would never be possible. Even if all COP26 pledges are met 100%, it will never be possible to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C by the end of the century. In short, if the current global situation is not fundamentally changed quickly, humanity will not have to wait until the end of the century, but perhaps in the next 10–20 years, for the extreme conditions created by climate extremes to render much of the planet unsuitable for human survival and development. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, other UN officials, and even leaders and scientists of all countries know the nature of the problem and the seriousness of the consequences. Why then do they have to “self-deception”? The reason is the same as the previous one, and what can we do otherwise? What can be done if the window is pierced? What can be done but to increase the fear and anxiety of people around the world?
After all, in today’s world, if you can’t come up with a better solution, then why poke holes in this unattractive but comforting lie? Perhaps we still cannot believe that the United Nations has really fallen to this level, that humanity has really sunk to this level of misery. One wonders what we have done wrong, and what is the root cause of the UN coming to this point, and of humanity coming to this point.
(to be continued)
The English translation is mainly done by AI and is inevitably not accurate enough. Please refer to the original Chinese text below for a more accurate understanding.
联合国引领人类社会打造数字地球的必要性和可行性（003）
— — 致联合国秘书长古特雷斯及全球贤达的公开信
2，自欺欺人的国际笑话
上一节我们说到，半个多世纪以来，联合国一半以上的时间和精力，都花在了解决全球气候危机这个根本点上。可依然是徒劳无功。对此，很多人会不认可。因为，他们认为联合国至少在解决全球气候问题上，做出了极大贡献。没错，《格拉斯哥气候公约》确实将本世纪末全球气温的上升幅度，确定在不超过1.5℃的阈值下了。然而，恕我直言。在现有全球合作机制和治理模式下，这是一个根本无法达成的目标。为什么？请看以下事实。
2022年5月18日世界气象组织发布的《WMO 2021年全球气候状况报告》确认： 2021年，四个关键气候变化指标：温室气体浓度、海平面上升、海洋热量和海洋酸化。均创下了新纪录。古特雷斯指出，这些纪录正是“人类在解决气候恶化问题方面的一桩桩惨淡败绩”。为什么说这都是一桩桩“惨淡败绩”。因为，古特雷斯很清楚。几十年来，人类在解决全球气候问题上曾作出的所有承诺，几乎没有一项兑现了。而现在的问题，已经不是承诺能不能兑现了，而是即使承诺兑现了也依然无法达成目标。
2021年联合国气候变化会议(COP26)前夕，联合国环境规划署（UNEP）发布的《2021排放差距报告：热火朝天》揭示，按照各国最新气候承诺，并结合其他缓解措施，将使世界步入到本世纪末全球升温2.7℃的轨道。世界经济论坛《全球风险2022年报告》也指出，目前COP26的气候承诺将引导全球变暖2.4℃，只有最乐观的情况保持1.8℃。国际能源署（IEA）也预测，即便COP26的气候承诺全部得以兑现，世界也只能步入全球变暖1.8℃的轨道。
简言之，无论是谁。最乐观的估计，全球最新气候承诺也只能将气温变暖限制在1.8℃，没有任何可能实现1.5℃这个目标。更何况，要保证这100多个国家的气候承诺全部兑现，那更是毫无可能。
2022年7月，古特雷斯在 40 个国家的部长级会议讨论气候危机强调：“我们有一个选择。集体行动或集体自杀。它在我们手中。”这不是警告，而是事实。如果我们不能确保在本世纪末，将全球气温上升限制在1.5℃以内，而是1.8℃、2.0℃，甚至2.7℃。那都无异于人类集体自杀。
为什么一个关系到每个地球国家、每个地球公民生死存亡的核心问题，在世界各国高度重视、配合和支持下，联合国几十年来始终无法取得实质性进展。其实，根本症结，用一个字来表达，就是：“钱”。用两个字来表达，就是“经济”。用三个字来表达，就是“发展权”。一切都是金钱惹的祸。
今天这个世界，碳排放权就等于发展权、生存权。尤其对那些发展中国家、经济最不发达国家来说，更是如此。使用技术含量低、价格低廉的石化能源，能尽快解决温饱问题。印度学者维杰·普拉哈德，在COP26大会上，愤怒批评西方社会，认为与其担心未来，西方国家更应该担心世界上 27 亿穷人的“现在”。 当世界上还有那么多穷人今天都无法生存时，明天对他们还有意义吗？
联合国对此非常清楚，如果不能帮助全球经济落后国家使用清洁能源，保障他们的生存权。要让这些国家实现净零排放是完全不可能的。于是，早在2009年，联合国就将气候融资纳入了核心重点任务。在哥本哈根举行的COP15期间，富裕国家承诺到2020年，每年向贫穷国家提供1000亿美元，帮助这些国家发展绿色能源，减缓气温的进一步上升。
为此，2010年，联合国专门成立了绿色气候基金 (GCF)。希望能用这每年1000亿美元的绿色基金，既保证了这些贫穷国家人民的生存权，又遏制了这些地区的碳排放。遗憾的是，即使在大家已经作出承诺的情况下，即使在古特雷斯秘书长的一再呼吁下，从2010年到2019年，只筹集到了可怜的97亿美元。这以后，在COP26峰会效应，以及联合国各方全力推动下。一直到2022年，GCF官网显示才筹集到了400亿美元。
400亿，仅仅国际社会当初承诺一年所需1000亿美金的40%，而且这还是12年的捐赠总和。这难道还不是一个天大的国际玩笑！如果这还只是一个表面数据。那么，我们不妨再看看这个承担着全球发展中国家减排重任的国际组织实际资金运作情况。
（《GCF董事会第三十四次会议报告》Page161）（https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b34-29.pdf）
图7中显示的数据，看了是不是让人啼笑皆非。这样一个被联合国寄予厚望、赋予重任的国际绿色基金会，每年可以运作的总资产，直到2021年也才刚刚突破100亿美元。这可是承诺每年应该拿出1000亿美元，去帮助经济不发达国家发展绿色能源战略的全球基金啊。就这么一点运作资金，你觉得有可能达成这样的目标吗？
没有钱，难道真的让贫穷国家的穷人不排放、不发展，现在就饿死，换来发达国家人民得救、地球得救？天下有这样的道理吗。可是，钱从哪里来。只能靠有钱国家或有钱人发慈悲、发善心。可是，如果有钱国家和有钱人没有这份慈悲、没有这份善心呢？如果他们不愿意拿出这笔钱呢？
我们承认，GCF基金会也希望它能在遏制全球气温上升行动中起到核心的、积极的作用。可是，“巧妇难为无米之炊”啊。
2023年1月11日，GFC在它的2022《GCF董事会第三十四次会议报告》中指出：“虽然有140多个国家与绿色气候基金合作，但它们只提供了承诺部分3％的气候资金。而对这里面许多合作伙伴来说，可能很难找到其他97%的气候资金了。”12年过去了，它只拿到了预计中3%的资金。而另外的97%，有可能永远无望了。12年了，只拿到了3%！谁能想象？
图9的数据表明，全球GDP早在2009年就已经超过了60万亿美元。1000亿美元，对于国际社会来说完全没有问题。别的不说，这12年来，仅仅G20这20个国家的GDP总和，平均每年都超过了60万亿美元。区区1000亿美元，仅占每年平均GDP总和的0.17%。要化解全球气候危机，这么点钱，还承诺了，都不愿意拿出来。谁能想象？这不是天大的笑话是什么？而联合国竟然用了12年时间，来成就这个天大的国际笑话。
这个本来没有任何难度，完全可以兑现的承诺。竟然到现在，都成了一个国际玩笑。那么，当国际社会承诺，在2050年前实现净零排放时，谁会相信呢。这可是比每年提供1000亿美金，难一千倍、一万倍的事情。所有明眼人、所有稍微有点理智的人都明白，这样的承诺是绝对不可能兑现的。
为什么会这样？因为真的没有其他办法了。就像今天，明知道按COP26各国承诺的这条路走下去，人类无异于集体自杀。可除此之外，偌大一个联合国，自己既不能印钱、也不能赚钱，又筹集不到钱，那还能怎么办。即便这个承诺方案，人类成功获救的希望只有万分之一。可有这万分之一的希望，总比没希望强。这就是联合国解决全球气候问题的真实现状。
为什么我要反复强调GFC这个事例、这些数据，就是想让秘书长和全球贤达们能看清事情的本质及其严重性。事情的本质是，就算每年1000亿美元到账了，2050年前实现净零排放也绝无可能。就算COP26各国承诺都100%兑现，本世纪末将气温上升控制在1.5℃也绝无可能。总之，如果不迅速从根本上改变目前的全球局面，人类不用等到本世纪末，也许就在随后这10–20年，极端气候所造成的极端环境，会让地球上大部分地区不再适合人类生存和发展。无论是事情的本质，还是后果的严重性，联合国秘书长、联合国其他官员，乃至各国领导人、各国科学家，全都心知肚明。那为什么还要这样“自欺欺人”？道理跟前面说的一样，不如此又能如何。硬是把这层窗户纸捅破了又能怎样，除了增加全球老百姓的恐慌和焦虑之外，还能有什么积极意义。
毕竟，在今天这个世界上，如果你拿不出更好的解决方案，那为什么要去戳穿这个虽不美丽、但还能聊以自慰的谎言呢。或许我们依然无法相信，联合国真的沦落到了这种境地，人类真的悲哀到了这种程度。人们不禁要问，我们到底做错了什么，联合国走到这一步、人类走到这一步的根本原因又是什么。
（未完待续）
