People have been forgetting about climate change. According to a Yale Program on Climate Change Communication survey, only 35% of Americans discuss the topic at least occasionally. For many of us, the environment has been the last thing on our minds among perpetual news cycles on issues like the Israel-Hamas war, the border crisis, and presidential election preparations. Since greenhouse gas emissions and global warming have been a problem for so long, it seems we’ve come to regard them as constants and a permanent fact of life. But in reality, climate change is an ever-urgent health crisis. Not only does fossil fuel burning endanger wildlife and distort weather patterns, but it also kills 5 million people per year. 

Despite this, opportunities to push this issue back into the limelight have been few and far between. Luckily, one such opportunity has recently presented itself: COP 28, or the 28th “Conference Of the Parties” held by the United Nations (UN). 

The goal of the COPs is to bring delegates together to organize collective efforts against climate change, pledge funding to meet their objectives, and hold individual countries accountable for their progress. Around 200 countries attend, each bringing thousands of political leaders and other influential figures. 

Unfortunately, COP 28 has started off already mired in controversy, as the host country this year is the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — a petrostate whose economy depends on the oil industry. Not only that, but the conference president chosen by the UAE is Sultan Al Jaber, the CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. With such a major conflict of interest, it’s difficult to determine whether the purpose of this conference is to aid the planet or the fossil fuel industry. To make things worse, recently leaked documents showed that the UAE planned to use COP 28 to strike oil and gas deals with foreign companies. 

This follows a theme of wealthier nations pushing individual agendas over the future of global health. Other nations have also brought along representatives from fuel companies as part of their COP 28 delegations. For example, France brought TotalEnergies and EDF representatives, Italy brought ENI representatives, and the EU brought BP, ENI, and ExxonMobil representatives. Leaders at the COP are blatantly supporting these industries, going behind the backs of those who genuinely care about the environment. The pro-fossil-fuel “delegates” will most likely attempt to defend and advocate on behalf of their companies. By granting them admission to the conference, countries are allowing them to slow down the decision-making process and oppose progress at every turn. As always, profits are being prioritized above our lives and our future. 

Moreover, while the COPs claim to have “created global milestones for the climate movement, setting standards and advancing action,” they are often criticized for being all talk and no action. For example, at last year’s COP 27, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pressed other world leaders to move faster to transition to renewable energy. Disappointingly, his actions did not match his words, with the prime minister later downsizing and delaying the UK’s planned clean energy policies. 

Sunak isn’t alone in his inaction. Leaders at COPs are constantly arguing over details like the wording of “phasing out” fossil fuels (which would completely stop all fossil fuel use) versus a “phase down” (which implies a more gradual reduction). They spend precious time discussing whether to cut down “unabated fossil fuels” versus “all fossil fuels,” the former implying that fossil fuels could still be allowed as long as new technologies are implemented to capture and store the carbon dioxide exhaust.

While these slight differences in wording do make a difference, it’s frustrating that climate change discussions are being reduced to wordplay rather than real, tangible change. Sure, “phasing out” fossil fuels and slashing them whether “abated” or not would be the ideal solutions. But if disagreement over these approaches could hinder the possibility of any joint action, are they really worth fighting for? According to the pledges made in the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world has seven years left to reduce emissions by 45%. We are nowhere near this number; ironically, we are currently on track to increase emissions by 9%. At this point, perhaps it’s better to compromise and accomplish something over nothing at all.

Time and time again, it has been shown that we aren’t taking climate change seriously enough. We have set goals and made empty promises, only to back out. After COP 3 in 1997, the US signed the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions by 5% but never followed through. After COP 25 in 2020, almost all countries missed the agreed-upon deadline to ramp up climate policies. 2023 cannot become another one of these failures. With such a rocky start to COP 28, there is no more time to waste. The message to our leaders at the conference is clear: please, let us act before it’s too late.