BRICS Rejects Global Climate Action
All the details from the Kazan Declaration
Sovereignty was the theme of this year’s BRICS Summit, the 16th annual conference of major oil producing and rapidly developing countries. BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—are now fielding membership applications from all over the majority world, including one NATO member: Turkey.
The alliance is now undeniably formidable, hosted in the heart of Moscow by the supposedly isolated Putin who looked anything but. Western economists and policy-makers have shrugged off the goals of BRICS, including de-dollarization, as merely ideological noise, thinking the resource-holding group would splinter either in their relationships or at least under the pressure of Western hegemony. This, of course, is because neoclassical economists mistake wealth for the result of political power and innovation, not energy exploitation. With immense resources for energy production and exploitation within their own borders, BRICS can readily challenge that Western hegemony which depends on them to survive.
The only thing keeping resource-rich nations in line has been the USD. As the world’s reserve currency, nations have been forced to scramble to attain USD in order to trade with other nations. This has granted the USA enormous power to make the world order according to how it sees fit, which is now being directly challenged by BRICS who propose to facilitate trade in nations’ own currencies. I wrote about this in depth a few months ago and, despite the conference held last week, there has been little news on that front. What was striking about the conference, and the Kazan Declaration (read the original document or my highlighted version here) was the extent to which BRICS have been busy creating other parallel infrastructures and institutions in response to Western dominance over global trade and policy, from the creation of scientific journals to an online trading platform for grain.1
Yet, behind each of these collaborations is a continued affirmation of national sovereignty, a boast in response to the iron grip with which the USA has ruled the world. National sovereignty is of course important, but the Kazan Declaration should also serve as a warning that, in a BRICS world order, international scientific agreement will come second to national jurisdiction when it comes to climate and environment. What begins as a series of nuanced statements in the document, such as stressing the importance of “honouring” the Paris Agreement (a misleading statement in itself given we have overshot 1.5 degrees already) but also the differentiated responsibilities “in the light of different national circumstances”, becomes an outright rejection of global emergency measures or sacrifices2: “We oppose unilateral measures introduced under the pretext of climate and environmental concerns and reiterate our commitment to enhancing coordination on these issues.”3
BRICS states they are committed to a just energy transition but use the shield of national sovereignty to avoid defining what that transition looks like—ensuring each member can continue extracting and consuming whatever fuel source they so choose under the guise of intra-border sustainability.
“We reiterate the need to take into account national circumstances, including climate and natural conditions, the structure of national economy and energy mix as well as the specific circumstances of those developing countries whose economies heavily depend on income or consumption of fossil fuels and related energy-intensive products to achieve just energy transitions.”4
Whilst the second half of the above sentence would not be out of place in an article on degrowth, it only serves to obfuscate that the first half is a permissive clause for developed countries to continue using fossil fuels if they deem said fuels are inherent to the structure of their economy and energy mix. For the moment, almost every country in the world is inherently fossil-fuelled, and thus this misleading statement provides a carte blanche for the continued extraction and exploitation of these fuels.
The real kicker is the very next sentence which openly states the BRICS countries are committed to the continued use of fossil fuels “with [carbon] removal technologies”. The document then lists other energy sources which will be used, from nuclear to biofuels, and includes natural gas on that list. This is alarming because natural gas—methane gas—is a fossil fuel primarily used for heating and which studies have shown to pollute more emissions than coal, yet adding it in addition to “fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies” suggests that BRICS is attempting both to position natural gas as a transition fuel (following in the footsteps of the Western hegemony they’re so desperate to leave behind) and that its use will not fall under the same mandate of deploying “removal technologies” to mitigate its emissions.
Alarmingly, this entire paragraph is framed as the principle of “technological neutrality” and that any and all energy mixes can thus be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: “We believe that the efficient use of all energy sources is critical for just energy transitions towards more flexible, resilient and sustainable energy systems and in this regard we uphold the principle of technological neutrality, i.e. using all available fuels, energy sources and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which includes, but is not limited to fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies, biofuels, natural gas and LPG, hydrogen and its derivatives, including ammonia, nuclear and renewable power, etc.”5
Unsurprisingly, then, for a group keen on extracting fossil fuels well into the future, they declare the wild assertion that policies such as carbon taxes and due diligence requirements are punitive and discriminatory:
“We reject unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures, that are not in line with international law, under the pretext of environmental concerns, such as unilateral and discriminatory carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), due diligence requirements, taxes and other measures and reconfirm our full support for the call in COP28 related to avoidance of unilateral trade measures based on climate or environment.”6
Now, I understand that the USA has been a ferociously hostile and unapologetically dominant world power which has mowed down lives, cities, nations, democracy for its own gain. Nonetheless, this Declaration makes me want to bang my head against my desk because it is yet another grand affirmation of our political leaders’ inability to lead, surely a key tenet of their position. Yes, the USA has a well documented history of weaponising just about any institution, policy, or even crisis to advance its political agenda—and is undoubtedly doing the same with regards to the eco-crisis—and so it is unsurprising that nations who now have the power and networks to insulate themselves from such behaviour will do so. However, national sovereignty must not take precedence over scientific acumen. In prioritising protectionism, the BRICS countries have missed the opportunity to create a politics for the new world they’re determined to midwife; their offer is one of hierarchy—of world order—which, in truth, is nothing new.
We are once again faced with another iteration of the same old story, this time with different players. The whole point of the eco-crisis is we need to change the board we’re playing on—or even admit that this is not a game. Citizens all around the world are eagerly looking for reassurance and leadership in this time of crisis, hence the rise of authoritarian and fascistic father figures. BRICS could have secured their place in history as leaders by listening to their citizens concerns and deploying genuine, emergency collaborative efforts to ramp down fossil fuels, ramp up decarbonisation, redistribute power and wealth, invest in equitable development, and choke off the USA’s power by reducing the amount of money flowing through its markets. Instead of using their network to seed a radical shift towards the future, they’re hiding behind their network to bulwark any American aggression towards self-fortification.
And what will that aggression look like? Trump has said he will put a 100% tariff on any country that de-dollarizes because “that will be a hit to our country just like losing a war.” America doesn’t like to lose, Trump even less so. If neither of these power blocs assert real leadership to navigate us into a changing world we are all set to lose.
BRICS Health Journal, BRICS Economics Bulletin, BRICS Grain Exchange
Kazan Declaration, paragraph 15
Kazan Declaration, paragraph 85
Kazan Declaration, paragraph 81
Kazan Declaration, paragraph 81
Kazan Declaration, paragraph 83
Thanks, Rachel, for this excellent article on a very important topic. It requires a much longer response (which I will hopefully deliver soon) but here are some quick thoughts: The best fictional metaphor for oil is the Ring of Power in Tolkien (or Der Ring des Niebelungen by Wagner). It is the magic weapon that bestows enormous power on its owner but will eventually destroy him. Nobody dares to throw away the weapon because it would make him powerless, and there is a risk that somebody else will pick it up. Likewise, as long as nations consider themselves competitors who rely on armies to stay on top, we can forget decarbonization. It is not only about the fossil fuels used by the armies. You need to maintain an industry that can be converted into manufacturing weapons if need be. The BRICS nations, with half the military budget of the US, are challenging the empire. Their only chance to win this gamble is to stay united and stay strong, as any sign of disunity or weakness would be exploited by the Global North. What I like about the Kazan declaration is the conciliatory tone. On its 33 pages, it uses the word military three times, all related to illegal military actions in the Middle East. In contrast, the US National Security Strategy refers to the military 49 times on 47 pages. The latter also contains statements like “Our military remains unmatched—and we will keep it that way.” We need a peaceful world order based on global justice and international collaboration. This will not happen overnight, but it is our only hope. My main worry is the Global North will try to defeat BRICS with military means, rather than engaging in a constructive dialogue. BTW, Global Climate Compensation tries to cut the Gordian knot by destroying the Ring of Power, i.e., to make fossil fuels less valuable. As I pointed out recently, the BRICS nations would agree to this. The Global North would not. (https://www.global-climate-compensation.org/p/we-have-created-a-monster-and-it)
“We believe that the efficient use of all energy sources is critical for just energy transitions towards more flexible, resilient and sustainable energy systems and in this regard we uphold the principle of technological neutrality, i.e. using all available fuels, energy sources and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which includes, but is not limited to fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies, biofuels, natural gas and LPG, hydrogen and its derivatives, including ammonia, nuclear and renewable power, etc.”5
So, more self-delusion from people who aren't trained to think of anything better. No better than leaders of western nations. Just another recipe for more carbon emissions, more resource depletion, more complexity and more fragility, all signs presented by Tainter. Not a mention of the environment nor ecology I take it?
Was watching another William Rees interview, and he emphasises again the concept of little lifeboats, where round the world pockets of resilience and ecological restoration are happening, little nodes where the survival of the human race MIGHT occur after the imminent collapse of global industrial
civilisation.
This civilisation is over, people should just get over it, stop trying to fix it, amend it, adjust it, improve it. Just do away with it. It's not the end of the world, just the end of a human construct. There will be something else, some other civilisation perhaps, but we don't yet know what that will be. Rather than fear that change the species ought to perhaps embrace that change and see where the chips fall.
The saddest part is the bulk of the 8.7 million or so other species that will go extinct because of what we've done.