I believe in the cause of 'climate protection and sustainability', and that’s why I share my views on aspects that may need a wider discussion than what the media and the invested stakeholders want to show and highlight.
 
With each Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting, the urgency surrounding climate change appears more desperate. Yet, paradoxically, the efficacy of these gatherings is often undermined by seemingly endless debates over semantics rather than actionable solutions.

COP29 was just kicked off and like its predecessors, will likely draw intense scrutiny over its approach to addressing climate change. 

With the backdrop of COP28's last-minute debates over the wording around 'fossil fuels' in its final document, a conversation that dragged on into the last hours. Making it somewhat obvious that lofty goals and technical language often overshadow meaningful, action-based solutions. One of the key points of contention in COP28 was how the term 'fossil fuels' was framed and discussed in official documents. This extended to a last-hour debate, underscoring a lack of consensus on how countries should handle their fossil fuel dependencies. Is that what should be debated till the last day of the last hour after 27 years?

As world leaders, experts, and environmentalists gather, there’s a pressing need to question the usefulness of some of these ongoing debates. Here’s why I feel some aspects of COP29 might be rooted in hypocrisy and missed opportunities:
 
Fossil fuel production: A case for localised solutions?
Anything Donald Trump says or does gets extreme reactions, and I understand some of that. His intent to produce more oil in the USA will surely be the backdrop of one of those contentious debates at COP29.
However, the reality is that countries like the United States consume massive amounts of fossil fuel—projected at roughly 2 billion barrels per year. And most of it is supplied by the oil producing nations. While policymakers call for reduced reliance on fossil fuels, the sheer volume of the USA's consumption raises questions. 

If COP29 delegates are serious about reducing fossil fuel consumption, wouldn’t it make more sense to address ways for nations to reduce the carbon footprint of their existing consumption at first? Wouldn’t it be more environmentally friendly and economical to produce and refine a larger share of this fuel domestically, reducing the emissions and costs tied to constant overseas shipping?

By importing fossil fuels from around the world, a substantial amount of additional carbon emissions is generated from transporting these resources over thousands of miles. While COP participants often argue against fossil fuel reliance, the lack of feasible, short-term alternatives and the added emissions of overseas shipments exposes a flaw in the strategy. Focusing on localizing fossil fuel production where consumption is high would, paradoxically, be a more immediate solution for reducing emissions than the purely symbolic language shifts seen in COP documents. 

As United States produces part of their 2 billion barrels a day onshore, are the oil producing nations reducing their production to offset the US onshore drilling? Perhaps not. So, is this a debate arising out of environment and climate protection or simply out of turf protection? 
 
Let’s now look at the environmental impact of COP itself. How are they helping eliminate the increased contribution of carbon footprint attributed to the event?

A global gathering with a heavy carbon footprint
Critics would argue that it’s hypocritical for more than 20,000 people to gather in person each year while preaching about reducing emissions. COP29 is expected to attract 40,000-50,000 attendees as reported in the news.

The COP conferences, though noble in intent, have grown into massive gatherings and enormous logistical footprints. Each year, thousands of these participants—negotiators, experts, activists, and the press—fly in from around the globe to a centralised location, ironically contributing to a carbon footprint the event itself is trying to reduce. This travel, alongside accommodations, food, and local transport needs, results in an impressive carbon load that could be mitigated through virtual conferences. This is perhaps akin to a recycling and plastic waste reduction event serving single-use water bottles.

The question remains: why hasn’t COP adapted to a hybrid or fully online format? In an age of advanced technology, platforms like video conferencing offer the possibility for meaningful international dialogue with a fraction of the environmental impact. 
 
The virtual component of COP could not only reduce emissions but also create a more inclusive environment for delegates from lower-income nations who struggle with the cost of attending. If the goal is to reduce emissions, then shifting COP to a digital or partially digital format could cut the event's own footprint substantially.

The electric car debate: A complex environmental equation
Let’s move over to electric cars (EVs). The holy grail of reducing carbon emissions owing to gasoline vehicles. 

In COP conversations, electric vehicles (EVs) are touted as a leading solution for reducing emissions. However, the debate around electric cars is far more complex than it may seem. Transitioning to EVs is not simply about replacing gas-guzzling vehicles with 'greener' technology; it involves the entire life cycle of EV production, from mining raw materials like lithium and cobalt to building specialized factories and new infrastructures. This also entails the environmental costs of discarding millions of existing gasoline-powered vehicles.

Each step in the EV supply chain has significant environmental impacts that can sometimes offset the gains expected from their zero-tailpipe emissions. Mining for EV batteries is resource-intensive and often requires exploiting ecologically sensitive, especially the cheaper open mining concepts adopted around the world. 

The need for real solutions over semantics
COP29 faces immense scrutiny as people grow weary of the posturing and symbolic commitments that so often overshadow real progress. The protracted debates over terminology in COP28, such as the wording around fossil fuels, seem increasingly trivial when set against the urgent need for pragmatic and impactful action. 

Addressing climate change requires more than just rephrasing statements or engaging in wordplay; it requires hard choices that acknowledge and mitigate real-world complexities, including the environmental costs of the solutions themselves.

As we go through COP29, it’s essential to reflect on whether this gathering will bring about genuine progress or fall into the same patterns of rhetorical over substance. The issues are too pressing to be sidetracked by semantics. Real change demands an honest appraisal of environmental trade-offs and a commitment to lead by example, reducing hypocrisy, not just emissions.

Samir Dixit is global head-growth and consulting, Acorn Management Consulting.