COP26: a kick forward in the fight against climate change

After each Climate Summit, there is always the question floating in the air as to whether the two weeks of negotiations have been of any use. And it depends on who you ask. In Glasgow, countries have recognized that cutting emissions is urgent and must be drastic, and that the use of coal and fossil subsidies should be reduced. It is also clear that more money is needed for vulnerable countries. But in the context of the interests of almost 200 signatory countries, no radical measure has come out of COP26.

Keep the planet at 1.5ºC

In an attempt to keep droughts, floods or rising sea levels at bay, the central objective of this summit was to leave open the possibility that the planet limits global warming to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels, something to which would require drastic cuts in emissions within a maximum period of eight years and that with the current plans of the countries it would be impossible.

What the Glasgow package has achieved is that the states have to redo their climate plans and present them to the UN for review in one year, aligned with a temperature of between 1.5º and 2º, and not within four years as it was provided. “We can credibly say that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we deliver on our promises and translate commitments into swift action,” said Alok Sharma, President of COP26.

Countries like China were not in favor of accelerating the time frame that was already planned or having to align it with the most ambitious goal of the range. In the end, climate action is accelerated and there is a new possibility of curbing the increase in temperatures, but everything will depend on what the actors present next year. Still, this point has gaps. The agreement opens the door to exceptions in the referral of these plans based on the circumstances of each actor.

Even so, it is recognized that much greater commitments are needed, with a drop of up to 45% in emissions in 2030, to keep the increase in temperatures at the lowest possible threshold. “It’s timid, it’s weak and the 1.5º target is barely alive, but it’s sending a signal that the coal age is ending. And that’s important,” said Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace.

A sign about fossil fuels

After many negotiations and headaches, for the first time in a Climate Summit, a request to reduce the use of coal and fossil fuel subsidies is included. “Two and a half billion (of dollars) went in the last five or six years to subsidies for fossil fuel. That is the definition of insanity,” US envoy John Kerry said.

In addition, nations like India or China pressed at the last moment to dilute the need to finish them off. These nations fear that ending fossil subsidies will hold back their development. According to Indian Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, less industrialized nations, with little historical responsibility for global warming, are “entitled to their fair share of the global carbon budget and are entitled to responsible use of fossil fuels.” With a change introduced at the last minute, the text does not oblige to end them, but asks to reduce them, in a political signal of where the economy is going and who is responsible.

The signal is too weak for countries already suffering the impacts of a planet that is 1.1 degrees of global warming. One of those countries is the Marshall Islands, whose representative at the summit, Tina Stege, expressed in plenary her “deep disappointment” at the vocabulary introduced. “We accept this change with the greatest reluctance. We do it only because there are critical elements in this package that the people of my country need as a lifeline for their future,” he said.

In a sense, it is not appropriate to ask for more emissions cuts on the one hand, and not want to say goodbye to coal and fossil fuels on the other. The UN Secretary General, António Guterres, defined the pact as “contradictory”. Also the Kenyan observer, Mohamed Adow: “They claim that they urgently want emissions to be reduced, but they continue to expand the production of fossil fuels within their own borders.”

Funds for damages, for later

African countries, China and small island states wanted a commitment to create a fund to defray the damage already caused by climate change in their countries, but were opposed by the United States and the EU. It has been decided to postpone the talks for a year. Something that social platforms such as the COP26 Coalition have directly described as a “betrayal of the people.”

Complete 100,000 million annually

Yes, progress has been made in general financing and that dedicated to adaptation. In the Paris Agreement (2015), the countries promised to contribute 100,000 million dollars annually for developing countries as of 2020, but after the deadline, that figure has not been completed. Although the receivers demanded a shorter term, in the end they gave in with seeing it completed, at the latest, in 2025. In addition, the money that is destined to avoid the stakes of climate change will be doubled and that now barely represents a quarter of the funds directed to climate.

Some voluntary advances

The surprise of the summit was the announcement of a voluntary pact between the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and China, to accelerate climate action. The Asian giant will develop a strategy to reduce methane and will collaborate with the US. to jump towards renewable energies. The pact, although welcomed by the international community, raises misgivings among some organizations. Not only is it outside the UN talks, but for now it does not contain concrete and verifiable figures.

Success or failure?

In the search for a balance between the conflicting interests of almost 200 countries, the end result is that no one has been completely happy. For Kerry, that means it’s probably not a bad deal. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as the host country for the summit, has described it as a “great step forward”. And the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, of “a step in the right direction”, but knowing that “the work is far from finished”.

Social organizations and vulnerable countries have been less optimistic. African countries, in fact, were on the verge of tearing down the agreement due to the lack of a fund for climate damage, while activist Greta Thunberg called the result “blah, blah, blah”.

“This is an empty agreement that anyone would sign. It says that we must fight against the climate emergency but it does not specify when or how it is going to be done or, above all, with what financing, ”says Irene Rubiera, spokesperson for Ecologists in Action.

Source: ABC