The global desire by many nations and societies preceding COP26 was for tangible action and visible outcomes arising from the UK Government’s hype at hosting COP26 Glasgow. So, now it has finished, and PR statements have heralded its success. What exactly did the summit achieve, and in which areas can we see active progress towards limiting climate warming to previous agreed 1.5C targets.
In advance of COP26, and as a desire by the UK Government for visible ambition, the two hundred countries attending had to set out their ambitious targets (and actions) for CO2 emissions to:
The desire was for a global acceleration in national delivery on these targets and a collective global commitment to lead on carbon reduction.
Yet, as any convoy commander could tell you, your top speed will always be dictated by the slowest ship in the fleet. Their ability and willingness to keep up decides your capacity for progress. As many of these ships still rely heavily on burning coal, the option to increase overall tempo was always likely to be difficult at COP26. In seeking to accelerate an agreement on emission reductions, the summit hoped to reach an agreement:
Expectations were high, but it was clear from the outset that several of the largest ships in the fleet were still reliant on coal! The working model for all COP conferences is through collective bargaining and action. An aspirational process through which individual signatory nations collectively seek to reduce their carbon emissions.
Unfortunately, the process is slow but helps take the individual circumstances of those participants most at risk from extreme weather events linked to climate change and those whose ecosystems and natural resources lack sufficient resilience to address climatic impacts. In addition to helping developing countries whose economies lack warning systems or adapted infrastructure that helps protect people and their environments.
The earlier Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris), often referred to as the Paris Accords or the Paris Climate Accord, had seemed to hold out great hope in helping the global community towards international progress. The Paris Agreement had delivered action on climate change mitigation, transition and adaptation, and crucially on financial support to struggling countries.
Before COP26 Glasgow, actions on previously agreed commitments to the earlier Paris Agreement had visibly lagged or had been seemingly set aside by many nations. COP26 was hopeful that the attending countries could re-energise their collective actions and willingness to support other less fortunate countries. Using the symbology of a naval convoy, only by working together and retaining a collective speed towards their destination would the most significant progress and collective strength be displayed. In this case, the goal was a global response to the challenge of limiting climate temperature rise and the continuing rise in carbon emissions.
Hopes and ambitions for COP26 had started to centre around the existing Paris Rulebook as a means of re-accelerating climate action, mainly through strengthened collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society.
Previously, as an aide to nations committed to meeting the long term goals they had set under the Paris Agreement. National representatives had agreed that all 196 signatory countries would submit five-year updates on their adaptive plans and progress in limiting emissions. These nationally determined contributions (or NDCs) were underpinned by a globally agreed set of implementation guidelines (colloquially called the Paris Rulebook) to help implement the Paris Agreement.
Before COP26, there was a general understanding that many existing NDCs lacked sufficient ambition to limit temperature rises to 1.5C by 2030. Worryingly analysis published during COP26 suggested that cumulatively the existing NDCs would lead to a 2.4C increase in global temperature unless re-adjusted. It was clear that finalising and stiffening the commitment to deliver the Paris Rulebook would form a crucial determinant of ‘success’ within COP26.
Interestingly, despite broader criticism, only one major emitter, India, publicised a new NDC at the talks, leaving several other major emitters with a significant improvement challenge. In the end, delegates disagreed on revising the NDCs, and the topic had to be set aside until COP27 (Egypt). Hopefully, as the Paris Agreement only required nation-states to return every five years with new NDCs, more ambitious NDC action plans will be visible before 2022.
Agreeing to agree on a roadmap for revising the NDCs for COP27 rather than a later future date is one of the successes or positive outcomes from COP26.
Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries had made commitments of at least $100bn to help activate climate finance per year by 2025. Under the 2015 treaty, this was perceived as necessary to hold the treaty together. The financial stimulus would act as the catalyst for renewables, electric vehicles (and transport), and coal phase-out (especially in developing countries). COP26 was hopeful that it would agree on how governments, finance, business and societies could co-operate together in successfully stimulating the promised billions in private and public sector investment and equity to underpin net-zero targets.
The underlying issue is that whilst developed country finance favours investment in renewables or emission reduction actions, the poorest developing countries favour funding to adapt to the impact of extreme weather and overall climate change transition. A dichotomy of views that clearly favoured assets that would return investment payback over societal benefits outside the money markets. Looking at the issue in terms of payback favours:
On the other side remains the poorer nations for whom stability and adaptation to current climate change realities was always going to be the first step in their plans for future growth.
It was always hard to see how negotiators would reach an agreement in this area, but discussions remain ongoing, so the best we can say is that COP26 achieved ‘deferred success’ in this area.
Present at COP26, where over 100 countries represented over 85% of the global forested habitat between them. These nations agreed to halt deforestation by 2030. The importance of this recognises that healthy forests can absorb significant amounts of short-tern carbon cycle CO2. Ending global deforestation is seen by all climate change observers as a critical action in tackling the climate crisis.
Unfortunately, earlier COP initiatives and debates have not halted the extent of deforestation though across the globe. Whilst the commitments made are welcome, and there remain many questions regarding how these pledges will be funded, enacted, monitored and policed. Nor is it clear how nations (especially in the developed world) will act to increase the percentage area of woodland and forests in their own countries.
The burning of coal remains the world’s most significant CO2 contributor to climate change; despite a continuing reduction in overall use, ca 37% of the world’s electricity production remains dependent on coal. Without dramatic action on coal, the world has no chance of attaining its 1.5C limitation on global warming. The challenge is not inconsiderable – the reach the 1.5C target, there must be at least a 40% reduction in the MW output and significant asset closure from amongst the existing 8,500 coal-fired power plants operating at present globally by 2030
Although over forty (heavily dependent coal using) countries – such as Chile, Poland Vietnam have previously agreed to transition away from coal. One of the few significant wins at COP26 was the Glasgow Climate Pact, which directly referenced the phasing down of fossil fuels. However, India’s phase-down inclusion was a late amendment from the previously hard-fought phase-out terminology. The Pact still signals a real-time transition away from coal, which is likely to be accelerated by many countries.
Although at COP26. Some of the world’s most coal-dependent countries and those who could be more climate active (such as the US, Australia, China and India) haven’t signed up to the Glasgow Climate Pact. Hopefully, the first policy steps have been taken towards ending the world’s existing dependence on coal for electricity production.
The s Glasgow Climate Pact that emerged from COP26 does not seek to address the consumption and use of other fossil fuels such as oil and gas.
However, around half the countries agreed to a scheme to cut existing methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is estimated to be responsible for 30% of human-generated warming and a critical emission from cattle production and the decomposition of domestic waste. Although large emitters such as Russia, India and China refused to join the scheme during COP26, there remain hopeful that these postures will change in time.
Looking back at COP26, the only tangible value in the meeting is pressure placed on all attendant nations to remain engaged in the process through peer pressure and international scrutiny of the gaps between their statements and action.
Returning to my convoy analogy, little value is gained by the Convoy Commodore in threatening sanctions and penalties against the slowest ships, especially if they lack any actual inducement to stay up with the fleet. Only by encouraging all ships to stay in convoy formation and by making maximum available speed can the strength of the convoy system be exploited. Moreover, nations who struggle with making and working towards ambitious commitments will be more likely to drop out of the entire COP process and to withdraw entirely from the climate transition movement. However, the question is how long can the world’s citizens and the planet wait for tangible political action.
Has COP26 been a successful step forward in the overall process? It has failed to achieve significant positive action or resolve many of the outstanding issues from earlier COPs. However, amongst many low predictions of its outcomes, it has undoubtedly delivered several future positive actions. COP26 has hopefully succeeded in keeping alive the Paris Agreement 1.5C global warming goal. However, this will depend on how coherent, joined-up and actionable many countries revised TDCs are over the next few years and up to 2030! The Glasgow Climate Pact has certainly stimulated action on short-term carbon emissions, cutting actions that are an essential component of any future global climate action programme. I hope COP26 has provided a more straightforward route for action and a more accessible foundation for countries to build their strategic plans. However, these pledges and commitments, and how they are interpreted into these plans, are still vulnerable to self-policing and political self-interest. Only a few countries have sought to make their pledges legally binding; we can only hope that other nation-states make similar commitments towards net-zero.
The targets towards meeting a 1.5C limit are so crucial that the geopolitical tussling between those that should be adopting leadership positions in these debates has been a disappointing sight within COP26, although late statements by the US and China may help stimulate their actions (and those of their followers). We can only hope that the foundations built in Glasgow for COP27 Egypt provide a future platform for increased activity.