The biblical counsel ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged’ comes to mind when considering the outcome of the COP26 (UN Climate Change Conference) in Glasgow that was finishing at the time of writing.
The biblical counsel ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged’ comes to mind when considering the outcome of the COP26 (UN Climate Change Conference) in Glasgow that was finishing at the time of writing. It is so easy to be suspicious of all the pledges and commitments announced by world leaders and others at these potentially auspicious occasions.
Do they really mean what they say? Can they actually carry out their undertakings? Will it be enough? These are of course the crucial questions but only the passage of time will provide the answers.
Better perhaps is to rejoice that the meeting took place at all. Furthermore, participants appeared to convey a sense of engagement, even urgency, not obvious at previous gatherings. That in itself was an achievement given the predictably sceptical media coverage given to reporting such events as another big junket for heads of governments, big business bosses, Hollywood activists, etc.
First impressions of major international meetings rarely make for good optics. This time world leaders were seen to be hobnobbing (banquets and photo ops) at what seemed a largely pointless G20 warm-up meeting in Rome on Covid-19 and climate change. It concluded with a predictably obfuscating communiqué bereft of meaningful commitments. The countries did agree on calling a halt to overseas funding for coal but not domestically, a proposal opposed by China and India as major consumers and Australia as a significant producer.
On to Glasgow and a flurry of negative publicity to trivialize the importance of the event, e.g., arrivals by private jet, unnecessarily large entourages, chaotic organization, etc. Most notable would be pictures of both US President Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson literally caught napping during the early conference proceedings. For this, they can hardly be blamed. The opening speeches by heads of different governments were carefully crafted, but predictably bland, qualifying for the ‘Blah, Blah, Blah’ category cited by the climate change campaigner Greta Thunberg.
More is the pity that the fiery speech from Mia Motley, president of Barbados, which was received with a standing ovation, did not get the coverage it deserved. She pleaded: ‘What must we say to our people, living on the frontline in the Caribbean, in Africa, in Latin America, in the Pacific, when both ambition and, regrettably, some of the needed faces at Glasgow, are not present? What excuse should we give for the failure?’ She warned a rise in temperature would be the death sentence for the people of Maldives, Antigua, Barbados, Fiji, Kenya, Mozambique, and Samoa. To stand by and let this happen would be immoral and unjust. Confronting the more than 120 government heads present, she stated that the failure to come up with the $100 billion a year for vulnerable nations to cope with climate change, a pledge made as far back as 2009, has deadly consequences.
To be fair the critical media treatment of the main protagonists was even-handed. Notably Thunberg was taken to task for cheerleading crowds of protestors with profanity littered language. Her promise to go ‘net zero’ on swearing in future revealed a welcome sense of humour amid all the earnestness.
Biased reporting is not helpful when people have to decide for themselves what difference COP26 is going to make in terms of limiting global warming to the current agreed target of 1.50 C by 2050. In any event, your average person feels peculiarly hapless in affecting the outcome. Listing ‘Ten ways you can help fight climate change’, the David Suzuki Foundation, a reputable environmental protection organization in Canada, suggests these somewhat anodyne but not untypical ideas for individuals to adopt: ‘Urge governments to take bold climate action now, Help raise climate ambition by painting your town with climate art, Use energy wisely — and save money too!, Eat for a climate-stable planet, Start a climate conversation, Green your commute, Consume less, waste less, enjoy life more, Invest in renewables and divest from fossil fuels, Mobilize for local climate action, and Get politically active and vote’. Such resolutions may make people feel better about themselves but will not do much to change the dial on lessening global warming.
Yet polls in the developed world invariably show a clear majority wanting firmer, if unspecified, action on climate change by governments. What is striking is that in the flurry of pledges and commitments made in Glasgow, there was no call for any compulsory change in lifestyle for the citizens of the world, particularly those living in wealthier nations. Politicians for obvious reasons continue to shy away from prescriptions likely to alienate voters, for example, being cautious even in proposing the use of higher regulatory pricing to alter behaviour. Arguably, without a more interventionist approach in our everyday habits, the goals set by the 2015 Paris Accord will not be met.
Last minute wrangling may change the definitive communiqué from COP26 agreed by attending nations. Numerous side agreements between groups of countries and major businesses on decarbonization measures plus additional money from financial institutions may also add to the overall outcome. But curbing methane emissions, phasing out coal-fired coal, halting fossil fuel financing (not just coal) and preventing more deforestation were the early headliners.
Rectifying the shortfall in the annual $100 billion financial climate change aid for vulnerable developing countries was promised by 2023. There seemed to be significant moves to strengthen accountability regarding nationally determined contributions (NDCs), widely regarded as inadequate. NDCs are the individual government commitments to climate actions, including climate-related targets, policies and measures required to be updated every five years. The period may now be shortened. A COP meeting in 2023 was also being floated to keep countries on track.
When the agreed final statement from COP26 emerges, a fatal flaw will be the missing signatures of China and Russia. Both countries stayed away from the main meeting. Nor is the status of the US presence, ranked the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, to be regarded as reliable. President Trump famously withdrew from the Paris 2015 Accord. With divisions so deeply ingrained in the American electorate, President Biden will struggle to get any serious climate change legislation through both the House of Representatives and Senate. An early clue is that the US did not join with countries voting to end use of coal as a source of power. No coincidence that Democrat Senator Joe Manchin, currently holding the balance of power in the Senate, represents the coal producing state of West Virginia and has made clear his opposition to any coal restriction measures. Likewise the unexpected announcement in the final days of COP26 of an agreement between the US and China on ‘concrete and pragmatic’ regulations in decarbonization, reducing methane emissions and fighting deforestation invites distrust. Although widely welcomed, the rivalry between the two superpowers and the internal politics of the US must surely undermine confidence in a meaningful outcome.
One further omission from COP26 was no formal representation granted to the oil and gas industry. Answering questions during the announcement of the company’s third quarter results, Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden said: ‘We were told we were not welcome.’ The absence of an industry voice seems extraordinary. How can a sensible conversation about decarbonization be held without the input of the oil business. Only climate action zealots can imagine that the world can abandon dependence on hydrocarbons overnight. If there is an explanation it must be COP26 not wanting to be seen beholden in some way to the oil industry, or trying to avoid mention of the several decades ahead when oil and gas will still be needed. Depressingly this mindset makes all the more challenging the oil industry argument that it needs to be seen as part of the solution not just the problem. The case would certainly have been made by the 500 or so lobbyists for fossil fuel companies reportedly present in Glasgow, the single largest interest group.
One immediate appraisal of COP26’s proceedings came from the International Energy Agency building on its World Energy Outlook 2021 published in October. It had calculated that the pledges from more than 120 countries to lower their emissions fell short of the Paris 2015 agreement. Full implementation, itself an optimistic assumption, would result in the world heading for 2.10 C by the end of the century.
Since mid-October, however, IEA said more countries had been raising their ambitions. In particular Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had strengthened the country’s 2030 targets, and pledged to hit net zero emissions by 2070. These announcements were limited to CO2 emissions, with more than 100 countries promising to cut emissions of methane by 30% by 2030. In this new context, an updated analysis indicated that full implementation on time would be enough to hold the rise in global temperatures to 1.8° C by the end of the century. IEA stated this was a landmark moment, ‘the first time that governments have come forward with targets of sufficient ambition to hold global warming to below 2° C.
Spoiling the party, Climate Action Tracker (CAT), said to be one of the most reliable data sources, warned that ‘Glasgow has a massive credibility, action and commitment gap as the world is heading to at least 2.4 ̊ C of warming, if not more.’ It claimed that with all target pledges, including those made in Glasgow, global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 will still be around twice as high as necessary for the 1.5° C limit.
Stalled momentum from leaders and governments on their short-term targets has narrowed the 2030 emissions gap by only 15-17% over the last year. With 2030 pledges alone – without longer term targets – global temperature increase will be at 2.4°C in 2100.
Take your pick on which interpretation to bet. Neither is a winner.
‘First impressions of major international meetings rarely make for good optics.’
‘The absence of an industry voice seems extraordinary.’
