The agreement signed in Glasgow was weak. And yet companies and countries can cheat in the carbon market. However, there is a chance for some improvements next year in Egypt, and public pressure is needed to prevent investment from fossil energy companies.
By: Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Science at Leeds University and UCL and Mark Meslin, Professor of Earth Systems Science, UCL
The UN COP26 climate talks in Glasgow ended with the signing of the Glasgow climate agreement with the approval of all 197 countries.
If the 2015 Paris Agreement provided the framework for countries to deal with climate change, then Glasgow, six years later, was the first major test of the unprecedented effort of global diplomacy. What have we learned from two weeks of leaders’ statements, massive protests and corridors in the corridors over coal, halting fossil fuel financing and deforestation, plus the final Glasgow climate agreement signed?
From reducing the use of coal to loopholes in the carbon market, here’s what you need to know:
Progress in reducing emissions, but not enough
Glasgow’s climate agreement is a summary of cumulative progress rather than a moment of breakthrough needed to curb the most severe effects of climate change. The British government as host and hence the president of COP26 wanted to “keep the warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius alive”. As is well known this was the stronger goal of the Paris Agreement. But at best we can say that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is in the critical care intensive care unit.
The Paris Agreement says temperatures should be limited “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and countries should “continue efforts” to limit them to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Before COP26, the world was on the verge of warming at 2.7 degrees Celsius, based on countries’ commitments and expectation of changes in technology. The announcements at COP26, including new promises to reduce emissions in this decade, from some key countries, have reduced this at best to 2.4 degrees Celsius.
Additional countries have also announced long-term net zero targets. One of the most important was India’s commitment to reach zero net emissions by 2070. Critically, the country said it would start a quick start with a massive expansion of renewable energy over the next ten years so that it accounts for 50% of its energy. Total use, reduction of emissions by one billion tons in 2030 (the current total of about 2.5 billion).
Rapidly growing Nigeria also committed to zero zero emissions by 2060. Countries that make up 90% of world GDP have now pledged to reach net zero by the middle of this century.
Global warming at 2.4 degrees Celsius is still very far from 1.5 degrees Celsius. What remains is an emissions gap in the near term, as global emissions appear to be expected to straighten out in this decade instead of making the sharp cuts needed to be on the 1.5-degree path that the agreement requires. There is a gap between long-term net zero targets and plans to reduce emissions in this decade.
The door is open for changes to the agreement in the coming year
The final text of the Glasgow Agreement indicates that the current National Climate Programs (NDCs) are far from what is required for 1.5 degrees Celsius. The agreement also stipulates that next year representatives of all countries will return with updated plans.
Under the Paris Agreement, new climate programs are needed every five years, which is why Glasgow, five years after Paris (actually six because of the delay caused by the Corona plague), had such an important meeting. New climate plans for next year, instead of waiting another five years, could maintain a target of 1.5 degrees Celsius for another 12 months, giving countries another year to change government climate policy. It also opens the door to requesting more NDC updates from 2022 onwards to help increase targets for this decade.
Glasgow’s climate agreement also states that coal use must be reduced, and fossil fuel subsidies reduced. The wording is weaker than that proposed in the initial proposals, with the final text calling for a “phased reduction” only and not for a “cessation” of coal, due to India’s last-second intervention, and of “ineffective” subsidies. But this is the first time fossil fuels have been mentioned in a UN statement on climate change.
In the past, Saudi Arabia and others have halted the use of this language. This is an important change, finally a recognition that the use of coal and other fossil fuels must be rapidly reduced to deal with the climate emergency. The taboo of talking about the end of fossil fuels has been finally broken.
3. Rich countries continued to ignore their historical responsibility
Developing countries have called on rich countries to pay for “loss and damage,” such as the costs of the effects of cyclones and sea level rise. Non-small countries and climate-vulnerable countries claim that the historical emissions of large pollutants have caused these effects and therefore funding is needed.
Developed countries, led by the US and the EU, opposed taking responsibility for these losses and damages, and vetoed the creation of a “Glasgow loss and damage repair system” to support vulnerable countries, although most were required to do so.
4. Violations in carbon market laws may hamper progress
The carbon markets could throw a potential lifeline to the fossil fuel industry, allowing them to claim “carbon offsets” and continue business as usual (almost). A convoluted series of negotiations on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on Market and Off-Market Approaches to Carbon Trade was finally agreed, six years later. The worst and biggest loopholes have closed, but there is still room for countries and companies to play with the system.
Outside of the COP process, we will need much clearer and stricter rules for carbon offsetting humanity. Otherwise expect a series of exposures from NGOs and the media about attempts to use loopholes in the carbon offset system under this new regime, and when new attempts arise to try and close those remaining loopholes.
5. Thank you to the climate activists for their progress – their next moves will be crucial
It is clear that strong countries are moving too slowly and they have made a political decision not to support a step change both in greenhouse gas emissions and in helping low-income countries adapt to climate change and jump from the fossil fuel era.
But governments in rich countries are being pushed hard by their populations. Indeed in Glasgow, we have seen huge demonstrations, starting with the Future Fridays March and the global demonstration on Saturday where the number of participants exceeded expectations.
This means that the next steps of explaining the climate crisis and of the climate movement are important. One of these measures is to starve capital for polluting industries under public pressure. Without these movements pushing countries and societies including at COP27 in Egypt, we will not curb climate change and play on our precious planet.