Six key outcomes of COP26
The UN climate summit boiled down to cash, coal, compensation and the willingness to speed up the drawdown of fossil fuels. It concluded with timid steps, although some are useful at the margin.
Credits to Alberto Pezzali
After 13 days of gruelling negotiations, shock announcements and late-night meetings, COP26 has drawn to a close. The final agreement from the summit, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, was signed off by 197 parties. As expected, the essence of the document is to keep alive the “Paris prophecy” of 1.5°C.
While the rhetoric of COP26 was painted in bright green, the reality is dark brown. And I explain you why by distilling six of its key outcomes . Those with an asterisk are part of the formal negotiations, those without are pledges negotiated on top.
1. Slash methane by 2030
More than 100 countries have signed a global partnership to cut emissions of methane by 2030. The Global Methane Pledge aims to limit the gas emissions by 30% compared with 2020 levels. But wasn’t carbon dioxide enough? Well, methane has real muscles when it comes to heating the planet - over a 20-year period it is around 84 times as warming as CO2. Slashing its production could make a big short-term dent in climate change.
Any clouds on the horizon? Yes. First, the world’s biggest methane emitters - China, Russia, and India, which together contribute 35% of methane emissions – have not signed the pledge. Second, the agreement is not binding and doesn’t include national targets. How will we measure progresses and keep each country accountable? If you have the answer, please reach out.
2. Halt and reverse deforestation by 2030
Many world leaders have promised to end and reverse deforestation by 2030, in the COP26's first major deal. The 137 signatory countries count in Canada, Russia, Brazil and jointly cover around 90% of the world's forests. The pledge includes almost USD 19.2 billion of public and private funds.
Any question marks? Yes. Experts welcomed the move, but warned similar deals were signed in 2005 and in 2014 leading to no results in both cases. This time could be slightly better, given more key players have signed the pledge. This announcement offers a new hope but we must be clear eyed about what happens on the ground.
3. Quit coal by 2030 (or 2040)
46 countries have committed to ending all investment in new coal power generation - the single biggest contributor to climate change - domestically and internationally. They have also agreed to phase out coal power in the 2030s for major economies, and the 2040s for poorer nations.
Is it convincing? Not really. First, the Glasgow’s coal pact is non-binding. Second, the time scales for phase out are a bit woolly - with 2030s for some, and 2040s for others. Third, the big polluters including India, China, and the US have not signed up. The Asian super-powers went even further, watering down the final document of COP26 to a pledge to “phase down” rather than “phase out” coal power. Is the pact meant to protect the life on Earth, or the fossil fuel industry from challenge? You judge it.
4. Keep financial promises alive*
Developed countries have pledged to at least double the amount they spend on helping poorer countries adapt to climate impacts by 2025. In 2009 rich nations promised to mobilize USD 100 bn each year in funding to poorer countries grappling with climate impacts by 2020. But today they are still falling short of USD 20 bn. So, the Glasgow Climate Pact calls on developed countries to fill the gap “urgently” and through to 2025.
Are we happy? Not really. First, rich nations have already missed to deliver on their promises: why should this time be different? Second, no agreement was reached on a compensation for loss and damage – the ravages of the climate crisis that are too destructive for countries to prevent or adapt to, like hurricanes. The US and EU were fiercely pushing back the idea, as it could open the door to enormous liabilities.
5. Rule carbon markets*
After six years, a deal has been struck on the rules governing carbon markets. COP21 already paved the way for the use of such markets, but detailed technical provisions were needed to start operating the new mechanism. The deal creates unified and internationally controlled standards, and resolves the issue of double counting - a situation where the same emissions reduction is claimed by multiple companies or countries.
Any catch? Yes. First, the deal carries over any offsets registered since 2013, which means about 300 million certificates. The risk is that these “zombie credits” will undermine the integrity of the new program. Second, implementing the rules to avoid double-counting will require formal scrutiny. But there is not enough in place yet.
6. Crank up emission reduction targets*
Countries were sent off with some homework and asked to come back in a year with more ambitious plans for cutting emissions. Under the Paris Agreement, nations were supposed to submit new or updated plans in 2025, under the “ratchet” mechanism.
Isn’t it fantastic? Nope. Once again, there is no guarantee that countries will come forward with tougher climate plans by the end of 2022. As at Paris, if it cannot be agreed now, propose that at some future date it will be – in this case a sunnier COP27 in Egypt. The mantra doesn’t change: keep the COP process on the road, and the COP industry in business.
***
All these pledges that conquered newspapers’ headlines over the past two weeks have a common denominator: they are non-binding. To put it nicely, they are more goodwill than law and this seriously questions their credibility. Imagine it is 2050 and these goals are far from being reached: will governments be accountable for failure? No. And even if all these good intentions materialize, we would still be on course for warming of 1.8°C.
COP26 has shown that the UN construct favors national self-interest over collective objectives. So, what is the alternative? As suggested by Prof. Dieter Helm, we should aim for a bottom-up rather than a top-down strategy. For a coalition of the willing unilateralists based on carbon consumption and not carbon territorial production. And for a proper carbon pricing for imports as well as home production.
And even if all the ears and eyes were turned onto the big fishes in Glasgow for the past two weeks, remember that the ultimate polluters of this climate crisis are you, me, and our lifestyles. So, we know where to find the solution. Thus:
If you are an activist, activate — systems only change in response to pressure.
If you are an investor, use your money wisely — the bridge to tomorrow’s economy is built by real investment today.
If you are a citizen (which I bet is the case!), remember this piece next time you are voting.
