COP26: A Success or a Failure?
Over the last several months pressure has been steadily increasing as countries and leaders all over the world turned their thoughts to Scotland’s largest city and the conference which would take place there. It was, however, not only leaders who had COP26 in their sights, but activists, lobbyists, businesses and any ordinary person who worries about the climate crisis. Indeed, this latest ‘conference of the parties’, as it is known, was billed as our last chance to effect meaningful change on a global scale. So, what was hoped for? What was agreed? And have desires been met? Opinions differ.
What was hoped for?
The build-up of hope and expectation surrounding the conference was immense to say the least. First and foremost in everyone’s mind was the need to secure net zero carbon emissions globally by 2050 to prevent global warming from surpassing 1.5C. Many countries have already set targets to achieve this, but some of the biggest players, namely the United States, China and Russia, have been dragging their heels, despite the fact that one of US President Joe Biden’s first acts as president was to re-join the Paris Agreement, formed at the last COP in 2015. The second key item on the agenda was to find ways to protect communities and natural habitats. There was a demand for action to aid those at risk of being affected most drastically by the climate crisis - through climate-change induced natural disasters such as wildfire, flooding, rising sea-levels and unexpected strong weather like the snow experienced in Texas earlier this year. Further action was called for to prevent the predicted destruction of eco-systems through de-forestation, pollution and over-fishing resulting in mass-extinction. To do this, governments were being exhorted to arrange the mobilisation of funds, both for their own countries, but also for countries who cannot afford to enact these changes themselves. Indeed, it is often such developing nations who are more at risk of experiencing these disasters and who will end up being the victims of the industrialisation of the global North if we fail to act.
What has been agreed?
In the lead-up to the conference, which ran from 31st October until 12th November 2021, several countries released more detailed plans for their next steps in confronting the climate crisis. The British government, for example, released their Net Zero Strategy. This made the United Kingdom the first large economy to make a legal promise regarding the net-zero goal. The strategy plans to de-carbonise the power system by 2035 and allocated £3.9 billion for decarbonising the heat and buildings sector, including £450 million for a boiler-upgrade scheme. An additional £140 million has been announced for an Industrial and Hydrogen Revenue Support Scheme to invest in carbon capture and hydrogen technologies, as well as funding to increase the use and accessibility of electric vehicles and further encouragement for us to walk or cycle where possible.
More than one hundred leaders have announced that they intend to stop and reverse de-forestation and land degradation by 2030. £8.75 billion in public funds was announced to preserve 85% of the planet’s forests. This will also support developing countries in dealing with degraded land, combatting wildfires and aiding indigenous communities. The conference also led to several governments adjusting the targets they chose in Paris. Before Glasgow, the commitments made would have had us limit global warming to 2.7C, rather than the all-important 1.5C. Since then, Australia has announced that it should reduce its emissions by 35% in 2030, which in fact exceeds the requirements of the Paris agreement. India, who had no target in place, has now announced their target of reaching net-zero by 2070. The UK has also announced a £3 billion Clean Green Initiative which will increase private investment in sustainable, low-carbon projects all over the world.
Arguably the most contentious point was the wording change of the final agreement at the eleventh hour. China and India intervened, demanding a change from the ‘phasing out’ of coal to its ‘phasing down’, leaving what some have called large gaps in the pact. Alok Sharma, the conference president, announced that the change, while disappointing, was needed to ensure the pact as a whole. Coal makes up 40% of the world’s CO2 emissions every year, which we need to reduce by 45% by 2030. After Paris, agreements would have left us at 52.4 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions. Now, after the agreements reached at COP26, emissions should be reduced to 41.9 gigatonnes, a far cry from the 26.6 gigatonnes needed by 2030. That being said, the progress made in Glasgow this month does mean that, with more work, the target of 1.5C global warming is still achievable - even if not yet actively in reach. An optimist would say that it is a much better outcome than we had before the Glasgow conference and that just the inclusion of a limit on coal is a positive outcome of the negotiations.
What are the activists still demanding?
There was much discussion over the fortnight of payments to developing countries for loss and damages from the destruction they will have to face and against which they cannot afford to defend, but which has come about through no fault of their own. This was dropped to an extent and is not covered extensively in the final agreement, on the understanding that talks on such issues will continue in the near future. Two key sectors which have not had a limit set upon them in this month’s pact are those of oil and gas. The policy director for the charity ActionAid said that, with this being the case, the limit on coal would just push richer countries to continue their use of other fossil fuels. In general, the pact has been described as ‘very, very vague’ and therefore it will be too easy for countries to interpret it in the way which suits them best, not in the way which will bring the world tangibly closer to the crucial 1.5C.
Success or failure?
It is true, COP26 did not achieve what many had hoped; there are loopholes in the pact and some of the world’s biggest emitters have not signed up to some of the most important agreements. However, to dub it a failure would be admitting defeat in a battle which the planet cannot afford to lose. It is a step in the right direction with some significant agreements reached. Even more work and hard negotiation is required but it would be wrong to lose hope yet.
