The Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow in November saw some new headline emission targets, though with target dates that seem very far off- China and Saudi Arabia said they would aim to be net zero carbon by 2060, while India said it would try to get there by 2070! But around 40 countries did pledge to phase out coal well before then, some by 2030, others (the poorer ones) by 2040. And China confirmed that it would try to bring emissions to a peak before 2030, while India said it would reduce carbon intensity by 45% by 2030.
However, while the overall targets still looked weak, there were some other commitments. A Global Methane Pledge was backed by 105 countries, including the US, Japan & Canada, supporting a 30% cut by 2030 in emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas responsible for ~30% of global warming. 100 countries, including Brazil, pledged to end Deforestation by 2030- but Indonesia later dropped out. More than 40 countries, including the US, UK, EU, China, India and Australia, backed a Breakthrough Agenda and said they would align standards and coordinate investments to speed up production & bring forward the ‘tipping point’ when green technologies are more affordable than fossil-fuel.
And finally, on finance and aid, to help accelerate the global shift away from coal, a group of wealthy, developed nations including the UK, US and EU have agreed to provide South Africa with around $8.5 bn to help shift away from coal - its major power source. The money will help support workers and communities affected by the transition. In addition, promises were renewed concerning the proposed but so far mostly undelivered global development and climate protection aid programme. A bit more blah blah bah there perhaps, as was also the case, some felt, with the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a £96 trillion pact by 450 banks to move their portfolios to net zero by 2050. Would they really all comply fully?
Initial Reactions
Apart from picking up points like that, the general early response from the media was that it was quite a good effort, although not nearly enough. But that latter theme deepened as the COP progressed- and the headline grabbing big commitments were replaced by more sobering assessment of what it all added up to. Some were gloomy. George Monbiot in the Guardian said that the practical bottom line was the need to leave most fossil fuels in the ground- all the rest was just talk.
In that context, the absence of China’s leader at COP26 (and Putin to) was worrying, even if China had said that its fossil fuel use would be cut to under 20% by 2060. Nearer to home, just prior to COP26, the UK tried to keep itself in the green good books globally by announcing that it would spend £3 billion funding green technology schemes in developing countries over the next five years, though arguably that didn’t make up for the November Budget’s reduction of taxes on UK domestic fights, or the earlier aid cuts. But COP 26’s immediate host, the Scottish government, perhaps did a bit better by announcing during COP26 that it aimed to at least double Scotland’s wind generation capacity by 2030, adding 8-12 GW to the 8.4GW so far in place.
The various green lobbyist were out in force, taking on key issues- for example digging in against net zero carbon offsetting and also nuclear power. The renewables lobby had a relatively easy job, pushing on a open door, but the Global Wind and Global Solar Councils had pointed out that very much more of both options was needed. Meanwhile, offstage somewhere, the Global Warming Policy Forum’s new replacement Net Zero Watch continued to push its standard contrarian line- away with costly green energy and instead on to cheap nuclear and gas, including shale gas. Not too many takers for that at COP26, despite quite a few fossil fuel lobbyist being present. But there was some (virtual) nuclear lobbying, and some also on site, plus the launch of a report promoting nuclear (and hydrogen) by Conservative MP Chris Skidmore, backed by former Tory energy secretary Amber Rudd and Claire Perry who had initially been nominated as COP26 president before the role was given to Alok Sharma. Their report said COP26 should ‘open its eyes to the combined value of nuclear and hydrogen as a complementary strategy alongside renewable energy’.
The outcome
So what’s the bottom line? There were certainly a lot of new initiatives, with the UK trying to claim credit for some of them and to project COP26 as an overall success. But some of the targets and pledges are longer term- to 2050, 2060 or even 2070. Based on what countries have actually put on the table so far for 2030, a review by the respected Climate Action Tracker group in Germany found that the world was set to shoot past safe levels and warm by 2.4C by 2100, with emissions by 2030 being about double what was needed to keep the rise under the 1.5C safe limit. If all the long terms plans so far announced were acted on fully, the temperature rise might be slowed more, maybe to 1.8C, but there was no certainly that they would all be successful in holding down temperatures. As two of the CAT team put it, that was the optimistic theoretical scenario, but ‘the problem is that without stronger concrete near-term action, this would be physically impossible to achieve’. So we needed a lot more action- and soon…
It was perhaps unrealistic to expect COP 26 to deliver everything that was needed- a 45% emission cut by 2030. There was too wide a gap between some of the parties in relation to coal. So while more coherence emerged in the last few days, as the draft agreement was negotiated, the final draft Glasgow Climate Pact, was, at the very last minute, following an intervention by India, revised to call for coal to be phased down not phased out. That was bitterly disappointing to many delegates, but it was nevertheless agreed- it was after all what China, Saudi Arabia, Australia and others also seemed to want. There were some sops to soften the likely impacts of this fudge. There was a call to double support from developed countries for adaptation projects in developing countries and to help with loss damage– although the £100 bn aid pledge has still not not been met.
So it’s a bit of set back, with a big gap still between short and long commitments and targets, and with the chance of keeping to 1.5C maybe diminished- although it's perhaps just about possible. Especially if we can move on to better targets and plans for 2030 from all concerned - to be presented for discussion at the next COP, which will be next year in Egypt.
Comments
Post a Comment