COP26: Aftermath

Aftermath: “the period that follows an unpleasant event …, and the effects that it causes.”

It is now just over two weeks since COP26 ended. Most reports agree that it was a failure, but with a few minor positive outcomes. Not a complete failure, but not too far off. Nothing that was agreed will help us to avoid a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – we are not yet in a position to “keep 1.5 alive”.

Six long years ago, the Paris Agreement committed world leaders to limiting global heating to 2 degrees with the aim or desire to keep it below 1.5. Yet still emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise. We are already in the position where global average temperatures have risen by around 1.1 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Nationally Determined Contributions were a mechanism devised in Paris to recognise the common but differentiated responsibilities of all countries across the world, allowing each government to commit to the level of emission reductions they were able to achieve. But the pledges made in the approach to COP26 and during the conference are insufficient to prevent significant additional global heating and if this is the best that can be attained, we are locked in to exceeding 2 degrees.

What was and was not agreed?

Highlights of COP26 were:

• 137 world leaders committed to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, covering 91% of the world’s forests

• More than 100 countries signed up to the Global Methane Pledge to reduce global methane emissions by 30% by 2030. This includes six of the world’s top 10 methane emitters and equates to a potential of 46% of global methane emissions

But:

• There was no agreement to phase out fossil fuel use or even to end the production and use of coal

• The finance to help developing nations mitigate the effects of climate breakdown was not forthcoming

• There was no agreement on loss or damage although more pledges were made

• The Chinese government did not come up with any new pledges and although the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, did commit to net zero emissions, it will not be before 2070!

Despite hosting the summit, the UK government did not agree to block the development of a new coal mine in Cumbria or to rescind the agreement to fund the Cambo oil field and the US President, within days of the end of the summit, granted new concessions for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Empty promises

I have avoided writing anything about the outcome of COP26 until now because the feelings of loss, disappointment, betrayal, anger and frustration were too raw at the end of the conference. If you have read any of the previous posts in this short series, you will be aware that many expectations of the COP were low, but that did not prevent me from experiencing all those feelings in the aftermath of the conference. We experienced 14 days of rousing and heartfelt speeches and positive words but ultimately we came away with empty pledges and promises.

What now?

So what happens next?  With the benefit of hindsight, it was clear there was not going to be any “road to Damascus” moments with so many parties involved. The reality is that, for you and me, for the scientists, NGOs, activists and teachers the work goes on.

At Foggy Outline, we are going to continue with our mission to encourage environmental literacy by getting as many people as possible learning about climate breakdown and all the other associated environmental crises we face. Our next course is nearly ready to go live and others are in the pipeline. We have begun the initial planning for a more ambitious blended learning programme for small businesses in the early summer of 2022.  This will focus on the concept of net zero. We will help small business owners to understand:

• what net zero means

• the implications for their business

• what small businesses have to do to achieve this (or some other, potentially more realistic and meaningful) goal

Courses

We will tell you more about the new courses as soon as we can but in the meantime, if you are uncertain what you should be doing in the aftermath of COP26, you could have a look at our existing courses on Udemy.

If you are reading this post, you probably understand the concept of climate breakdown and our first course, “What do we mean by climate breakdown?” may be a bit basic but the next in the series, “What can we do about Climate Breakdown?” sets out some actions for all of us as individuals. It also begins to look at the broader picture, recognising the contribution of business and government to the increasingly difficult position we find ourselves in. “Climate Breakdown – What do we want governments to do?” and “Climate Breakdown – What do we want from business and organisations?” develop this theme further and provide you with some tools to encourage and persuade government and business to take appropriate action.

If, like me, you are having to deal with the feelings of loss, disappointment, betrayal, anger and frustration in the aftermath of COP26, please do not give in to despair but take positive action. We hope our courses may guide you in the right direction.

COP26: the role of finance

Environmental activists (and I count myself in that number) could argue that we should take whatever action is necessary to safeguard the climate, biodiversity and, ultimately, the human race regardless of the cost. Most countries managed to find staggering amounts of money to deal with Covid-19, a more rapid but overall much less serious emergency than the imminent collapse of our atmospheric life-support system. Inevitably however, money will play a very large role in the negotiations at COP26.

Wednesday 3 November is when world leaders discuss the provision of finance for lower income countries to help them deal with the climate crisis. But finance will also be a thread through the whole of the conference.

Climate Finance Delivery Plan

Under pressure from developing countries at the Copenhagen COP in 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilise $100 billion per year in climate finance to the global South by 2020. This target was missed. A “Climate Finance Delivery Plan”, prepared by the German and Canadian governments at the request of the UK as hosts of COP26, was published on Monday 25 October 2021. The report’s authors found that the $100 billion target would not be met until 2023. But by 2025, according to the plan, the amount flowing to developing countries should reach $117 billion a year. Some new pledges are also likely to be made by the end of 2021.

Mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage

Up to now, finance from the rich countries has focused on mitigation: that is, cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More than 60% of the finance has been targeted towards renewable energy generation projects, which are considered easy to fund as they generally make a profit for the donors!

But as we are seeing, some of the impacts of climate breakdown that we have been warned about for years are now happening. These events are predominantly occurring in the global South and to people who have contributed little to the crisis. So, in addition to funding for mitigation, developing countries need funds to help them adapt.

In addition, there is no mechanism in place to raise finance for loss and damage due to climate change. Examples include the more frequent extreme weather events that have affected Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Bolivia in the past couple of years. COP26 is an opportunity for countries to agree to increase funding for adaptation measures and to agree a method of financing loss and damage. Would a levy on the major polluters, the oil and gas companies, be an idea of how to finance this?

The Climate Finance Delivery Plan, outlined above, suggests that during COP26 existing pledges may be refocused towards helping developing countries cope with the impacts of extreme weather.

Investment in fossil fuels

In a landmark report published in May 2021, the International Energy Agency reached the conclusion that to meet emissions reductions targets there should not be any further investment in new oil, gas or coal projects. Including gas in this statement was significant as many international finance institutions, governments and fossil fuel companies have moved a lot of money from coal into gas power in recent years. The UK is no exception. The argument has been that gas is cleaner than coal or oil and can be a transition fuel as we increase the capacity of renewable energy systems. A wholesale move to using gas would, however, only result in a marginal reduction in emissions and would still lead us to breach the 1.5°C level of global heating that was agreed in Paris. We still need a rapid transition away from the exploitation of all types of fossil fuels.

Loans vs grants

The unmet undertaking to provide $100 billion per year of funding has another twist. Of the $79 billion that developed countries claimed to have provided in 2018, almost three quarters was in the form of loans that the global South has to pay back. It is estimated that more than two thirds of the public climate finance delivered between 2013 and 2018 was in the form of additional debt.

This type of finance increases the debt burden on the global South and makes these countries more vulnerable to financial crisis, on top of the climate crisis!

National debts have been growing in recent years, and 52 countries are now in crisis. In 2020 alone, countries in the global South spent $372 billion on servicing debt, so you could argue that $100 billion additional funding would flow directly back to the donors in debt interest. This means that many countries are unable to rebuild when hit by disasters such as floods and hurricanes. They have little room to adapt or transition to a more sustainable economy and are being forced into more debt to pay for the crisis. The outcome is likely to be further exploitation of their natural resources to pay creditors.

Lower income countries are least responsible for emissions causing the climate crisis, and worst affected. It is the richer, polluting countries that should pay for the damage caused and to support the transition. The agreement to provide the $100 billion per year is a partial acknowledgement of responsibility but the failure to meet the pledges sends a different message.

The UN estimates that the impact of the climate crisis is set to cost vulnerable countries up to $300 billion per year. It would seem that, to claim that the contributions of the richer, polluting countries are based in equity, the pledges should be increased to at least this amount and that the funding should be in the form of grants rather than loans.

Role of the private sector

Given the neoliberal economic ideology of the host government of COP26, it was inevitable that private sector finance would also be called upon to contribute to the funds available to help us decarbonise. 

Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and the UK Prime Minister’s Finance Adviser for COP26, has recently published a report. “Building a Private Finance System for Net Zero” outlines some key goals for the private finance sector. 

Mr Carney’s overarching objective is to make sure that private finance to companies can help them realign their businesses towards net zero by funding new initiatives and innovations. In his opinion, this amplifies the effectiveness of government climate policies and accelerates the transition to net zero, minimises public sector costs and promotes jobs and growth. If we can do this, Mr Carney believes “the transition to net zero is creating the greatest commercial opportunity of our age”.

Summary

While all this sounds very worthy, a couple of points made in the report resonated.  The first is that every financial decision made by companies must take climate breakdown into account. The second is that scientifically feasible transition paths for each business sector will help expose the companies who can seize the opportunities in the transition to net zero and which will cease to exist. Recognising that climate breakdown must permeate through every decision made by businesses and that some current business models will not be viable if we are to achieve our decarbonisation goals echoes some points we made in another post more than 2 years ago. That business and finance leaders are now recognising this is encouraging.

Less welcome is the conclusion that the attainment of net zero by many companies will be reliant on offsets, particularly funding carbon sequestration projects in emerging and developing economies. Offsetting is often used by companies as a “get out of jail free” card when it should be a policy adopted after all other options for decarbonisation have been exhausted. Preventing this will be important.

The other issue highlighted is that successful release of the significant amounts of private finance mentioned in the report (several hundred trillion dollars) will depend on the ambitions of governments’ climate policies. The previous posts in this series question the commitment of our governments to treat climate breakdown as the emergency it certainly is!

There are clearly several threads to the issue of public and private sector finance that will be discussed during COP26. A key test of the success or otherwise of the conference will be the amount of money that is committed by those governments most responsible for historic emissions of carbon dioxide. It is also important that any commitments are real and not just more pledges that may not be fulfilled. Providing funds in the form of grants rather than loans subject to repayment will also be a key test.

COP26: the role of China

China is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. It surpasses even the resource intensive economy of the United States. With this tag comes some responsibility to take action to reduce emissions.

But China, so influential in reaching agreement in Paris, may not be represented by their President, Xi Jinping at the world leaders summit next week. The result is that we may have to be braced for headlines blaming China for a lack of ambition in any agreement or, worse, any breakdown of the talks or failure to reach agreement.

China – my impressions

I am not an expert on China and Chinese politics. I have never been to China and like most people in the UK and other western countries, my view of China has been coloured by reports in the press and other media which, almost without exception, seeks to position China as an adversary of the west.

About 10 years ago, I did a lot of research on environmental entrepreneurship in China while preparing a “Green Business Options” course for the Green Jobs Programme of the International Labour Organisation in south-east Asia. The overriding impression I gained from that research was that with the market reforms that were, at the time, gaining momentum, the amount of time, money and effort that was being put into new “green” businesses in China dwarfed anything we were doing in the UK.

One party government

The other insight I gained from this research was that to some extent, China, its leaders and its people are relatively unconcerned about what happens in western democracies. Our electoral cycles are based on 4 or 5 year terms of office for our governments. This, in reality, condemns us to probably only 2 years of meaningful policy-making in that it can take a year for a new government to find its feet and the final year to 18 months of a term is spent positioning the government to gain re-election. In contrast the Chinese system allows their government to work to a much longer time-horizon than ours. We also need to be aware that Chinese civilisation can be traced back at least a couple of thousand years, so the last 250 years of dominance by the UK, Europe and the United States, could be considered by the Chinese as a historical aberration that will pass and China will, again, assume its rightful place as world leader.

It may be a controversial perspective to take, but perhaps we can see this happening with China’s increasing influence outside its own borders at a time when western political and economic systems are showing signs of decline? Remember, Chinese politicians are happy to play a long game!

Please do not assume that this means I endorse China’s one-party state system. Flawed as it may be, I prefer democratic government. However, the type of democracy we enjoy here in the UK, the US and western Europe clearly does not lend itself to the long-term, strategic thinking we need to deal with climate breakdown!

China at COP26

The insights I gained from my research prompted me to be more sceptical when reading about China in western media outlets and encouraged me to try and look behind the headlines. The key headlines in relation to China and COP26 last week were that President Xi was unlikely to attend either the G20 meeting in Rome or COP26 in Glasgow. The implications from the reports in the UK were that President Xi’s absence would undermine the conference and that it would make an effective outcome much more unlikely. What was less well reported was that the Chinese President has not left China since the outbreak of Covid-19 in 2019 and that the lack of face-to-face meetings has not had any major effect on China’s role in other international gatherings.

Of course, there are benefits in personally attending some of these world leaders’ meetings. In particular, there is always the opportunity for unscheduled sessions, away from the main discussions, which may be more productive than the formulaic and choreographed plenary sessions. But many people from across the world in both their professional and personal lives have become used to video conferencing and it is entirely possible that while not attending the conference in person, President Xi will address the sessions via video link. We must also remember that President Xi’s absence does not mean the Chinese will be absent from the conference.

The same, but different

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) has always acknowledged that developed countries have contributed the most to historical emissions of greenhouse gases and that developing countries should be allowed to increase their share to enable them to meet their social and development needs. This gave rise to a fundamental principle of the UN FCCC, that governments would seek to protect the climate on an equitable basis but in accordance with their “common but differentiated responsibilities”. This meant that developed countries would take the lead in dealing with climate change and would transfer finance and technology to developing countries to support their mitigation and adaptation.

Unfortunately, the idea of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs, discussed in earlier articles in this series) turns the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” on its head, instead, asking for “common and shared responsibilities” that take no account of historical responsibility or equity between developed and developing countries. An alternative, equity-based proposal that was put forward by several developing countries was not adopted in Paris, partly because at that time, there was no effective way of determining what that equitable access meant.

Bear with me, this is relevant!

China’s role in emitting greenhouse gases is undoubtedly important in that the country now emits, annually, a greater quantity of carbon dioxide than any other single country in the world. But how important is it in relation to emissions from the second largest emitter, the United States? A key issue to bear in mind is that in terms of climate breakdown, it is the “stocks” of carbon dioxide that reside in the atmosphere, not the annual flow, that we need to consider. So, responsibility for climate breakdown must be measured in terms of each country’s contribution to the quantity of carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. On this basis, the cumulative emissions from the USA (420 gigatonnes – or 420 000 000 000 tonnes) and Europe (377 gigatonnes) are each more than twice as significant as China’s 160 gigatonnes.

Fair share emissions

Jason Hickel, in an article for The Lancet Planetary Health in September 2020, used this starting point to calculate what a “fair share” of carbon dioxide emissions might look like. This is a real attempt to determine what equitable access to atmospheric space means. Using Hickel’s calculation, as of 2015, China had not overshot its fair share of global emissions. At current rates of emission, it will overshoot in a few years and will then join the United States and Europe as a climate debtor with responsibility for climate breakdown.

This fair-shares approach provides an opportunity to quantify national responsibility for climate breakdown, consistent with the principles of planetary boundaries and equal access to atmospheric commons. The results provide guidance for determining just approaches to liability for damages related to climate breakdown. The outcome is that high-income countries must not only reduce emissions to zero more quickly than other countries, but they must also pay down their climate debts.

This means that although China is the country with the largest emissions of carbon dioxide, when you consider emissions per person, China is still some way behind most the G20 group of countries. A resident of the United States emits nearly three times as much per person as a resident of China. When we look at the historical cumulative emissions, as we have done above, China is well behind the US and EU. It is, therefore, fair that China should be allowed to reach its decarbonisation targets later than those countries that industrialised much earlier. The fairest way for us to work towards decarbonisation on a planetary basis is for the biggest historic emitters to take the quickest action. They promised to do this when signing the UN FCCC back in 1992.

What action is China taking?

We must not forget that along with the United States, China led the way at COP21 in Paris to secure the agreement to keep warming to 1.5 degrees. They have also followed other major economies by pledging to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. The Chinese government has committed to making sure their emissions peak by 2030 and that beyond 2025, their use of coal will decline. This has been extended recently when President Xi promised to end funding for coal-fired power station projects overseas, supporting green and low carbon energy instead.

China is also a world-leading manufacturer of solar panels; is the biggest single market for electric vehicles; and is not far behind the UK as one of the biggest markets for offshore wind. 

Undoubtedly, the Chinese government also understands the economic benefits of decarbonising and the significantly greater costs of not acting. The role of China is, therefore, very important in these negotiations but it is wrong to characterise China as responsible for inaction on the climate. That responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the UK, the United States and western Europe. We have the skills, the technology and the finance to help the rest of the world to decarbonise. 

Do we have the will to do so? 

In less than three weeks, we will know the answer!

COP26: the approach to Glasgow

The Paris Agreement was the outcome of COP21 in Paris. This was a promise made by all the Parties to the Convention (the UN FCCC) to slow down their emissions of greenhouse gases. The more economically developed countries set targets to reduce emissions and the less developed countries agreed to reduce the rate at which their emissions are rising with a view to cutting them at a later date.

The Parties also committed to keep global heating “well below” 2°C and to “make efforts” to hold it to 1.5°C. Scientific evidence shows that there is significantly more risk of significant climate breakdown at 2° when compared to 1.5°.

Those taking part in the conference undertook to review their commitments on a five year cycle and upgrade them if the science indicates that this is required.

Nationally Determined Contributions

2020 was the end of the first five year cycle and the Parties to the Paris Agreement were supposed to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions during the year. COP26 was intended to be the time that the Parties would upgrade their commitments in line with the scientific advice put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. The number of Parties who upgrade their commitments will be an important test of the Paris Agreement – but it is easy to make promises and much more difficult to keep them, as we have seen with pledges and commitments made by national governments before, both in relation to climate breakdown and other issues.

The problem is that, in line with many international agreements, the Paris Agreement is quite vague and lacks any form of sanction. Under the Agreement, the enhanced NDC submissions should have been presented in 2020 but this is non-binding on countries, and there was no political momentum or urgency – most governments claimed to be fully occupied with their response to Covid-19.

One bright spot in the approach to COP26 has been the reinvigoration of the commitment of the United States to take action to overcome the worst effects of climate breakdown. Following the rejection of President Donald Trump’s policies by a significant proportion of the US electorate, President Biden’s administration has engaged with the international negotiations once more and on 21 April 2021, submitted their updated NDC, committing the US to setting an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.

The next set of upgrades to the NDCs comes in 2025 but if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise between now and then, it it is likely to be impossible to meet the 1.5 degree global heating target and the 2 degree target may also be at risk. The UK’s NDC commits us to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.

Following recommendations from the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, in April 2021, the UK government took another step forward by committing to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 78% by 2035. This move was intended to encourage other governments to make bolder commitments ahead of COP26.

Funding for less economically developed countries

At the Copenhagen summit, COP15, in 2009, the most economically developed nations agreed to ensure the provision of 100 billion US dollars per year by 2020 to help the poorest countries reduce the carbon intensity of their economies and prepare for the impacts of Climate Breakdown. This target was reconfirmed in the Paris Agreement.

This funding package has to be finalised by the time of COP26, along with a clear commitment and mechanism for delivering it year after year and increasing the amount available before 2025. This is essential for securing the support of the developing world. Some of the NDCs put forward by developing countries include pledges to curb emissions further if the financial support comes through. Clearly, this funding package could unlock further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions so it’s really important that this commitment and mechanism is put in place at COP26.

In January 2020, Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England was appointed as the UK Prime Minister’s finance adviser for COP26. This appointment confirmed the government’s focus on finance and economics as a method of driving action on climate change and Mr Carney’s input is important. Unlike many politicians, he does seem to understand the importance of climate breakdown – but his experience is deeply rooted in finance and whether he fully grasps the severity of the problem remains to be seen. Many of the neoliberal policies implemented to deal with climate change, such as emissions trading schemes, have not had the required effect.

The IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees C, published in 2018, shows that it’s still technically feasible to keep global heating below 1.5 or 2 degrees but the economic cost of doing so is increasing rapidly. So far, we’ve made only slow progress towards emission reductions. With every month and year lost, the technical and financial challenges and costs rise and will, at some point, become insurmountable. At that point, we’ll be locked in to global heating of 2 degrees C and above. The postponement of COP26 until 2021 is, therefore, bad news.

In short

This has been a bit of a technical explanation but, in short, the delegates to COP26 must agree to a set of Nationally Determined Contributions which, in total, ensure that greenhouse gas emissions begin their downward trajectory and that policies are in place to prevent them from rising again. There must be a binding commitment from all the Parties to the Convention to enact the policies in their own countries to ensure the Nationally Determined Contributions are met. Wealthy countries must commit to provide the funds to help the poorer and more vulnerable countries to meet their own commitments but also to allow them to adapt to the effects of climate breakdown.

To achieve this level of agreement will need the delegates to arrive at the conference with a clear understanding of what is required if we are to avoid the most damaging effects of climate breakdown. They will also need an unequivocal mandate from their governments to make sure the conference is successful! COP26 cannot ‘solve’ climate change; no single event can. But it can go a long way to making sure that we change course to meet the temperature targets set out in Paris, 6 long years ago.

COP26: what can we expect?

If you have been paying attention to the news over recent weeks, you should be aware that COP26 is a huge event that involves much more than just the headline conference. This brings together many, many people in one location and together with the pre-conference and other associated events will emit a massive amount of greenhouse gases. I am sure the irony of this will not have escaped you!

A great deal of time, effort and energy has been expended in preparing for COP26, and while this preparation has been going on, the chances for us to take meaningful action to avoid the most serious consequences of climate breakdown have become more and more limited. Most climate scientists generally agree that now, in the autumn of 2021, we have less than 10 years left in which to reduce significantly our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases if we are going to limit global heating to 2o C or less above pre-industrial levels. This is the target that was agreed by the Parties to the Convention at COP21 in Paris in 2015.

Climate Change 2021

In their Sixth Assessment Report ‘Climate Change 2021’, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made it clear that action by humans has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land, leading to widespread and rapid changes. The rate of warming is unprecedented and climate change is already affecting weather and leading to climate extremes in every region of the world. The IPCC warned that under even the most optimistic scenario, the earth will warm by more than 2°C during this century unless “…deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.”

To make the changes quickly enough to achieve the target of the Paris Agreement, we should have reached global agreement on the action to take some time ago and already be well into the necessary actions. The fact that we have not done so means that COP26 is probably our last chance to agree to meaningful international action to deal with climate breakdown! But more than this, any agreement to act must be followed, immediately, by these deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We cannot afford to wait another 5 or 6 years.

From my position as an interested and informed observer to the process, I do not think the omens for COP26 are good. The UN FCCC has organised 25 COPs since 1995. After so much time spent discussing what we need to do, we should be seeing real reductions in the level of greenhouse gas emissions. 

But instead, emissions have been increasing to the extent that in May 2020, the average level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than 417 parts per million (ppm). To meet the targets set by the Paris Agreement, we need to keep levels at less than 350 ppm. Given that 25 previous COPs have taken place during a period of rising emissions of carbon dioxide, will a 26th have any significant effect?

Build Back Better?

In announcing the new dates for COP26, the UK Prime Minister called for renewed collaborative action on climate change. He continued by indicating that we owe it to future generations to “build back better” and base our recovery from the Coronavirus pandemic on solid foundations, including a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy. There is little evidence at this stage that his rhetoric is being matched by policies and funding. Whenever the UK government makes a positive announcement, it is almost always followed by another announcement that will see greenhouse gas emissions rise – a possible new deep coal mine in Cumbria and additional funding for oil exploration in the Cambo field, off the Shetland Isles. Funding pledges seem to follow a similar pattern with money announced for action to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from a business or sector dwarfed by the amount awarded to projects with the opposite effect.

Expectations

An effective and meaningful outcome to COP26 is vitally important to the global effort to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and avoid damaging climate breakdown. If our leaders fail to reach a meaningful agreement and defer decisions further, it’s difficult to see what future there is for the UN FCCC process – and for our efforts to avoid and adapt to the most serious effects of climate breakdown. Again, you may recall that in an earlier post in this series, I explained that the UN FCCC is a United Nations treaty.

The ultimate aim of the treaty is to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. If agreement to take meaningful and immediate action to limit our effect on the climate is not taken in early November, the treaty has failed and should, probably be consigned to history as being full of the best global intentions against which it could not deliver.

But this would leave us in a position where each country is forced to act alone and in what their politicians consider to be their country’s best interests. This would mean that the most vulnerable states would be forced to deal with a crisis that is not of their making and without the funding or other resources to take effective action. The recriminations and fallout from such a failure could further jeopardise international relations with the real danger of conflict.

In the remaining days and weeks before the World Leaders assemble in Glasgow, we must all put as much pressure as possible on our leaders to put aside their narrow self-interest and do what is right for the earth and for humanity.

COP26: the Glasgow conference

Over time, these conferences have grown to the extent that the number of people attending COP26 in Glasgow may be more than 30,000. This will be made up of:

• government delegates

• climate scientists and meteorologists, members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• representatives of many environmental non-governmental organisations, businesses, business organisations, academic institutions

• delegates from the UN

Pre-meetings

But this is not the whole story. In advance of the actual COP, there have been many pre-meetings at which different elements of the COP have been planned and choreographed. Much of the wording of any agreement that will arise from COP26 (if, indeed, agreement is reached) will already have been discussed. In particular, Italy has hosted several “key preparatory events” including a Youth event and the Pre-COP Summit.

The Pre-COP Summit took place in Milan between 30 September and 2 October. This was the final ministerial meeting before the full conference convenes. It provided an opportunity for a selected group of countries to discuss and exchange views on some key political aspects of the negotiations and offer political guidance for subsequent negotiations. Some cynics would suggest this is where the real negotiations take place – without the NGOs and representatives from those countries who contribute the least to climate breakdown but who will feel the worst effects.

Just before this Pre-COP summit took place, Milan also hosted the Youth Summit. This was billed as a chance for “young people to express themselves on climate change”. I think they’ve been doing quite a good job of this without the formal stage of this conference!

The conference

The website dedicated to the conference already lists a series of meetings that have been held by the President of the Conference. The number of events will increase significantly over the next couple of weeks. These events are intended to make sure that agreement has been reached on as many elements of discussion as possible before the conference itself.

Then, on the final day of October 2021, the delegates will gather in Glasgow for 12 days of meetings, negotiations, discussions and, no doubt, arguments before some form of agreement is reached. This will involve discussions in plenary but many more, smaller discussions behind closed doors and away from possible media intrusion.

After the procedural opening of negotiations on Sunday 31 October, the World Leaders Summit will take place on 1st and 2nd November. This is where Heads of State and government, ministers and heads of delegations or dignitaries deliver national statements, putting forward their “high level ambition towards securing global net zero and keeping 1.5 degrees in reach; adapting to protect communities and natural habitats; mobilising finance”. Each of the following days is devoted to an element of the negotiations. So, on Wednesday 3 November for example, the delegates will discuss finance, on Saturday 6th they will talk about nature and on Thursday 11th about cities, regions and built environment. These Presidency events reflect the priorities of the UK as the country that holds the Presidency of the conference.

Aside from all the official events, the other organisations that will be attending the conference will have held their own meetings to decide on their strategy and the actions they’ll take during the event. Government representatives from all the participating countries will also be meeting individually and in groups to agree their strategy for the conference. The amount of time and effort that has been spent globally on preparing for COP26 is incalculable.

Other events

Alongside the conference there will be an official exhibition which is a platform for those involved to highlight climate change issues and to provide a meeting point. The exhibits will cover a wide variety of related topics.

Official side events are a platform for organisations that are admitted by the UNFCCC to attend the conference but who have limited opportunities to speak during the formal negotiation. This is their chance to meet the Parties and other participants to share knowledge and information and to explore options for meeting the challenge of climate breakdown.

Global Climate Action events are where independent voices from cities, states, business and civil society demonstrate what they’re doing to avoid the worst effects of climate breakdown. There will be other events in the conference centre and around Glasgow too. I am sure there will also be demonstrations by activists aimed at focusing the minds of the delegates on the importance of the discussions. However, the powers being afforded to the police to “manage” any protests may reduce their impact and effectiveness.

Given that there will be many speeches made, pledges given and, potentially, decisions made, there will, inevitably, be a large number of press conferences and this will be reflected in the number of journalists who will attend.

I cannot help thinking that if all these people, from World Leaders down, put as much effort into solving the crisis as they have done into planning for and organising this and other conferences over the years, COP26 would not be required!

COP26: one year late

In this series of blog posts, we are talking about the imminent 26th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is more commonly known as COP26.

These conferences of the parties or “COPs” generally happen every year.  COP25 should have been held in Chile in December 2019. Due to internal difficulties it remained under the Presidency of Chile but took place in Madrid. COP26 was initially scheduled for November 2020. But as we all know, some of us to our cost, the worldwide outbreak of Coronavirus began to develop in late 2019 and really took hold in February 2020. This resulted in what became known as “lockdowns” where national governments imposed strict limits on individual freedoms, with many people being restricted to their own homes for long periods of time – and which are still happening sporadically in some countries. The restrictions also extended to international travel.

In the UK, the limits on personal freedom extended to a ban on mass gatherings but also, where possible, people were encouraged to work from home. Clearly, in these circumstances, it was very difficult to plan for and arrange such a large, international event. It was eventually agreed that COP26 would be postponed until 2021.

For the UK government, the arrangements for COP26 were in some disarray even before the disruption arising from their response to the Coronavirus outbreak. Claire Perry O’Neill, the government’s initial appointment as President of the conference, was replaced by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy, Alok Sharma.

There was criticism that the government was being slow to make the arrangements for COP26, there were questions about whether it would take place in Glasgow as planned, or whether it would be moved to London. There were also disagreements with the Scottish Government about their role.

It may be that the Coronavirus outbreak spared the government the embarrassment of either having to postpone the conference because they wouldn’t be ready for it or to go ahead under-prepared and risk a shambolic and inconclusive outcome.

Alok Sharma was initially trying to fulfil the role of President of COP26 alongside his full-time role as Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy. Towards the end of 2020, he was being criticised for not spending enough time focusing on the conference. In January this year, a new Secretary of State was appointed to allow Mr Sharma to focus solely on COP26.

The postponed COP26 will take place in Glasgow between 31 October and 12 November 2021. Put the dates in your diary!

However, the global pandemic continues to be an issue. Scott Morrison, the Australian Prime Minister, has indicated that he may not attend, citing travel restrictions and the need to isolate on his return to Australia. There is likely to be more political manoeuvring in the remaining days of October as different countries try to make sure the outcome is as favourable for their country as possible. Unfortunately, the most favourable outcomes for most world leaders will be to keep their contributions to the necessary changes as low as possible and consistent with continued economic growth. Most of the rest of us realise that the only realistic goal is to make absolutely sure we avoid the consequences of impending climate breakdown.

COP26: background

This second post in the COP26 series comprises some recent history, along with some challenging organisational names and acronyms!

I will begin with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, sometimes known as the UN FCCC. The UN FCCC is a United Nations treaty that has, as its ultimate aim, preventing dangerous human interference with the climate system. Given that we are in the final stages of preparations for the 26th international conference to try and solve the problem of climate breakdown, you could argue that it has failed in this aim.

Since coming into force on 21 March 1994, this UN treaty has achieved near universal approval with 197 national governments having signed it. The signatories have gained the status of “Parties to the Convention”. This process of signing or approving an international treaty is known as “ratification”. Since the UN FCCC was ratified, there have been 25 Conferences of the Parties or COPs.

The “Parties” referred to in the title Conference of the Parties are the parties to the convention – the 197 national governments who ratified the treaty.

Beyond being a treaty or agreement between national governments, the UN FCCC is also the body which is responsible for the United Nations response to climate breakdown. Part of this response is organising these Conferences of the Parties.

A couple of these conferences have resulted in some modest gains, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. But most of them have passed off without much fanfare and with few tangible results. Some, such as the conference in Copenhagen in 2009 was eagerly anticipated by climate scientists and activists. It promised a great deal and delivered very little.

The most notable recent COP was COP21. This took place in Paris in 2015 and led to the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement brings all nations into a common cause based on their historic, current and future responsibilities for emitting climate changing gases. That is, it looks back to emissions that countries have been responsible for in the past, looks at the current situation and tries to predict what may happen in the future in an attempt to assign levels of responsibility to different nations.

The Paris Agreement confirmed that it is national governments who hold the key to meaningful action with each of the Parties to the Agreement pledging to prepare, communicate and maintain successive “Nationally Determined Contributions” or NDCs that it intends to achieve. The “contributions” are the quantity of greenhouse gases they each intend to emit over coming years and the idea is that the sum of all the NDCs should be less than the total emissions of greenhouse gases that will keep us below the 2 degree threshold that was agreed as the aim of the talks.

This is an example of a principle known as “common but differentiated responsibilities”.  This principle recognises that while all nations have a common responsibility to deal with climate breakdown, different states have different levels of responsibility, depending on their stage of development and their historic contributions to emissions of climate changing gases.

The problem is that the total of all the NDCs does not equate to a big enough reduction in global emissions to meet the target of the Paris Agreement so further rounds of contributions are required to improve on existing commitments.

Given the UK’s role in COP 26, our government could be seen to be in a position of moral authority in relation to the NDCs. Unfortunately, despite some challenging future targets for reaching “net zero”, the government’s actions during 2021 have cast doubt on their real commitment to taking the action necessary to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. These include increased commitments to road building, a failure to dismiss plans for a new deep coal mine in Cumbria and additional funding for oil exploration in the North Sea.

All this talk of COPs and NDCs and treaties and conventions can easily detract from the real issue of reducing our emissions of the gases that are leading to climate breakdown. Meaningful, lasting and effective action to reduce these emissions is what we need to see in early November in Glasgow!

In the next post, we will look back briefly to understand why the conference in Glasgow is a year later than planned.

COP26: an introduction

The 26th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) will take place in Glasgow between 31 October and 12 November this year. This sounds like something that will only interest climate geeks and policy wonks! But please do not just move on, because this is important for all of us!

Climate breakdown is the most serious environmental issue we currently face. Some people consider it to be the most serious issue facing humankind, not just the most serious environmental issue.

Many of us have taken action to deal with the causes and consequences of climate breakdown. We have, for example, reduced the number of times we fly, avoided unnecessary travel, or changed the way we heat our homes. Businesses and governments have also taken action. An action taken by many governments has been to attend annual “Conferences of the Parties” or COPs and we’re about to see what happens at the 26th of these major conferences.

But despite 25 previous conferences at which pledges and promises have been made by governments from across the world, the action we have all taken has not been enough. We have not reduced our emissions of climate-damaging greenhouse gases by the amounts needed to avoid serious consequences, in fact, emissions have continued to rise. Up to now, we thought the consequences of climate breakdown would affect our children and their children but it has now become clear that we are already experiencing the effects.

We see these effects in extreme weather events.

Abnormal periods of hot, dry weather lead to drought and in some cases food shortages and in others, wildfires. Heavy rain and windstorms lead to structural damage to buildings and to flooding, which can also damage food crops. Storm surges at sea lead to flooding of low-lying areas and coastal towns and cities. At higher latitudes and altitudes, hotter temperatures are leading to melting of ice caps and glaciers which also contribute to rising sea levels. And hotter temperatures are also affecting the most vulnerable among us – our children, those coping with poverty and infirmity, women and girls and the older members of society.

Against this background, the UK is hosting the latest in this series of COPs. COP 26 was originally scheduled for the end of 2020 but the Covid 19 global pandemic forced its postponement. So, COP 26 is taking place in Glasgow between 31st October and 12th November this year.

COP26 is going to be a very big event. Massive amounts of energy have been put into it over the last twelve months and much more will be expended in the next thirty days. In future posts, we will consider some more of the background and explore why this conference is such a big deal for all of us, not just the climate geeks!