What did scientists, negotiators, activists & experts make of COP26?
COP26 brought the world’s focus to Glasgow and to the international negotiations organised by the UN and hosted this year by the UK. After two weeks, plenty of protests, pledges, plans, speeches by heads of state, frenzied negotiations, and last-minute drama, the Glasgow Climate Pact was signed by all parties.
We will write up our own views on our experience at Glasgow, speaking at Net Zero Scotland Community - Future Series and After the Pandemic (a few days before Barak Obama made an appearance at the same venue!) in a separate blog.
But here we summarise the views of activists, negotiators, COP experts and climate scientists on what was achieved at Glasgow.
COP26andbeyond represented by William Wilson in Glasgow
Opinions on what was achieved (or not achieved) in Glasgow range from a measured appreciation that progress was made, but more work is needed, to a deeply unimpressed dismissal of the whole UNFCC process.
On one end of that spectrum were the numerous climate activists attending and following the COP from afar. Halfway through COP26, before negotiations on the final text had begun, Greta Thunberg told a crowd in Glasgow:
It is not a secret that COP26 is a failure. It should be obvious that we cannot solve the crisis with the same methods that got us into it in the first place.
But not everyone was as ready to dismiss the entire event and process as a failure. What if you follow Greta’s previous advice, the calling card of many climate activists (quite rightly) to “listen to the scientists”?
What did the climate scientists, including those who wrote the IPCC report that is now the guiding scientific document on tackling climate change, make of the COP?
Renowned climate scientist Professor Michael E Mann wrote in the LA Times:
The U.N. COP process provides the only multilateral framework for negotiating global climate policy. And while the speed of work had been inadequate, some real progress was being made in key areas: on deforestation, methane emissions and, most importantly, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning.
By the end of the first week, the latest commitments from various countries for the first time appeared to offer a chance of keeping the warming of the planet below 2 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels. That’s half of what we were heading toward prior to the 2015 Paris summit (COP21).
It’s not good enough, of course. We need to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius to avert many of the worst impacts of climate change. But the latest commitments are meaningful and can be built upon….
…The key aim of COP26 was to “keep 1.5C alive.” Despite pessimism among many heading into Glasgow, there is still reason to believe that’s possible. But only if the hard work begins now. We need to hold leaders accountable for their pledges and see to it that plans are carried out. Our future depends on it.
Professor Piers Forster, an IPCC Lead Author and Director of the Priestley International Center for Climate, told The Conversation:
The Glasgow Climate Pact is incremental progress and not the breakthrough moment needed to curb the worst impacts of climate change. The UK government as host and therefore president of COP26 wanted to “keep 1.5°C alive”, the stronger goal of the Paris Agreement. But at best we can say the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is on life support – it has a pulse but it’s nearly dead.
Before COP26, the world was on track for 2.7°C of warming, based on commitments by countries, and expectation of the changes in technology. Announcements at COP26, including new pledges to cut emissions this decade, by some key countries, have reduced this to a best estimate of 2.4°C.
More countries also announced long-term net zero goals. One of the most important was India’s pledge to reach net zero emissions by 2070. Critically, the country said it would get off to a quick start with a massive expansion of renewable energy in the next ten years so that it accounts for 50% of its total usage, reducing its emissions in 2030 by 1 billion tonnes (from a current total of around 2.5 billion).
A world warming by 2.4°C is still clearly very far from 1.5°C. What remains is a near-term emissions gap, as global emissions look likely to flatline this decade rather than showing the sharp cuts necessary to be on the 1.5°C trajectory the pact calls for. There is a gulf between long-term net zero goals and plans to deliver emissions cuts this decade.
Professor Katherine Heyhoe, Chief Climate Scientist at The Nature Conservancy, posted on Twitter:
Is #COP26 enough? No. Did anyone expect it to be enough? I sure didn't; this is a more ambitious effort to work together than anything we humans have ever, ever accomplished. But is it more than we had 2 weeks ago? YES. And there's a lot more to be done; so let's get on with it! Each one of us has a role to play, and it begins with using our voice to advocate for & catalyze change wherever we live, work, study, and more. As my book ends, climate change is what stands between us and a better future. It's up to us to save ourselves.
Here’s why my expectations were already low, going in: because in any consensus process, the voices that object hold the power. It’s frustrating, discouraging, and heartbreaking. But it’s still a move forward, and we must continue to push for more.
And what do the people from the countries most affected by climate change think of the agreement?
Tina Sege, Climate Envoy for the Marshall Islands, posted on Twitter:
This Package is not perfect. The coal change and a weak outcome on loss and damage are blows. But it is real progress and elements of the Glasgow Package are a lifeline for my country. We must not discount the crucial wins covered in this package:
Within the High Ambition Coalition we campaigned hard from dawn to dusk to secure a doubling of adaptation financing. When the HAC launched this call we didn’t know if it would be possible. It was a very hard-fought win. This package includes a plan to accelerate NDCs (national climate targets) to meet the demands we must meet this decade - also called for by the High Ambition Coalition, and a priority that didn't always seem possible. On Article 6, we need to remain vigilant against greenwashing, protect environmental integrity, & protect human rights & the rights of indigenous peoples. But a plan is only as good as its implementation. All Parties must now go home and get to work to deliver on their Glasgow and Paris commitments.
And what of those who have experience these negotiations before, and been to their fair share of successful and unsuccessful COPs?
Peter Betts, former UK lead climate negotiator and Associate Fellow at Chatham House, said:
Successfully staging COP26 during a global pandemic was a major achievement. The negotiated outcome overall was at the top end of what was feasible, including finally completing the Paris Agreement's rule book. Commitments were made to increase adaptation funding. The language on reducing the use of coal was a UN first. The real test of Glasgow, however, will be whether those with weak nationally determined contributions (NDC) in fact do more in 2022.
Glasgow was the first time countries met to increase their national climate ambitions as set forth under the Paris Agreement’s five-year ambition raising cycle. The outcome was mixed. Most large developed countries (except Australia) announced significant NDC enhancements well before COP26, as did several mid-size and vulnerable countries. At COP26 itself, India, Thailand, and Vietnam made substantial moves.
Some major carbon-emitting economies, however, only tweaked their 2030 targets (China and Russia), or did not improve them (Indonesia), or actually weakened them (Brazil and Mexico). Yet focus on this in media and civil society narratives around COP26 was minimal.
That matters. Country targets under the Paris Agreement are nationally determined: no process or negotiation guides a country’s adequate or fair contribution….
…This situation raises the question of why so few were called out at COP26. Developed countries had disappointingly failed to meet their goal of providing $100 billion to developing countries in 2020 to help their climate efforts. They resisted international funding for loss and damage. Some ambitious NDCs were viewed with skepticism, given the countries’ records of failed targets. These issues dominated much of the discourse in Glasgow.
Some reasons were less understandable. In civil society, it is more congenial to call out developed countries. Arguably, the U.S.-China joint declaration to enhance climate action, though it lacked substance, provided China with political cover for its weak NDCs.
All countries are now requested to revisit and strengthen their NDC targets in 2022, especially those not aligned to temperature goals. If 1.5°C is to be within reach, far more ambition is needed. Pressure on laggards is imperative. Civil society needs to ask itself how it can press for 1.5°C yet not exert pressure on the biggest emitters. Developed countries need to come to COP27 in Egypt in 2022 with both a far stronger performance on finance and a willingness to find ways forward on loss and damage.
Christiana Figueres, who had such a crucial role in Paris, shared her views with the Guardian:
COP26 had to reset the pace of transformation to be commensurate with the increasing urgency we face. And it was challenging. Diametrically opposed interests were exposed. Pressure inside the negotiating rooms was intense. Common ground was elusive. Compromise was inevitable. And still, the COP increased the speed of action with at least three resets.
First, 1.5C is the new 2C. The final decision reflects the intention to keep 1.5C not just alive, but front and centre of our efforts.
Second: the yearly ratchet. Thanks to a strong push by the most vulnerable countries, the third set of national efforts to reduce emissions and contribute to climate solutions is now scheduled for the end of 2022, instead of waiting another five years.
Third: nature is finally recognised for its solution potential. All the emissions reductions in the world will mean nothing to future generations if we do not also protect and restore nature.
There are remaining areas of deep disappointment; the “phase-out of coal” being weakened to a “phase-down of unabated coal”, for example. The intended finance facility for developing countries was reduced to a dialogue. But the most acutely felt, glaring void is the lack of support for the most vulnerable nations to cope with quickly accelerating loss of homes and livelihoods and damage to lands and infrastructure. Much work needs to be done to address this before nations reconvene in Egypt for COP27 – as the climate crisis is hurtling towards us at terrifying speed.
The success of COP26 lies in the eyes of the beholder. Many will say that we continue to irresponsibly spin the political wheels, and from some vantage points that is true, but no one can deny that COP26 has hastened the speed of the wheels of change.
You could imagine that if anyone was tempted to spin the COP as a resounding success it would be Alok Sharma, the COP president and therefore the man with perhaps the most to be gained from a successful summit. Yet there was a notable lack of hyperbole in his statement at the end of the COP, released after two years of preparations and a gruelling two weeks of negotiations culminated in Mr Sharma emotionally apologising to delegates to last-minute changes to the text on coal:
“I am very pleased to say that we now have in place the Glasgow Climate Pact, agreed amongst all the Parties here.
I am really pleased that this has been delivered. It is down to the hard work of the UK team; the hard work of all the Parties; the great cooperation that we have seen from all negotiators, and from all ministers; and right at the start of the summit, world leaders came out and set out what they wanted delivered out of this event.
I would say, however, that this is a fragile win. We have kept 1.5 alive. That was our overarching objective when we set off on this journey two years ago, taking on the role of the COP presidency-designate.
But I would still say that the pulse of 1.5 is weak.
That is why, whilst we have reached, I do believe, a historic agreement. What this will be judged on, is not just the fact that countries have signed up, but on whether they meet and deliver on the commitments.
During our Presidency year, which started at the start of this summit, we will ensure that we work really closely to ensure that the commitments that have been set out are being delivered by countries. And we will work in partnership with all of them. Collectively we have got this over the line. I am incredibly grateful to everyone who has helped with this. But as I say, the hard work starts now.
Thank you.”
So was Greta right? Was the COP a failure, was it successful, or a small step in the right direction?
Ultimately, that cannot be answered straight away. It will depend on whether the outcomes and momentum from the COP leads to the closing of the gaps between ambitions pledges and actions, and ultimately to real emissions reductions and a complete halt of the global temperature rise.
This graphic from Clayton Aldern at Grist illustrates the gaps between nation’s pledges before COP, at COP and what is required to be consistent with 1.5degC temperature rise.
For what it’s worth, our opinion at COP26andbeyond is as mixed as many of the responses. The cover decision from COP26 had some historic elements to it, it showed some level of multilateral agreement on the need to tackle climate change, reduce coal use and enable a just transition. There was progress on finance for adaption and reducing methane emissions, the rulebook from Paris was finally finalised, and the direction of travel is now firmly set towards decarbonisation with 1.5degC the real target.
However, developing states felt hard done by, their request for a full “loss and damage” mechanism has been started but not finished, and the text on fossil fuels and coal were watered down several times. It still seems startling that no mention is made of the other fossil fuels that are powering us towards an ever warmer planet, no “phase down” of Oil & Gas was even considered despite Denmark and Costa Rica leading the way by launching the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, and the sum total of Nationally Determined Contributions still put us on a path to dangerous levels of global warming, even if they are implemented in full.