The deal to come out of COP26 is leaving many disappointed for not ensuring a secure future for the climate, but some progress was made that advocates say should not be ignored.
The United Nations conference on climate change, which has been held since 1995, also known as COP, short for Conference of the Parties, brings together politicians, scientists, environmental activists and climate experts to negotiate agreements to reduce warming. global. This year COP26 took place in Glasgow, Scotland.
The decision to leave COP26, called Glasgow Climate Pact, did not align the planet with the Paris Agreement target of as close to 1.5 ° C as possible. In fact, a Climate Action Tracker analysis released during the conference projected at least a devastating 2.4C increase based on the latest country targets, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
Still, some experts see encouraging signs.
“In 2019 when it was COP25 in Madrid, the projection we had of all the NDCs that were communicated at that time was that we were on our way to having a 3.2 C rise in temperature, and now we are on our way to 2.4 C”, Said Géraud de Lassus Saint-Geniès, an assistant professor at the University of Laval who researches climate law and governance.
“We are seeing that the Paris Agreement works. I think it’s generally good news, ”he said, noting that it has not yet worked well enough to bridge the gap between countries’ ambitions and the actual goal of keeping warming as close to 1.5 ° C as possible. .
De Lassus Saint-Geniès also said that it was a “considerable step forward” for the agreement to call for the phasing out of coal and the phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, specifically because despite the role of fossil fuels that drive climate change, the mere mention of fossil fuels has been excluded from any previous COP decision.
What people are reading
The language around fossil fuels weakened considerably throughout the conference as draft texts emerged. An initial draft called on countries to “accelerate the phase-out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies,” but the final deal instead calls for a phase:down from unabated coal, and a gradual elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
International Institute for Sustainable Development policy adviser Vanessa Corkal says those qualifying words create room for multiple interpretations that can delay climate action. Without a clear standard definition of what an “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidy is, countries can bend the rules to their advantage.
“The vast majority of fossil fuel subsidies in Canada are facilitating continued or increasing fossil fuel production, or at the provincial level, increased consumption of fossil fuels, and all of those things are bad for the planet,” he said.
“Whether they say ‘phasing out’ or ‘phasing out’, we must continue that rapid reduction in emissions, and no country can hide from that,” says @GreenShaneM on the Glasgow Climate Pact. # COP26 #cdnpoli
Corkal said that a successful COP would have identified the importance of eliminating coal, oil and natural gas, and would align with a world of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
“I don’t think this COP decision will get us there,” he said, adding that some progress has still been made.
“That reference to coal and, of course, the reference to fossil fuel subsidies are important precedents that I think civil society and countries can build on in future negotiations, (but) do I think it goes far enough? Probably not.”
Shane Moffatt of Greenpeace Canada says that while commitments matter, the semantics of “phasing out” versus “phasing out” can distract from what the real goal is.
“We have to go ahead with fundamentally lowering our emissions to levels that will keep us at 1.5 C, so I think that’s the prize I’d like to keep an eye out for for some of the typical shenanigans that reflect the usual lobbying in the end of the COP ”, he said.
“Whether they say ‘phasing out’ or ‘phasing out’, we must continue that rapid reduction in emissions, and no country can hide from that.”
For Canada, the decision to leave Glasgow does not have many tangible impacts. The country has already done promises around phasing out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2023, referring to subsidies that incentivize new exploration, and has promised phase out “traditional” coal-fired electricity by 2030. Many of the key promises Canada signed in Glasgow, such as phasing out international fossil fuel subsidies or halting deforestation, are not included in the final text.
“Canada needs to show how serious climate ambition is by committing to strong policies that enable them to deliver on those commitments,” Corkal said.
De Lassus Saint-Geniès said that the decision to exit COP26 could help the liberal government implement its domestic agenda.
The Glasgow climate pact “gives legitimacy to the current government platform,” he said because liberals can point to what came out of COP26 to show how domestic policies launched during the last elections align with what the world is agreeing to.
“I think it will help liberals move forward with their agenda by saying, ‘Look, this is what we want to do at the national level, and by the way, look at what the states have promised to do at the international level. We don’t move alone, ‘”he said.
In Glasgow, the failure of rich countries to deliver on their $ 100 billion a year promise by 2020 put a halt to negotiations. The promise was instrumental in getting countries around the world to sign the Paris Agreement, and many countries see climate finance as a precondition for increasing greenhouse gas reduction targets.
“It was very disappointing to see rich countries like Canada fail to meet that $ 100 billion, and there is simply no way that we will see effective and equitable global action on climate change without that funding,” Moffatt said.
Corkal explained that there is a connection between failing to deliver on the promise of climate finance and the weakened language about fossil fuels.
“There is an important dynamic regarding where different countries are in terms of their individual economic trajectories, and there are countries, including India, that are still quite dependent on coal, and that transition is difficult,” he said.
Because of its dependence on coal, India received “a lot of criticism” for pushing for softer language on its removal, Corkal explained.
“But I think the bigger picture on coal is that there is this dynamic of developed countries that need to move faster and need to step up their ambition because of their historical responsibility for climate change emissions, ”he said.
At COP26, India’s position was that rich countries should mobilize $ 1 trillion in climate finance by the end of the decade to help transition to a clean economy, Bloomberg reports.
John Woodside / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada National Observer
Reference-www.nationalobserver.com