COP26 – THE BIG OPPORTUNITY
An opportunity and a necessity for global cooperation, nearly 200 countries, almost the whole world, were represented at COP26 in Glasgow to commit to keep the temperature of the planet to only 1.5c above pre-industrial age levels by the end of this century. The how to do it was the agenda, with different categories of country having different priorities stemming largely from their state of development, but with an aim of net zero carbon emissions globally by 2050. Nearly 100 world leaders showed up, the most notable absentees being President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia. The background was the Paris accords of 2015 when commitment was made to limit warming to a 2c increase, with 1.5c being aspirational. Since then, science seems to have become unanimous that human behaviour is to blame for global warming, and restricting it to the 1.5c target is a must to limit human suffering due to climate change. Glasgow 2021, a year later than planned due to Covid, had to put some flesh of action on the bones of the promises made in Paris.
CASH, COAL, CARS and TREES
The critical focus to achieve the 1.5c target is the reduction of global emissions of CO2, and the overarching conference ambition was to keep that target alive. Even before Glasgow, 80% of the world economy had committed to a net zero target but not necessarily by 2050. The UK, as holder of the COP Presidency, ran the conference, but it was owned by the United Nations. An explanation of the UK strategy to keep the conference progressing energetically for nearly two weeks appeared in the Observer of 14 November. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/14/cash-coal-cars-trees-and-choreography-how-britain-kept-cop26-alive It headlined “Cash, coal, cars and trees” which was the catch phrase coined by Boris Johnson and UKGOV before the conference to represent key factors simplistically. A high bar was set, as anything less would have doomed the conference to failure before it started. With the high bar came the risk that lay in raising expectations too high, the risk being that a tone of disappointment and pessimism, rather than ambitious commitment, would emerge at the end of the 14 days. The conference was a hotbed of negotiation, but not one of debate, it seems.
The underlying presumptions of the conference, especially the 1.5c target and carbon reduction rates as a necessity, were never really questioned. Maybe that is good. However, those presumptions depend on the assessments of scientists and their predictions, based on current knowledge, and otherwise on assumptions as to the future. The lack of public debate and challenge in this area, apart from by Donald Trump, at least in broadcasting and news media, is perhaps surprising. Future predictions are always questionable and almost always wrong, as the Covid experience of scientific forecasting evidenced. But most predictions are perhaps on the cautious side, which is for the best when the consequences of climate change are so potentially catastrophic and possibly irreversible. Equally more open debate about the science and possibilities would be welcome (articles by Nick Timothy in the Daily Telegraph of 8 November and by Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph of 7 November relate to this topic). She referred to the remark by Tim Davie, the Director General of the BBC, that climate change wasn’t a political issue anymore, which is a remarkable and surely crazy thing to say. What could be more political than the ramifications of all decisions and actions made or taken in the face of climate change, affecting the lives of every human on the planet?
The scientific analysis and advice will surely be dynamic in the coming years, changing as knowledge develops, just as it has and continues to do with the Covid pandemic. Technology and innovation will provide new tools to make energy production and usage less damaging and change how food is produced and alter so many current limiting assumptions that underpin predictions. Some big events, unforeseeable today, are bound to shake the foundations of world progress in the next 30 years. That will mean that decisions and commitments made today, and actions set out in each country’s plans to reduce emissions and other programmes, assuming they make them, will need constant review and adaptation. Is there not needed a global task force and monitor to keep progress and direction under constant review, disseminating information and best practice and learning as it appears, with strong media coverage, which is calm, objective and accurate, not dramatic? Global medical and scientific cooperation during Covid perhaps set a good precedent to follow.
THERE WAS GOOD NEWS, BUT NOT ENOUGH
The pledges made at the conference by countries, if implemented, are estimated by scientists to potentially restrict the planet temperature increase to 2.4c, and if their assessments of the consequences of that are correct, that increase is nowhere near low enough. At that level it is said billions of people will have their lives overturned, the sea flooding vast tracts of land, and the heat in many countries making them uninhabitable. The suffering and social consequences and all the ramifications cannot be properly predicted, but chaos could be the result across the world. To what behaviours the survival instincts will lead can only be imagined.
On the other hand, those pledges and the broader statements of determination to act and cooperate, which are only the beginning and must be built upon, “keep 1.5c alive” according to the likes of Boris Johnson, but it is fragile. The activists who rightly keep up the pressure for more radical action, as long as they do so legally, reject the Governments’ words and promises as just “blah, blah” and unfortunately recognise no achievements and suck out the air of hope. It seems bizarre that the UK, which according to the International Energy Agency leads the world on its course to meet emission reduction targets, is the target of so much activist ire, while their level of outrage with the poorest performers is subdued or non-existent. Perhaps the invaluable freedom of speech which the UK embraces permits it to be an easy target. Are there outside hostile influences on activist movements? So, what promises of blah blah have been made in the Glasgow Declaration which is the result of COP26?
INDIA surprised the world by agreeing to be reliant for 50% of its energy on renewables by 2030: an outstanding feat if achieved, as India is a massive burner of coal, which usage would be heavily cut by that achievement.
OVER 100 countries, accounting for over 85% of global forests agreed to stop deforestation by 2030; if forests are also restored, a much more efficient process for carbon capture than just planting new trees on new plantations, and high targets are set and achieved, significant reductions of carbon in the air will result.
OVER 100 countries agreed to cut methane by 30% by 2030: as methane is in noxious emission terms tens of times worse than carbon, this is meaningful.
CASH needs were recognised but not all solved. Having previously failed to deliver the $100 billion a year promised in Paris, the richer countries have vowed to achieve this by 2023, to the benefit of poorer countries. Sourcing private funds to invest in the climate change reduction industry and technology is critical as that is a far deeper cash mine than Governments’. According to Mark Carney, a leader on the topic, major financial institutions with balance sheets totalling $130 trillion have committed to manage their money in line with a net zero target by 2050. How the detail of that will emerge or play out in practice is unspecified, and only time will tell. But an important principle is established.
TWENTY-THREE countries made new commitments to phase out coal-fired power stations. That the U.S., China, Russia and India were not among them was a disappointment. The “phasing out” of coal language of the Glasgow Declaration was watered down at the last minute to “phasing down”, at the insistence of India and China, again a disappointment. Has that really reduced the leverage to hold their feet to the fire to reduce emissions? Probably not. No country of any size at least can be forced by the UN to abide by commitments. Pressure will mount on all countries, especially the biggest emitters, from multiple sources, if real reductions do not happen quickly and the gloomy forecasts get gloomier due to inaction.
As to CARS and VANS, a number of countries committed to phasing out fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 or 2040, but less than was hoped for was achieved. Some major car manufacturers (e.g., Ford and Jaguar Land Rover) endorsed the Declaration on Zero Emissions for Cars and Vans, but several did not (e.g., Volkswagen and BMW). But again, pressure has to be maintained and this could change for the better over time.
The USA and China agreed to cooperate on fighting climate change: a rare moment of concord between the world’s two most powerful nations. Vague but at least a small straw to grasp.
So, cash, coal, cars and trees all featured and perhaps in reality a new start has been made.
However, developing countries made proposals for a new fund to help nations damaged by weather or rising seas caused by climate change. It was watered down. The biggest dissatisfaction — perhaps inevitable from the start – centred on the lack of monetary commitments by richer countries to the poorer to help them cope with the effects of climate change and to reduce greenhouse emissions. This argument and conflict will continue, and their needs will perhaps in reality never be met. This may not least be because of the domestic pressures on richer countries to spend at home and the difficulty in getting public to buy in to huge donations abroad. Covid help for the poorer nations has encountered the same problem. The world needs somehow to learn to share better and cooperate, but despite many self-serving charitable words is that a pipedream?
IS THE 1.5c TARGET ACHIEVABLE?
UN Secretary General, Antonio Gutteres, said of the Glasgow conference results “It is an important start but is not enough”. Scientists say that as of now the increase has been 1.2c and so there is only 0.3c to play with. So, the world cannot just play. The important pledges and commitments by countries to produce action plans to meet their targets have to be performed, as do all actions in those plans. The UN and COP Presidents (the UK now but Egypt in 2022) will have a special role to keep leaders and countries’ feet to the fire on reducing emissions, the move to clean energy and increasing vastly carbon capture, and the provision of cash and other resources. Some ask if there is much point in smaller nations, even including the UK, reaching tough targets and sacrificing, if China does not change? The answer must be yes as someone has to lead, and trust China will recognise it must change, shaming them into action: at least with China, when it does decide to act, it can act decisively and very quickly as it is not constrained by freedoms and democracy.
Was COP26 a success? Given the UK media has made very little criticism of UKGOV and the achievements, it would seem it must have been. For sure, many media broadcasters and influencers would grasp any straw of failure and ram it home, and few straws seem to have been grasped.
1.5c is still alive and the challenge is to get it off life support in the next few years.
