The final deal at the UN climate summit shows politicians are still incapable of the profound changes needed to address climate change, writes Rod Oram
High income countries have advanced their own climate agendas in the final deal concluded at the UN’s negotiations in Glasgow early Sunday NZT. But once again they have significantly short-changed developing countries.
Overall the deal “keeps alive 1.5,” the catch cry throughout the two-weeks of often tense and conflicted debate during the climate summit. But the word “imperfect” was used by some political leaders as they endorsed the agreement in the final plenary session.
"The approved texts are a compromise. They reflect the interests, the conditions, the contradictions and the state of political will in the world today,” said UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. "They take important steps, but unfortunately the collective political will was not enough to overcome some deep contradictions.”
The deal “requests” countries table each year increasing pledges to reduce emissions in line with the science of keeping the rise in global temperatures below the climate tipping point of 1.5C. Countries are also requested to give evidence their policies are delivering on their pledges.
The 1.5C goal, an improvement on the 1.5C aspiration expressed in the 2015 Paris Agreement, requires a 45-50 percent cut in global emissions by 2030 to make possible a pathway to net zero by 2050.
While “requests” is a weaker word than “urges” was in the first draft of the agreement, in diplomatic-speak it carries slightly more weight than in everyday usage, some defenders of the change said. However, the text still “urges” those countries that failed to lift their pledges before the Glasgow meeting to do so by next year’s COP in Egypt.
Existing national pledges and likely policies would lead to warming of 2.4C, Climate Action Tracker’s latest analysis showed four days ago. But CAT did identify that new deals agreed in Glasgow on methane, coal, forests and transport could, if fully implemented by new policies, close the emissions gap to a 1.5C path by 9 percent, or 2.2 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent.
The Glasgow agreement is also notable because it identifies fossil fuels as the primary cause of the climate crisis, for the first time in a UN agreement since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997.
The language came in a new but vague pledge to "phase-down" fossil fuel use. While muted, it is a signal to countries to accelerate the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Stronger language in the first draft was overturned by fossil fuel-producing nations led by Australia, Russia & Saudi Arabia.
But the Glasgow agreement badly fails developing countries. The US and EU refused to create a new fund that the poorest countries could draw on for crisis responses. They are far more exposed than rich countries to loss and damage from adverse climate impacts.
Christian Aid delivered a report to COP26 showing that African nations spend up to 10 percent of GDP a year on adaptation, while impacts could deliver a 20 percent hit to GDP overall for poor nations by 2050.
Developed countries did agree to collectively double the existing programme of adaption funds from 2019 levels by 2025. But, as with the Covid pandemic, they have failed to give developing countries anywhere near the help they need to save lives.
Elsewhere in the agreement, good progress enabled completion of the rule book to operationalise the Paris Agreement after six years of negotiation. For example, by 2024 all countries will have to report detailed data on emissions in the baselines from which their future reductions can be assessed. Developing countries will get help with this demanding analysis, which will give it global consistency.
This transparency work stream was co-facilitated by Climate Minister James Shaw and Sir Molwyn Joseph, Minister of Health, Wellness and the Environment of Antigua and Barbuda.
And an agreement on new carbon market rules will block some of the worst loopholes that were on the table. This will help create a structured trading regime between countries. But the language isn’t clear enough to stop companies gaming the system, should they choose to do so.
However, in an allied area, the UN Secretary General announced in Glasgow that the UN would establish a new expert group to assess the net zero pledges companies are making. A key issue is whether those plans drive emission reductions rather than rely on offsets. Given the rapid proliferation of such corporate net zero promises, this will be a big task.
The most ambitious leaders in civil society and business convincingly make the case that only big, fast and transformative responses will solve the climate crisis. But the Glasgow agreement shows once again that politicians still don’t know how to deliver them.
The real test comes over the next year to 18 months. If countries deliver on all aspects of the inadequate Glasgow package, while gearing ups for far bigger shifts straight after, then an adequate response to the climate crisis could be possible.
Shaw marked the end of COP26 negotiations by saying it was well past time to move from talk to action in addressing the global climate emergency.
“Now COP26 has come to a close, attention needs to turn to the action countries must take to decarbonise their economies. For years we have been discussing the detailed rules that sit under the Paris Agreement. With much of that now finalised, countries can get on with the crucial work of implementation.
“New Zealand will continue to lead by example here, and show the world what meaningful, ambitious and lasting climate action looks like.”
