November 12 saw the conclusion of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland. Commencing on October 31, there was the expectation over 30,000 people in all would attend the event. An array of world leaders were there at the forefront, engaging in negotiations surrounding a new deal that’d see the world take stronger action on climate change.
The gathering across 12 days in the United Kingdom had both high hopes and pessimism surrounding it. There were those who were optimistic - especially given many countries had experienced extreme weather events in recent times that were directly attributed to climate change - that the Conference would deliver the goods when it came to a substantive new deal. Yet just the same, others were pessimistic anything significant would emerge from COP26.
So what good outcomes emerged from COP26? And what events left people feeling frustrated by the lack of progress? Let’s unpack the answers to these questions now.
Just as many of our readers will have closely followed the proceedings of COP26 we also know others may still be catching up on the news surrounding it, or have perhaps only recently started following major events surrounding climate change action closely. For anyone seeking an in-depth overview of COP26 - and in particular, the Australian government’s net zero by 2050 policy that it took to it - more info can be found in our recent piece. But for those keen on a very quick wrap before we move on to the summary of COP26 here, here’s what you need to know in-brief.
Following on from the Paris Agreement, world leaders went to Glasgow in November to discuss ways in which the world could look to keep the rise in global temperatures under 2°C above pre-industrial levels. More ambitiously - as if this was to occur it's held the world would essentially have to halve its yearly emissions by 2030 - there was the optimism a deal could be struck to see the rise limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. There were real doubts about being able to achieve the 1.5°C target, but also immense anguish surrounding the prospects of failing to do a deal that'd limit warming to under 2°C.
Just as there were specific outcomes of COP26 (more on those in a moment), at the outset it’s important to note the progress that was made generally surrounding the reduction of global temperatures.
It was estimated shortly before the Paris Agreement the world was heading towards a figure of 4°C above pre-industrial levels. Before COP26, it was estimated that work surrounding reductions had reduced this figure to 2.7°C. That is better than 4°C, but still far too high to even be considered acceptable. Post-COP26, it’s now held that the world will see temperatures rise over 2.4°C above pre-industrial levels, though some hold it will be lower.
Clearly, if it is going to be higher that is still a terrible outcome. In turn, even if it is going to be lower it’s unlikely it’s going to get anywhere near the target of under 1.5°C. This said, ultimately the Conference has drawn the world closer to an acceptable target of under 2°C. Futurology is always inexact, but as the target gets closer there is optimism that the political will to ‘get the ball over the line’ will increase in the near future, and on that basis it can be said COP26 provided some real gain in this regard. As the following shows, its achievements in specific areas were also notable.
Unquestionably one of the greatest developments to come out of COP26 is the major agreement struck surrounding deforestation. World leaders from over 100 nations made a commitment to see deforestation ended and reversed by 2030. The land area of countries who committed to the agreement have approximately 85% of the world’s forests within their territory. In turn, approximately AU$26 billion has been committed to making this plan work, with the funds being a mix of public and private financing.
While there are great ambitions around this deal, it’s necessary to note some ongoing turbulence around it between now and 2030 can be expected. For instance, though the Indonesian government signed up to the deal, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, its environment minister, reportedly said following the agreement that development will remain the priority for the nation of 275 million, and that Indonesia could not make a commitment to do something that couldn’t be achieved.
Alongside the news surrounding deforestation, the fact that over 100 countries committed to reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030 (in comparison to 2020 levels) is also a very positive development. For context, Inger Anderson, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme said earlier this year that when it comes to slowing climate change over the next quarter of a century, reducing methane is “the strongest lever” available for doing so.
The agreement seeks to drive down the emissions being caused by fossil fuel infrastructure - such as oil and gas wells - leaking emissions, but that’s not all. In addition to these areas, the deal will also seek to reduce emissions across landfill sites, and of course - in what is perhaps the most widely known source of methane emissions among the general public - livestock farming and the emissions caused as a result of it.
Undoubtedly many people were disappointed by the last-minute push at COP26 for an alteration to the U.N-brokered agreement. The accord initially called for a phasing out of coal. Yet an eleventh-hour push by the Indian government sought to have it changed to a “phase down” of coal, and this ultimately made its way into the final agreement. It’s still progress, but this last-minute alteration was a huge blow to those who felt the will for groundbreaking change could be on the cards.
The Indian government has certainly displeased others with its act here. Yet it’s necessary to note criticism of the U.S and Chinese government in the media has also occurred - such as in the report ‘India’s Last-Minute Coal Defense at COP26 Hid Role of China, U.S.’ by Jess Shankleman and Akshat Rathi on bloomberg.com - which shows while the Indian government is fairly attributed some of the blame here, the role of other governments in this outcome should also not be overlooked, especially by those advocating for stronger action on climate change.
This is because if overlooking the role of others is allowed to occur, it risks progress being frustrated as one particular country can become a ‘lighting rod’ for criticism, instead of the issue properly being seen for what it is: a global issue where all need to take part in seeking to address it.
India’s participation in key events within the closing stages of COP26 should be critiqued - and other nations will undoubtedly be watching with an extra keen eye the policies of New Delhi between now and the Global Stocktake in 2023, to try and glean if they’ll be in a position to offer a more positive platform in two years - but if one nation alone is allowed to be painted as a spoiler, it can ultimately allow other governments a chance to wiggle off the hook when it comes to formulating more decisive policy of their own to stop global warming.
Another source of tension at COP26 surrounded the dynamic between developed and developing nations when it comes to whether the former should play a greater role in facilitating climate change action versus the latter. Though every nation has a role to play in this area, developing nations are making the case that as it is developed nations who’ve been primarily responsible for the majority of emissions which are causing global warming - and that the shift to net zero could come at considerable expense to their current development goals - developing nations should receive assistance - AKA “climate financing” - from developed nations to make the transition.
While COP26 and the lead up to it did see a number of pledges made in this regard - such as the U.S government's promise to provide approximately AU$15.8 billion a year by 2024, and the Japanese government's offer of up to approximately AU$13.88 billion over the next five years to help drive down emissions across the Asian region - ultimately this issue is certainly set to remain a turbulent one between now and the next major summit.
Attendees went to COP26 hoping they could strike an agreement which would see global warming limited to under 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and maybe even to under 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Based on current estimates, neither goal was achieved, and as a result it’s reasonable for people to feel frustrated at the outcomes of COP26.
At the same time, there is some good news here. In comparison to decades prior, the world is now taking the threat of global warming far more seriously, and in turn looking to get more meaningful movements done on shorter timelines when it comes to action on climate change. This does not mean ‘mission accomplished’ by any stretch of the imagination, but it does leave the door ajar for some even stronger changes in policy to more quickly arise in future.
The lead up to the Global Stocktake in 2023 should be watched closely on this basis, especially as many governments who currently have lacklustre net zero policies will have had to face their voters by then. If there is one lesson from COP26 it’s that world leaders are increasingly aware of the risks of being at a distance from their people when it comes to the expectations of the latter for stronger action on climate change. For any leader looking to avoid the risk of losing office between now and 2023, the criticism seen in the media and among the general public following the Conference surely needs to be rapidly absorbed; that failing to safeguard the planet's future is fast becoming a way to shut the door on a continued stay in elected office.