COP26 was a curate’s egg – good in parts

The dust has settled after COP26 and the eyes of the world have returned to business as usual – the Omicron covid variant, supply chain shortages, soaring energy prices and the migration crisis.  Now is a good time to reflect on the Glasgow summit, the largest gathering of heads of state since the Paris COP in 2015, and ask whether it was a success.  Was it a feast of blah blah blah and greenwashing? Or did we witness a pivot point, a moment where actions finally began to match the imperative of tackling climate change? My view is that it was better than anyone imagined, but nowhere near what is needed. 

Was it a feast of blah blah blah and greenwashing? Or did we witness a pivot point, a moment where actions finally began to match the imperative of tackling climate change?

Mary Creagh, Chair, Responsible Business Practice, Lexington

So what went well?

First, the summit was billed as the last chance to keep 1.5 degrees Celsius of global heating alive.   Did it achieve that goal?  Only just, and the goal is on life support.  But the fact it is still in the final text as a target is welcome progress.  The five-year review period for 2030 NDCS (Nationally Determined Contributions) has been shortened to a year which mean all eyes will be on COP27 in Egypt next year.  The problem can no longer be kicked down the road.  The Paris Rulebook has been completed, so countries have a common, transparent approach to emissions reporting, and there are rules for international carbon markets, which should help achieve the target. This decade of climate action will see 2022 COP reviews putting the heat on governments, business and citizens, as never before.

Second, there was a real sense of urgency building around the 2030 decarbonisation goal.  This COP saw a big increase in ambition and commitment from all countries, regions, states, cities and investors.  90% of global GDP is now covered by Net Zero commitments, up from less than 30% at the start of the UK’s COP presidency.  India’s promise of 50% renewable energy by 2030, and to achieve Net Zero by 2070, and China’s pledge to achieve it by 2060 represents real progress and is a huge undertaking.  China has done a huge amount to reduce the cost of solar, batteries and wind and is likely to invest heavily in green steel and hydrogen to achieve its target earlier than 2060.

Third, side deals, which avoided the need for consensus from all 196 countries, were an innovation at this COP. Reducing methane is key to reducing short term global emissions and 105 governments signed up to reduce their emissions by 30% by 2030.  There was disappointment that large methane emitting countries like Australia, China and India did not sign up to the deal.  The spotlight will now fall on oil and gas companies to give life to this promise.

The side deal to end and reverse deforestation and land erosion by 2030 was signed by 100 leaders, including Bolsonaro of Brazil, a sign of the massive value that forests have in tackling global heating.

Mary Creagh, Chair, Responsible Business Practice, Lexington

The side deal to end and reverse deforestation and land erosion by 2030 was signed by 100 leaders, including Bolsonaro of Brazil, a sign of the massive value that forests have in tackling global heating. The £14 bn of public and private funding over the next 5 years to 2025 (including $2 bn from Jeff Bezos for land restoration in Africa) will also provide money for indigenous communities.  The declaration was accompanied by declarations from large financial institutions and agricultural commodity companies to end investment in deforestation and in supply chains – a multi-pronged systems-based approach which will be closely monitored by civil society groups.  With nearly a quarter of global emissions coming from agriculture and logging, this is a key weapon in the fight against climate change.

Fourth, a Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (GEAPP), a collaboration between governments, development banks, multilateral banks, the private sector and philanthropists was launched at COP. It seeks to invest $100 bn over ten years into in green energy transitions and renewable power solutions worldwide.  The goal is to create and de risk the financing pipeline for energy poor countries, to avoid investment in polluting, high carbon industries and to bring green energy to a billion people in low-income countries. There was an agreement to help South Africa phase out coal.

So what went badly?

There was unhappiness from poorer countries that the $100 billion promised in Paris to help low-income countries deal with the effects of climate has still not fully materialized a year after the 2020 deadline. How the money should be allocated is another point of contention, with an agreement that the amount going to climate adaptation, currently $20 bn, should double by 2025. A call for donor countries to pay loss and damage to countries severely affected by climate events was discussed but did not bear fruit, to the bitter disappointment of countries on the climate frontline.  A “Glasgow Dialogue” has begun, but the arguments around the need to avert, minimize and address such damage will be a key battleground at COP27 next year.

Many were disappointed by the US, China and Germany’s refusal to sign up to end the production of internal combustion engines by 2040.  The COP President, Alok Sharma, was blindsided at the last minute by a refusal from India to agree to phase out coal. After intense talks, an exhausted, tearful and apologetic Sharma presented a changed text promising to “phase down” coal.  But this is still significant progress and the looser language reflects the political constraints in countries that are still heavily coal dependent.

Progress was not held back by lack of unanimity. Perfection was not the enemy of the good.

Mary Creagh, Chair, Responsible Business Practice, Lexington

COP26 was a curate’s egg – good in parts

Coming after a year of drought, floods and forest fires there was consensus on the climate science and significant momentum on the ambition, funding and actions needed to tackle global heating through system wide change by state and non-state actors.  Progress was not held back by lack of unanimity. Perfection was not the enemy of the good.  The International Energy Agency declared the promises made at Glasgow would keep emissions to around 1.8 degrees. 

The campaigners are right to say it is not enough.  They are right to point out that past declarations have not led to meaningful change.  Climate Action Tracker is right that current policies put us on track for 2.4 degrees of warming.  Difficult decisions lie ahead. But Glasgow’s acceleration of promises, and the refocusing of the global financial system on keeping 1.5 degrees alive means we can hope for a net zero emissions future sooner rather than later.