COP26 — We have lost before the start

Climate change has started a long time ago, in the 18?? century, and it will be extremely arrogant and callow to think that one meeting is possible to revert all changes or even initiate such relapse. COP is a marketing and political tool that allows building certain movements which can pioneer remodeling the health of our planet. Everybody has heard about the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, some about Doha Amendment, but it is not only about what our leaders agree and pledge. Sometimes, our protest against the very same leaders is a major asset of the COP itself. Who remembers COP24 in Katowice? I bet everybody knows Greta Thunberg and?Fridays for Future, which infiltrate global awareness thanks to the weakness of COP24. Having all of this in mind, can we rate COP26 in Glasgow as a breakthrough or rather as an irrelevant, political greenwashing?

Opening

The meeting started in full swing with an emotional, perfectly directed, and performed an opening speech from Sir David Attenborough.

I'm biased, as Sir David was my ears and eyes on nature from early childhood. This is how I was exploring the diversity, cruelness, and magnificence of our planet. And now, at the age of 95 years, he asks all the leaders of the world to take action to save the planet, not for ourselves but our children, grandchildren, and next generations.

If this is not enough to create momentum for a twist, there was a second speech. Very emotional cry for empathy from countries that are on the front line of global warming.

Mrs. Mia Mottley, prime minister of Barbados, imposes to all United Nations??? code RED ???, as effects of global warming are accelerating and the time window for meaningful actions is closing.

Both speeches were appreciated by not only participants of the COP but also an activist, which is not very common. Unfortunately, this appreciation did not come with real actions — the final document from COP26 isn't bold enough. It would have been a great achievement 10 or even 5 years ago but now, with constantly shrinking time for action, it is too?conciliatory. There is nothing about food and agriculture,?Loss and Damage fund?was dismissed by US and EU and on the last day, we agreed to?phase down?instead of?phase out?coal. But before analyzing the output of the COP26, let's look at input — how countries have prepared towards the meeting in Glasgow. Let's be fair, 90% of decisions are made not at COP tables but during political negotiations months before the COP.

Before the COP

We have entered COP session with negligence in several decisive matters which set the G20 leaders in rather defending set-up. As energy transition has to be fair and equal (so in normal language — led and financed by rich countries) world leaders, instead of excuses, needed to set up a blueprint of worldwide guidance and cooperation. Let's analyze the most important issues to see if this meeting was able to break the circle of dead circle of nowadays fossil economy and climate changes.

1?? failure — Missing guests

The first thing we have to notice is that China (#1 global CO2 emitter1), Russia (#4), Brazil (#12), and Turkey (#16) were not present. Fighting with climate change is the only war we have to run collectively and on one side. Jair Bolsonaro (president of Brazil) named by The Rolling Stone?World’s Most Dangerous Climate Denier2 is an extreme and evident example of choosing the wrong side, but Russia is a more nuanced one. Russia's power is built on petrodollars and energy security card (especially in Europe). The most daunting aspect is that we cannot see any strategy of shifting those political handles to any other, low-carbon instruments. Additionally, Vladimir Putin claims that pledged carbon neutrality by 2060 will be achieved by increased numbers of forests. Russia argues that due to climate change, more forests will grow in Russia as lands become more habitable. Also, the Arctics melting is helping to establish a new North Sea Route which is driven by … Russia. Double agenda? It does not help the case.

2?? failure — Mind the gap

Most of the countries have submitted Nationally Distributed Contributions (NDCs) and some have also strengthened the targets3, but it is still not enough. The gap between what was announced and what should be achieved by 2030 is huge (19-23 GtCO?e).

What is more, these are only pledges which have not been converted into real actions. If we look at countries like Australia, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, they claim long-term carbon neutrality without showing a realistic roadmap for how they want to achieve it. COP26 has not addressed this problem at all, and we have to wait at least one more year, believing that it is not only political greenwashing.

A great example is India — everybody was enthusiastic about India’s pledges on COP26, but in the end, they still have not formally submitted them to United Nations.

3?? failure — Delivering the promises

We do not deliver what we have already promised. Twelve years ago on COP in Copenhagen, rich countries have promised to channel US$100 billion a year to less wealthy nations by 2020. That money called?climate finance?was supposed to be spent to adapt to climate change (50%) and mitigate further rises in temperature (50%). By 2021 we have reached 80% of this sum and instead of an agreed equal split only a quarter of the collected sum was spent on adaptation. The main reason for such disparity is the lack of a global target for adaptation and the local character of such investments. The mitigation goal (which is cutting down emissions) is recognizable globally and was established 6 years ago in Paris Agreement. To spoil a little, this failure is somehow the source of success when the story continues …

During the COP

Three-null before the meeting is not very optimistic, isn't it? So to balance it a little, let's start with successes that happened or were revealed to the public during the COP26.

1?? success — Keep 1.5? C alive

One of the weaknesses of COP26 is also one of the strengths. Pledges are only pledges, but it is always a starting point and drive for change if it is utilized by leaders as guidance, not as an excuse. NDCs have brought some improvements, as shown in the picture above, but still, the gap remains (after COP26 we have limited the gap, based on NDCs, by only 15-17%). A big announcement on COP26 was that NDCs need to be reassessed and improved not in 5 years but by the end of 2022. Faster sprints and re-assessment is a clear response to IPCC's alert for shrinking time window for imperative actions to stay below 1.5? C. Besides the necessity of closing the 2030 gap, shorter updated intervals put a certain pressure on countries and society to embed global warming mitigation into real strategy and actions.

2?? success — Volunteer is not bad

NDCs are not the only framework on COP to drive emissions down. Another success on COP26 was sectoral initiatives. These kinds of commitments are more narrowed down and volunteer, which on one hand is a downside (not all countries commit and partial focus) but on the other expose real actions with real engagement. All signed-off sectoral pledges are in line with stakeholders' policies, so we can assume that results will be delivered with a higher probability than with NDCs. If we add all sectoral pledges to NDCs pledges, we are decreasing the remaining 2030 gap by quarter.

As you can see in the picture above, we have 4 major sectoral pledges:

1. Global Methane Pledge?— initiative led by the United States and European Commission which aim to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions across all sectors by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. This pledge was signed by 108 countries and European Commission. The estimated impact of emissions by the Carbon Action Tracker is 0.8 GtCO?e.? Nevertheless, top methane emitters like China, India, and Russia did not sign up for this initiative. If we have them on board, the estimated decrease of emissions will double or even triple.
2. Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement?— this initiative focus on erasing coal from power generation. It is based on two parts:

• The transition from unabated coal generation in the 2030s for major economies and 2040s for the rest — this is a crucial pledge to keep the 1.5? C warming limit, but it has limited impact on 2030. Even if we assume that major economies, which signed the statement, will close coal power by 2035, it will decrease the gap in 2030 by only 0.1 GtCO?e. Even if we include all OECD countries, the gap will be decreased by 0.8 GtCO?e. Nevertheless, results will be visible in 2040+ and are extremely important for saving the planet.?
• No new coal plants which have not already achieved financial closure — the impact of this part is extremely low — 0.08 GtCO?e because countries with the biggest coal power pipeline projects (Indonesia, the Philippines, Botswana) didn't sign it up. If all countries in the world were to cancel all their coal power projects, total emission reduction potential by 2030 would be 1.2 GtCO?e.?

1. Declaration on Accelerating the Transition to 100% Zero Emission Cars and Vans?— 100% share of new cars and vans have to be zero-emissions globally by 2040, and by no later than 2035 in the leading market. Again, this initiative has limited impact on 2030 results and with 22 signatories only, it decreases the emissions gap by 0.1 GtCO?e. The biggest car producers countries (Germany, Japan, the United States, China, and France) did not support this initiative. If all governments, including those above, were to sign up the declaration, the additional emission reductions could be as high as 0.75 GtCO?e.?
2. Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use?— halting all deforestation within signatory's borders by 2030. It is the most controversial pledge, which was signed by more than 100 countries. Nevertheless, the impact of this initiative is by far the most difficult to estimate. Climate Action Tracker has estimated this impact to 1.1 GtCO?e emission decrease by 2030. Unfortunately, some key signatories (like Indonesia and Brazil) are reversing or ignoring its decision, which undermines the whole declaration. If all countries committed to respecting this pledge, we could limit emissions even by 2-3 GtCO?e.

3?? success — Equal adaptation

As spoiled earlier, 3rd failure in preparation for COP26 resulted in small success during the meeting. Leaders were able to agree on further steps in setting the target and financing adaptation. Rich countries have committed to double climate financing for adaptation till 2025, and it was approved to establish 2 years program to develop global targets for adaptation. Both topics were on the agenda of less wealthy countries and following Mrs. Mia Mottley's speech, it is vital for the lives of front fighters.

4?? failure — No food

Unfortunately, we need to come back to failures. There was one missing actor on the COP26 scene — agriculture and farming. Emissions from this part of our economy are bothersome and without addressing them legitimately it will be implausible to successfully limit global warming. It is not only livestock or fertilizers “problems” but, not so well broadcast, peatlands removal (natural carbon capture and storage). With a growing society, we need to reinvent the way we deliver food to our bodies. Current habits and menu won't allow us for sustainable existence, not only concerning global warming but also lack of water. This has to be extensively addressed, and hopefully, the next COP will do it smarter.

5?? failure — North vs South

No Loss & Damage fund. The Loss & Damage fund is slightly different from climate finance explained in 3rd failure. It is a matter of historic responsibility and would pay for irreparable losses, such as the disappearance of national territory, culture, and ecosystems. Vulnerable and poor countries of the “south”, which did little to cause climate change, want the richer “north” to compensate them for this damage and damages which will occur.

Sound logical and fair, isn't it? Not for the “north”. Rich parties such as the United States and European Union are very reluctant to comply, fearing exposure to unlimited financial liabilities. During negotiations, Loss & Damage fund was erased from the final agreement … for now. 130 nations which represent 85% of the population want this fund, so it is only a matter of time that countries that build the wealth on fossil fuel will take responsibility.

6?? failure — Phase down

Closing negotiation on the final agreement (known as Glasgow Climate Pact) brought a significant plot twist — India (supported by China) has requested to change?phase out?to?phase down?coal-fired power. The final text looks the following:?

…accelerating efforts towards the phase down of unabated coal power and phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies …

There are two problems with the final wording. Phase down is a completely different thing than phase out and gives a huge threshold for creative argumentation, which does not bring us closer to 1.5? C. It will be not easy to phase out, but in the combination of appropriate funding from the “north”, it has to be done. Li Shuo, a Beijing-based senior climate adviser with Greenpeace, said:

Quitting coal is like quitting cigarettes. It won't be pain-free, but it has to be done, not only for others but for oneself.

Another case is the second part of the sentence —?“inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. Inefficient is one of those words that will doubtless hide a multitude of sins.

The last moment watering-down of the text brought strong disappointment from others and COP26 president (Alok Sharma) apologize for this situation with tears in the eyes. This is a great summary of this failure:

I'm deeply sorry

After the COP

I would love to close the article at this moment with a bitter conclusion with 6 failures and 3 successes, but this is not the end yet. The last failures are about leadership, and I strongly believe these are the most difficult to overcome and the most important on our sustainability journey.

7?? failure — Actions, and not words

Days after President Biden told world leaders that his administration is committed to slowing climate change with?“action, and not words”, his Interior Department oversaw one of the largest oil and gas (twice the size of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico) lease sales in American history. Biden's administration argues that they didn't have an option, as after delaying leases and a lawsuit, the administration was forced to continue lease sales. Yet, environmental organizations claim that not all possibilities were utilized by this administration.

Internal politics (democrats vs republicans), oil & gas money, and the economy are driving such decisions but until we will not have true leadership which is not afraid to make difficult decisions we will always hear?“blah, blah, blah”?and constantly overheat our planet.

“Actions, and not words”, Mr. President.

8?? failure — New paradigm

It is almost impossible to have fair and equal energy transition within the actual economic paradigm. Over 2 weeks in Glasgow we saw that the true agenda of all the leaders were not concerned about climate change but exactly what they're trying to achieve in their day jobs — maximizing the economic growth of their nations. Rachel Kyte, a former United Nations official, said:

I don’t think you can solve the climate crisis on your own as a nationalist leader.?You depend on the actions of others.

Rising nationalism all over the world is only strengthening focus on own backyard, which is the worst possible strategy towards the urgent and existential global threat which does not recognize national borders. We need to set up a new paradigm which less focused on the economic development of individuals and more on sustainable cooperation of all.

Conclusion

The best conclusion for the COP26 was a bittersweet speech in accepting the deal by The Maldives delegate. It is an:

... incremental step forward (and) not in line with the progress needed. It will be too late for the Maldives. This deal does not bring hope to our hearts.?We are putting our homes on the line while other (nations) decide how quickly they want to act. The Maldives implores you to deliver the resources we need to address the crisis in small islands in time … This is a matter of survival.

There are no good COPs. All COPs are bad because we are using compromise to fight the fire.

Not leaders, nor companies, nor countries have to change. We, as a society, have to change. We, as a society, are the main polluters — by (over)consuming goods or using gasoline instead of our own muscles. The real message to us from our?“leaders”?was to consume and spend more (because we are in the middle of the crisis). Nothing about lifestyle change, no limitation on aviation, nothing on paying for polluting (carbon taxes). 8:3 is a bad score that does not show enough leadership and doesn't bring momentum to society to start a change.

And time is ticking…

Thank you again for taking the time to read this article. If you enjoyed this post please click?LIKE, to share it with your network click?SHARE, and if you have any more thoughts drop them in?COMMENTS.

About the author:

Mateusz Kasprzak?is an enthusiast of sustainability with the aim to understand and describe?how the industry is changing our planet and how our planet is changing the industry.

Professionally for more than 10 years, he is helping the industry to translate management goals into real actions and projects with respect to energy efficiency, digitalization, and operational efficiency. One of the first?Official SIRI (Smart Industry Readiness Index) Assessor?in Poland.

References:

1. Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)
2. Jeff Goodell. "What to Do About Jair Bolsonaro, the World’s Most Dangerous Climate Denier" Rolling Stone.
3. Climate Action Tracker.?https://climateactiontracker.org/climate-target-update-tracker/
4. Climate Action Tracker. "Glasgow sectoral initiatives currently close the 2030 emissions gap by 9%". November 2021