THE REVIEW
Several weeks on from the United Nations Climate Change Conference, Elaine Butler examines the real impact
Although some, like Teresa Anderson, a climate policy coordinator at ActionAid International, argue that COP26 was just “a carefully orchestrated bombardment of announcements with very little backing”, it was a COP of firsts. The first time fossil fuel and methane were mentioned, the first time a mechanism for reporting companies’ carbon emissions was tabled and the first time there was a sense of urgency to the event and text agreed upon.
[restrict]Let’s drill down into the main headlines of the event and see what impact they could have.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Global Warming
Before COP26, the world was on track for 2.7°C of warming, based on commitments by countries and hopes for technological breakthroughs. Just to put that figure in context, In the months before COP26, people on every continent had felt the visceral impacts of a changing climate at just 1.1C of global warming, being hit by floods, wildfires, storms or heat waves.
Announcements at COP26, including new pledges to cut emissions this decade, by some key countries, have reduced this to a best estimate of 2.4°C*, but only if countries deliver on their 2030 emissions targets.
When you consider that not so many years ago, we were seriously contemplating temperature rises of 4°C or even 6°C this is a positive change but we are not out of the woods.
You may be wondering what happened to keeping global warming down to 1.5°C? Well, as put by COP26 president Alok Sharma, 1.5°C remains alive, but it’s “pulse is weak”. It is estimated that the various deals will shave 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide off our 2030 emissions, which is only 9 percent of the cuts that have to happen to put us on course for a global warming of 1.5°C.
To have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100, global emissions need to fall roughly in half by 2030, and reach zero by 2050. By way of comparison, humans emitted 5.4 percent less CO2 during 2020, because of the covid-19 pandemic, but 2021’s emissions were 4.9 per cent larger.
Currently 74 countries have net zero commitments, which cover at least 76% of global GHG emissions. However, only 12 of these are actually reflected in law today.
According to Claire Stockwell, senior climate policy analyst at Climate Analytics “It is all very well for leaders and governments to claim that they have a net-zero target, but if they don’t have plans as to how to get there, and their 2030 targets are not aligned with net zero, then, frankly, these net-zero targets are just paying lip service to real climate action.
Also disappointingly, countries will be allowed to partially meet their climate targets by buying carbon credits. This means that instead of having to actually reach zero emissions, countries and companies can balance the emissions they do create by buying carbon savings (credits) from companies that have them.
Methane
Methane also made its debut at COP26, with the official text stating that nations are “invited” to reduce methane emissions by 2030, but over 100 countries declared commitments to cutting methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
Methane from agriculture was noticeably absent from discussions around methane reduction, which is worrying given that it causes 40% of methane emissions. America’s methane-reduction plan focused almost exclusively on reducing methane leakage from fossil-fuel extraction and, according to Politico, “misrepresent[ed] and minimise[d] the livestock sector’s contribution” to methane emissions. Similarly, New Zealand’s net-zero commitment exempts methane from agriculture and waste.
Even our own Taoiseach was quick to settle critics of our commitment to the 30% reduction pledge, stressing that the figure of 30% was a global target rather than a national one, i.e Ireland doesn’t have to deliver 30% reduction itself.
Fossil Fuels
For the first time ever fossil fuels were specifically mentioned at a COP, which might seem crazy to anyone looking in from the outside, but politics moves slowly, especially when there is strong lobbying working to slow things down.
Coal is arguably the worst fossil fuel because it emits the most greenhouse gas per unit of energy generated. At COP 23 countries promised to stop new coal power schemes, and to phase out existing ones., including five of the top 20 coal-using countries: South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Poland and Ukraine, but the list of countries doesn’t include the three largest coal users: China, India and the US.
If we wanted to limit global warming to 1.5°C we would have to close 40% of the world’s 8,500 coal plants, according to Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA). This is not likely to happen given the final text at COP26 was to ‘phase down’ coal (as opposed to the original proposal to ‘phase-out of fossil fuels’)
Coal may be the poster child of dirty fossil fuels but we need to say goodbye to gas too. Between 2020 and 2019 emissions from gas rose by 42 per cent and it is projected to cause 70% of global emissions by 2030. The increase in emissions by 2030? Gas will be responsible for 70 per cent of it.
That said, several countries have joined an alliance committed to halting future oil and gas production within their borders. Known as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA), the group now includes France, Sweden and Ireland – joining the initial leaders, Denmark and Costa Rica. At the moment BOGA doesn’t include any countries that produce significant amounts of oil and gas but such alliances do tend to grow over time, so if campaigners keep up the pressure, it may well be that more countries will join.
Also 25 countries have agreed to shut off new international finance for fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022. This is to be welcomed, even if the countries involved are still able to finance fossil fuel projects within their own borders, as it still sends a “really, really powerful market signal”, which was highlighted by Emma Pinchbeck at trade group Energy UK.
On a negative note, a push to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels has been watered down and ended up only referring to “inefficient” subsidies, whatever that means.
Deforestation
At COP26 more than 130 countries pledged $19.2bn towards ending deforestation by 2030, but critics pointed out the similarities to the New York Declaration on Forests, which was signed in 2014 and also pledged to halt deforestation by 2030.
Also, in the wake of the announcements governments were already starting to fudge the issue. For example, Indonesia’s vice foreign minister, Mahendra Siregar, stated that they interpreted the commitment as “sustainable forest management…not end deforestation”. And as Brazilian environment minister Joaquim Pereira Leite announced that the country was committing to end illegal deforestation by 2028, Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro pushed for legislation to legalise deforestation – undermining the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge.
On a positive note 28 of the largest consumer and producer countries of beef, soy, cocoa and palm oil discussed a roadmap identifying areas of work to tackle deforestation in commodity supply chains, although they didn’t agree on a final approach.
Energy
In the search for carbon neutral energy sources, nuclear featured quite heavily in pledges. China is building “at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35”. Closer to home the UK government has committed £210 million to support the development of new “small modular reactors” or SMRs, each capable of powering 1 million homes. Although smaller and more efficient, these SMRs still produce radioactive waste and are vulnerable to natural disasters like traditional nuclear reactors.
Financial Support
At COP26 attending countries pledged to double the money given to help lower-income countries adapt to climate change to $40 billion by 2025. This could be a positive move, even if previous commitments haven’t been fully realised, but it does depend on whether funding is made available in the form of loans or grants.
Developed countries, led by the US and EU, resisted taking any liability for loss and damages arising from the climate crisis ,and vetoed the creation of a new way of supporting vulnerable nations, called the “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility”. Despite this, Scotland itself offered 2 million pounds in funding for a loss and damage scheme.
Financial Markets
In a move that will hopefully bring about systemic change, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) announced a draft climate standard, which will help companies measure and report clearly on their climate strategies. The hope is that companies which can show they’re ahead on their plan will be seen to be better prepared and therefore attract more investment, while those behind in the plans will most likely have to invest to catch up, meaning additional debt, making them less attractive. So immediately, the valuation of companies in the stock market will be impacted.
In the past, 140 countries agreed to be part of the IFRS metrics so it’s likely they will adopt this new climate strategy. Hopefully this will mean that by 2023, all companies will be able to—and in some cases compelled to—report under these new standards. Hence if a company is ahead of its plan, the market will look at this positively. If you’re late, it means that there are some capital expenditures that you need to do in the future, which means additional debt.
Overall
It’s fair to say there were positive and negative outcomes from COP26. In addition to the ones listed above there was a notable absence of conversations around food, a huge generator of emissions and deforestation, and an over dependence on unproven technology to deliver zero emissions. That said, according to Christiana Figueres, a former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, there is “much more urgency in the language, more alarm, more than I have seen in any previous text”.
Ultimately, UN climate summits alone can only do so much. The battle to keep 1.5°C alive will be won at ballot boxes, on the streets, in courts and in boardrooms. In the words of our lighthouse Greta Thunberg “Instead of looking for hope – start creating it.”
*Estimates are within a range of error from 1.8 – 3.3°C, which is worrying to say the least. Sources: The New Scientist, Green is the New Black, Carbon Brief, The Conversation
[/restrict]
