Glasgow Climate Change Summit Ends with Partial Success

Manas Dasgupta

NEW DELHI, Nov 14: After two weeks of hard negotiations as the governments kept squabbling over provisions on phasing out coal, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and providing money to the poor world, the annual climate change summit came to an end on Saturday night at Glasgow with a resolution for various countries to “revisit and strengthen” their existing emission targets by 2022.

The resolution called the “Glasgow Climate pact” by all means was much weaker-than-expected, though most countries insisted that the agreement was an important though small step in keeping alive the hopes of achieving the 1.5 degree Celsius temperature goal. But the experts and civil society groups saw it as a missed opportunity to enhance global climate action.

A statement from the United Nations Secretariat said at the conclusion of the 26th United Nations Conference of Parties (COP) in Glasgow, “The Glasgow Climate Pact, combined with increased ambition and action from countries, means that 1.5C remains in sight, but it will only be delivered with concerted and immediate global efforts.” The Paris Agreement, a treaty signed in 2015, exhorts countries to strive to curtail emissions that would prevent temperatures from rising over 1.5C by 2100. This would require significant adaptation to renewable energy, cutting global emissions by as much as 45% by 2030 and effectively zero emissions by mid-century.

But the long-time COP-watchers said despite progress on future emissions reductions, COP26 failed those most impacted by the climate crisis now. “The COP26 has definitely narrowed the gap for 1.5 and the processes which can be taken for future action. But the failure of the U.S. and EU to deliver on the promised $100 billion in climate finance remains urgent and central to any ambitious climate action. Blocking the establishment of even a modest fund to help vulnerable communities around the world with the massive loss and damage they are experiencing at the hands of the climate crisis is a serious blow. As with COVID, those with the least resources have been left to fend for themselves,” said Arti Khosla, Director, Climate Trends.

A major target when negotiations began on November 1 was to tie up loose ends from 2015 Paris Agreement. The Paris Rulebook, that specifies guidelines for how the Paris Agreement is delivered, was also completed on Saturday after six years of discussions. “This will allow for the full delivery of the landmark accord, after agreement on a transparency process which will hold countries to account as they deliver on their targets. This includes Article 6, which establishes a robust framework for countries to exchange carbon credits through the UNFCCC,” the statement noted.

India was among the countries that had insisted on clarity on Article 6 because a bulk of the carbon credits accumulated by its several companies — private and public sector enterprises — over a decade were infructuous and India had pushed for them to be made valid again. Carbon credits allow companies in developed countries to indirectly pay for clean energy transitions in developing countries by accumulating credits. However, criticism mounted that that was not actually leading to measurable reductions in overall polluting emissions and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that validated carbon credit trading had expired in 2020.

A key thrust of COP 26, led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which held the presidency this time, was to have countries such as India and China agree to a year, preferably mid-century, by which their emissions would be near zero. This would also imply phasing out coal. However India, in a last minute intervention and supported by China, opposed such wording in the text of the agreement. As a compromise, it now reads that coal will not be “phased out” but “phased down.”

The U.K. Presidency noted that as recently as 2019, only 30% of the world was covered by net zero targets and this had now moved close to 90%. Over the same period, 154 Parties (of the nearly 200) had submitted new national targets, representing 80% of global emissions.

“The U.K. Presidency has also been focused on driving action to deliver emissions reductions. We have seen a huge shift in coal, with many more countries committing to phase out unabated coal power and ending international coal financing,” the statement noted.

“We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action. I am grateful to the UNFCCC for working with us to deliver a successful COP26,” COP President, Alok Sharma, said in a statement, “From here, we must now move forward together and deliver on the expectations set out in the Glasgow Climate Pact, and close the vast gap which remains.”

India had indicated that it needed a trillion dollars in the coming decade to be able to meet its 2030 commitment – that Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced at Glasgow — to increase the use of non-fossil sources of energy by 500 GW, decarbonise its railways and increase its emissions intensity. It also appeared to suggest that it would “update its Nationally Determined Contributions” only on getting assurances about this. However, the text of the agreement indicates that all countries should deliver climate plans to the U.N. on five-year cycles and using a common time frame for NDCs starting 2025.

The Glasgow meeting was the 26th session of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP26. These meetings are held every year to construct a global response to climate change. Each of these meetings produce a set of decisions which are given different names. In the current case, this has been called the Glasgow Climate Pact.

Earlier, these meetings have also delivered two treaty-like international agreements, the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015, which form the global architecture for actions to be taken to tackle climate change. While the Kyoto Protocol expired last year, the Paris Agreement is now the active instrument to fight climate change.

The main task for COP26 was to finalise the rules and procedures for implementation of the Paris Agreement. Most of these rules had been finalized by 2018, but a few provisions, like the one relating to creation of new carbon markets, had remained unresolved. However, due to clear evidence of worsening of the climate crisis in the six years since the Paris Agreement was finalized, host country United Kingdom was keen to ensure that Glasgow, instead of becoming merely a “procedural” COP, was a turning point in enhancing climate actions. The effort was to push for an agreement that could put the world on a 1.5 degree Celsius pathway, instead of the 2 degree Celsius trajectory which is the main objective of the Paris Agreement.

Hence, more than 100 heads of states and governments were invited to attend the meeting and lend their political weight behind the process. So many leaders have assembled on only two earlier occasions, at the climate meetings in Copenhagen in 2009 and Paris in 2015. On both those occasions, the COPs were aiming to deliver a major agreement. Copenhagen had failed in that, but Paris had succeeded.

Glasgow did benefit from the presence as many of them also announced new and enhanced climate actions. However, the final agreement was a mixed bag, as most such pacts invariably are.

On the achievement side, the Glasgow agreement has emphasised that stronger action in the current decade was most critical to achieving the 1.5-degree target. Accordingly, it has:

1. Asked countries to strengthen their 2030 climate action plans, or NDCs (nationally-determined contributions), by next year
2. Established a work programme to urgently scale-up mitigation ambition and implementation
3. Decided to convene an annual meeting of ministers to raise ambition of 2030 climate actions
4. Called for an annual synthesis report on what countries were doing
5. Requested the UN Secretary General to convene a meeting of world leaders in 2023 to scale-up ambition of climate action
6. Asked countries to make efforts to reduce usage of coal as a source of fuel, and abolish “inefficient” subsidies on fossil fuels
7. Has called for a phase-down of coal, and phase-out of fossil fuels. This is the first time that coal has been explicitly mentioned in any COP decision. It also led to big fracas at the end, with a group of countries led by India and China forcing an amendment to the word “phase-out” in relation to coal changed to “phase-down.” The initial language on this provision was much more direct. It called on all parties to accelerate phase-out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies. It was watered down in subsequent drafts to read phase-out of “unabated” coal power and “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies. But even this was not liking to the developing countries who then got it changed to “phase down unabated coal power and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support to the poorest and the most vulnerable in line with national circumstances…” Despite the dilution, the inclusion of language on reduction of coal power is being seen as a significant movement forward.

Though not part of the final agreed outcome, Glasgow can certainly claim credit for facilitating some of following actions:

8. India announced a Panchamitra (a mixture of five elements) of climate actions. It raised the targets for two of its existing climate targets, announced two new ones, and also promised to turn net-zero by the year 2070. India’s new commitments created the maximum buzz on the first two days of the Glasgow meeting.
9. Several other countries also announced enhanced climate actions. Brazil, for example, said it would advance its net-zero target year from 2060 to 2050. China promised to come out with a detailed roadmap for its commitment to let emissions peak in 2030, and also for its 2060 net-zero target. Israel announced a net zero target for 2050.
10. Over 100 countries pledged to reduce methane emissions by at least 30 per cent from present levels by 2030. Methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential nearly 80 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time period. This pledge, if achieved, is estimated to avoid about 0.2 degree Celsius temperature rise by the middle of the century. The methane pledge is being seen as one of the biggest successes at COP26.
11. Another set of over 100 countries promised to arrest and reverse deforestation by 2030.
12. Over 30 countries signed on to a declaration promising to work towards a transition to 100 per cent zero-emission cars by the year 2040, at least in the leading car markets of the world.

Most of the countries, especially the smaller and poorer ones, and the small island states, consider adaptation to be the most important component of climate action. These countries, due to their lower capacities, are already facing the worst impacts of climate change, and require immediate money, technology and capacity building for their adaptation activities. As such, the Glasgow Climate Pact has:

1. Asked the developed countries to at least double the money being provided for adaptation by 2025 from the 2019 levels. In 2019, about $15 billion was made available for adaptation that was less than 20 per cent of the total climate finance flows. Developing countries have been demanding that at least half of all climate finance should be directed towards adaptation efforts.
2. Created a two-year work programme to define a global goal on adaptation. The Paris Agreement has a global goal on mitigation — reduce greenhouse gas emissions deep enough to keep the temperature rise within 2 degree Celsius of pre-industrial times. A similar global goal on adaptation has been missing, primarily because of the difficulty in defining such a target. Unlike mitigation efforts that bring global benefits, the benefits from adaptation are local or regional. There are no uniform global criteria against which adaptation targets can be set and measured. However, this has been a long-pending demand of developing countries and the Paris Agreement also asks for defining such a goal.

Every climate action has financial implications. It is now estimated that trillions of dollars are required every year to fund all the actions necessary to achieve the climate targets. But, money has been in short supply. Developed countries are under an obligation, due to their historical responsibility in emitting greenhouse gases, to provide finance and technology to the developing nations to help them deal with climate change. In 2009, developed countries had promised to mobilise at least $100 billion every year from 2020. This promise was reaffirmed during the Paris Agreement, which also asked the developed countries to scale up this amount from 2025. The 2020 deadline has long passed but the $100 billion promise has not been fulfilled. The developed nations have now said that they will arrange this amount by 2023.

A deal aimed at staving off dangerous climate change has been struck at the COP26 summit in Glasgow. The pact has:

1. Expressed “deep regrets” over the failure of the developed countries to deliver on their $100 billion promise. It has asked them to arrange this money urgently and in every year till 2025
2. Initiated discussions on setting the new target for climate finance, beyond $100 billion for the post-2025 period
3. Asked the developed countries to provide transparent information about the money they plan to provide

The frequency of climate disasters has been rising rapidly, and many of these cause largescale devastation. The worst affected are the poor and small countries, and the island states. There is no institutional mechanism to compensate these nations for the losses, or provide them help in the form of relief and rehabilitation. The loss and damage provision in the Paris Agreement seeks to address that.

Introduced eight years ago in Warsaw, the provision hasn’t received much attention at the COPs, mainly because it was seen as an effort requiring huge sums of money. However, the affected countries have been demanding some meaningful action on this front. Thanks to a push from many nations, substantive discussions on loss and damage could take place in Glasgow. One of the earlier drafts included a provision for setting up of a facility to coordinate loss and damage activities. However, the final agreement, which has acknowledged the problem and dealt with the subject at substantial length, has only established a “dialogue” to discuss arrangements for funding of such activities. This is being seen as a major let-down.