COP26 in review

Abstract

The Glasgow Climate conference was widely understood to be a key moment for the climate (and by extension for humanity) as countries presented stronger emissions pledges in their revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as part of the Paris Agreement “ratchet mechanism”. Given the tight timeline for keeping global average temperature within relatively safe levels and amid the ongoing climate events unfolding around the world, there was some pressure for a sizable step forward to, as the UK COP26 presidency coined it, keep 1·5°C alive. However, the conference began under a shadow cast by the failure of rich nations to deliver on the US$100 billion annual climate finance pledge that should have been delivered from 2020 onwards to help less wealthy nations mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Revealing a real credibility gap between pledges and delivery; a new delivery plan from the COP presidency provided a revised schedule of 2023 but with no discussion of the 2020–22 shortfall. This highlighted ongoing tensions over finance, as well as ambiguity over exactly what counts as climate finance, and did not bode well for discussions about increased funding for adaptation and loss and damage. Most nations did deliver revised national emissions commitments though. The new commitments were not sufficient to keep warming within 1·5°C above preindustrial levels, but if countries are able to deliver on both conditional and unconditional NDCs for 2030 and their longer-term net-zero commitments that is projected to lead to about 1·8°C of warming (1·4°C to 2·6°C) by 2100. Given that this requires full implementation, it is very much a best-case scenario and still short of the 1·5°C goal, even with enhanced global methane and accelerated coal phaseout pledges. However, it does represent a big improvement on previous commitment levels. Perhaps in response to the shortfall in emission ambition, the Glasgow Climate Pact was released. This provides an overarching political intent towards more ambitious climate actions. In particular it requests countries to raise ambition again ahead of COP27 in Cairo next year and opened a dialogue on funding for loss and damage resulting from climate change, as well as pledging to double funding for climate change adaptation. In a notable departure from earlier COPs, the Glasgow text also centred scientific evidence. Drawing directly on IPCC reports, it noted that the impacts of climate change will be considerably lower at 1·5°C than 2°C and resolved to pursue efforts to stay below 1·5°C. Glasgow also delivered on aspects of the Paris “rulebook”, including emissions reporting rules that will apply to all countries from 2024 and the Article 6 rules which cover international cooperation including carbon markets, which are fundamentally important to the functioning of the Paris Agreement. Hard as it may be to believe, Glasgow is also the first COP text to explicitly mention fossil fuels, calling for a “phasedown of unabated coal” and “phase-out” of fossil-fuel subsidies. The language could have been stronger but that fossil fuels are no longer conspicuously absent in these negotiations feels significant to many. Glasgow was also notable in establishing climate as a health concern, something that was largely missing from earlier COPs. Not only does climate change affect people's material wellbeing, it can also have mental health consequences. As reported in a study in this issue many young people feel anxious about the state of the climate and particularly so in the face of the lack of serious government action to date. The Glasgow Climate Conference has likely not done enough to assuage these concerns, but there have been some important steps in the right direction. Of course, the real measure of success of the negotiations will be implementation. That fossil fuel companies are suing governments over climate policies that end fossil fuel subsidies and phase out fossil fuel production through an obscure piece of legislation called the Energy Charter Treaty is a real risk to implementation efforts, so we can expect to hear much more about that in the coming year. Many climate activists were bitterly disappointed by the COP26 outcomes, and understandably so; at the same time many with a long-time involvement with the UNFCCC process feel that significant progress was made. Likely both perspectives are partially correct: real progress was made but much more is still needed and must be demanded.