The European Trade Union Institute

COP26: success or failure? A bit of both?

On November 13th, delegates of nearly 200 countries at COP26 agreed on the final text (the 'Glasgow Climate Pact'). Was COP26 a success or a failure? The answer is: probably a bit of both. If you look at the outcome with the perspective of an international climate diplomat, you will probably call it a moderate success; if you use the glasses of the climate activists who believe our house is on fire, the outcome will look like more 'blah blah blah'.

What is the measure of success of COP26?

Most important is whether the 1.5C warming goal can be kept alive. Theoretically, it is still alive; the gap is still huge and seen all the scrambling, the piecemeal progress and lack of real commitments. Something extraordinary needs to happen to achieve that in the next couple of years.

There are two types of achievements to look at the final agreement, the Glasgow Climate Pact and the side-deal pledges.

Many promising pledges have been made with the only flaw that quite often, the biggest emitters were not included. Even so, some of these deals and pledges are significant:

• India's 2070 net-zero pledge, including four commitments for 2030: increasing the share of electricity produced from non-fossil-fuel sources to 50%, reduction of 1 billion tonnes of carbon emissions, 45% reduction of carbon intensity of its economy and increasing renewable energy capacity from 100 GW to 500 GW.
• More than 100 nations promised to stop deforestation by 2030– including Brazil, generally seen as one of the worst offenders. That said, a similar promise was made in 2014, which never really had much effect on the ground.
• The commitment of 90 countries, including for the first time Brazil, to set out new regulatory measures to limit global methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels by the end of the decade is significant progress the curbing one of the most damaging greenhouse gases. While the alliance includes two-thirds of the global economy, half of the top 30 global emitters, including China, India and Russia, are missing from the Global Methane Pledge.
• One hundred ninety parties (including nations, regions and organisations) signed a coal phase-out statement. This is significant, although the case of Poland (with its contradictory pledges, then backtracking), lack of real commitments by China and then the final showdown about the use of words (phase-down instead of phase-out) in the COP26 final document illustrates the value of such statements.  More information on the effect of COP26 pledges on powering down coal is available here.
• Twenty nations` announcement (including the US, UK and Canada) on ending overseas financing of all fossil fuels is estimated to be worth $8bn a year.
• The US, EU, Canada, the UK, and several EU member states signed a Just Transition declaration to provide the framework for an equitable transition to a climate-resilient future. While more than 30 developed countries signed the declaration, it addresses the employment and social effects of a green transition. It speaks up for the need to support developing countries in both mitigation and adaptation. – Read on this declaration also the press release of IndustriAll. According to the ETUC, "the just transition declaration sends a strong signal. It is time for all Governments to sign up and to sit down with trade unions to implement it."
• A declaration on clean vehicles and the phase-out of the combustion engine has been made by 24 countries and six major auto manufacturers on a total shift to emission-free vehicles by 2040. While Poland and Turkey were among the signatories, major automaking countries as China, the US, Germany, and France are not on board. While Chinese BYD and India's Tata, along with General Motors and Daimler, were signing up, Volkswagen's world largest automaker did not.
• The United States-China declaration recognises a significant gap between current ambition and what is required to keep the global temperature within an acceptable limit of well below 2°C and as close to 1.5°C as possible. It is significant progress that the two main global emitters commit themselves to accelerated action in order to reduce emissions during the 2020s.

These declarations are solemnly formulated but leave open questions of credibility. All were agreed outside the main UN framework and not by all nations, with the main emitters often missing. Still, these declarations help inch towards the Paris targets.

What matters, however, is the final text. Is the 1.5 C warming target still alive?

There are three main criteria to measure progress at the COP26: ambition, finance and the Paris rulebook.

Ambition

The mitigation text seems to remain strong - some 'urges' have become 'requests', and the 1.5C target has been maintained. The call for emissions reductions of 45% by the end of this decade is in line with what we need to do to stay under 1.5C and brings the science firmly into this deal. Most significant is the reference that parties need to come back to strengthen their targets after one year. This demand for yearly revisits to strengthen previous deals – seems to be the only way left to keep the pressure up on parties to close the remaining 60% of the emissions gap up to 2030.

Seeing the play with the words about the end of coal (and fossil fuels) could be seen as comical, was there not so much at stake.

First, the reference to fossil fuel subsidies has changed to 'inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, in line with the G20 commitment. But a reference to coal phase-out had survived at first, although the word 'unabated' ahead of it and 'power' after it was added. Finally, "phase out" was changed to "phase down".

Here, how the ominous sentence looks like in the final version:

'36. Calls upon Parties to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances, recognising the need for support towards a just transition;`

Finance

It is positive that there is more detail on adaptation (including finance), as the pact "urges" developed countries "to at least double their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country parties from 2019 levels by 2025 in the context of achieving a balance between mitigation and adaptation".

The pact also "urges" developed countries to fully deliver on their pledge to mobilise $100 billion a year between 2020 and 2025 to help developing countries cut emissions and cope with climate impacts, but refrains from mentioning the shortfall of the 100 bn goal. The text also "calls" on developed countries to provide greater clarity on their finance pledges.

But no progress was made on `Loss and damage`, like the EU, and in particular, the US, have been reluctant to back a developing country proposal for a clear commitment to supply future funding for impacted communities with concerns about raising claims for historic responsibility for causing global warming. Instead setting up a funding facility dedicated to loss and damage, the blocking parties conceded to establish a Glasgow Dialogue "to discuss the arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimise and address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change."

Paris Rule Book 

The third priority for COP26 was for negotiators from the countries that signed the 2015 Paris Agreement to finish the rules to implement the accord. Article 6 - the part of the Paris Agreement for regulating carbon markets and trading caused disappointment again. It left new regulations that would allow double-counting of traded emissions - both in the country cutting the emissions and in the country buying emissions credits. This is widely seen as undermining the national stills sure certain countries (Brazil, Russia, China and India) old carbon credits registered from 2013 will still be traded and used by countries towards meeting their climate plans, again undermining genuine emission cuts. Also, the issue is how to count old emissions credits against current targets - seen as undermining national pledges by reducing the proportion of accurate cuts. With all these flaws, an agreement on the Paris rulebook has finally been reached, and this in itself is seen as a result. The German Öko-Institute think tank has a very good analysis of this issue.

From a European perspective, one must be very clear: the COP26 (just as the former ones) is not about Europe. Europe's role is only to show maximum ambition and inspiration to its counterparts in the rich world and to the main emitter, China, while also setting an example of how the majority of the world population in developing countries can manage ambitious mitigation and raise its adaptation capacity.

While it is indeed an achievement that "just transition" is now included in the main text, it is important to avoid interpretations that would associate a just transition with a slow transition, with less climate ambition. A transition can only be just if it is matched with climate ambition!  It is a positive sign that the 'Just transition declaration' as a side-agreement inspired by trade unions and signed by a number of developed countries recognises this when calling for an equitable transition to a climate-resilient future. Europe should also set an example for how a comprehensive, just transition policy framework can become an integral part of the policy agenda towards a net-zero world.

So, is the 1.5C goal after Glasgow still alive? According to the Energy Transitions Commission maintaining a pathway consistent with limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C global emissions will need to fall to 22 GtCO2/year by 2030. Country pledges before COP26 would have been resulted in 52.4 Gigatonnes/year greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, with COP26 pledges the world is heading for 41.9 Gigatonnes, almost two-thirds of the emissions gap remaining.

Estimates by Climate Action Tracker calculate that updated NDCs for the COP26 would bring a ca 15-17% reduction in the emissions gap, with a gap of over 80% remaining. They reckon that current 2030 targets (without long-term pledges) put the world on track for a 2.4°C temperature increase by the end of the century.

Next steps:

• The next COP27 will take place at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt from 7 to 18 November 2022.
• COP28 will take place in the United Arab Emirates, from 6 to 17 November 2023.

Further analysis:

• EPSU: COP26 - Disappointing results" with a warning about the threat of a return of austerity that would be fatal for a just transition
• TUC: COP26 - Key takeaways for the Trade Union movement
• Carbon Brief: COP26: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Glasgow
• Euronews: Editorial Jos Delbeke and Peter Vis: Where next on COP26? Here are some ways forward
• The Economist: Was COP26 in Glasgow a success?
• Nature: 'COP26 hasn't solved the problem': scientists react to UN climate deal
• Yale Environment 360: Glasgow Disappointed, But It Inched the World Forward on Climate
• Mongabay: Commentary - COP26 opens doors for India to push for a just transition
• New Left Review: Picking winners
• Cambridge University – Joanna Depledge: reflections on Glasgow COP 26 beyond the headlines

Bron : https://www.etui.org/news/cop26-success-or-failure-bit-both