Has Cop26 lived up to global expectations?
The term ‘climate emergency’ has been attributed to the increasingly frequent extreme weather, including drought, devastating floods, and deadly wildfires, which have been reported on multiple continents in recent years. In response to these alarming climate trends, UN Chief Antonia Guterres has reiterated the sentiment that climate action must be accelerated.
Global cooperation between developed and developing countries has been viewed as the key mechanism to drive successful action which can mitigate the impacts of climate change. The Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 was viewed as a landmark success in the fight against climate change. 196 states voluntarily undertook the legal obligation to set national climate goals every five years. The Paris Agreement succeeded in the sense that countries committed to devising a systematic strategy in order to tackle climate change. However, the Paris Agreement falls short in that it did not set a legally binding target for all states to attain. The lack of a uniform goal gave states discretion to undertake the minimum level of action, which may not make a material difference, and yet is sufficient for them to meet their internally set targets. The limited reach of the Paris Agreement has been highlighted by NASA analysis, which states the years 2016 and 2020 were the warmest years on record.
Given that scientists estimate there is only one decade left to take to prevent more than 1.5C of warming, the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow has been characterised as the ‘biggest diplomatic event on UK soil since the Second World War.’ According to Alok Sharma, president of the conference, it would be a ‘catastrophe’ if negotiations broke down. Cop26 was the last chance for representatives of almost 200 countries to systematically plan how they will keep global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Yet, the absence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Chinese leader Xi Jingping threatened to sour negotiations before they even began. Though each country had representatives present, the absence of their leaders has attracted widespread criticism, most notably from President Biden. Given that China emits a disproportionate volume of CO2 per year, negotiations to limit CO2 emissions appear to be fruitless without the full commitment of the country whose emissions are most likely to push the climate situation over the edge.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59138578
Despite this initial setback, the Glasgow Climate Pact contains some key provisions
formed after an intense two weeks of negotiation. Firstly, the pact stipulates that countries must report improved 2030 targets in line with the Paris Agreement’s aim to keep global warming close to 1.5C. Though the one-year window appears to be more stringent than the 5-year allowance outlined in the Paris Agreement, there is already uncertainty as to whether this requirement will be upheld by all states. Australian health minister Greg Hunt neither confirmed nor denied whether Australia will update its 2030 emissions target.
On the issue of coal and fossil fuels, final negotiations almost broke down due to a last-minute disagreement on the rate at which coal should be phased out. Delegates agreed to change the wording of ‘phase out coal’ to ‘phase down’, which evidently weakens ambitions to eradicate coal usage. Having been accused of downplaying the shortcomings of Cop26, Boris Johnson reiterated the core issue that sovereign states cannot be forced into decisions. Striking a balance between the competing interests of sovereign states will inevitably reduce the chances that an international agreement will efficiently attain its goals. Yet, the lack of a uniform commitment to the climate crisis has been particularly frustrating for the Pacific Island states which stand to lose everything if global temperatures were to rise incrementally.
https://www.e-ir.info/2020/01/09/climate-change-and-the-sinking-island-states-in-the-pacific/
However, the agreement on emissions reporting and transparency has been characterised as a ‘hidden victory.’ Nations have agreed to standardised emissions reporting practices from 2024, which will provide the public with robust information on the climate action taken by the state. The focus on disclosure of information has the potential to shape consumer demand, which in turn will put more pressure on businesses to rethink their climate strategy, in line with growing emphasis on corporate responsibility.
Cop26 signifies a turning point for business strategy, with plans for a standards body to scrutinise corporate climate disclosures. This agreement intends to directly combat ‘greenwashing’, by ensuring that corporations are delivering material changes through their pledges. Corporations will need to respond and meet the targets set out by national policies in line with the reaffirmed global commitment to cap global warming at 1.5C. Furthermore, delegates have clarified rules on the global trading of carbon offset credits. The trading of carbon offset credits allows organisations to compensate for the greenhouse gases emitted by another party. Putting a price on the action of emitting carbon makes it more burdensome for companies to emit carbon, which in turn will drive company policy to limit carbon-emitting activities.
In relation to the aim of capping global warming to 1.5C, the provisions of the Glasgow Climate Pact appear limited as they are a product of compromise. However, the micro-details, including transparency guidelines and rules on carbon markets have the potential to drive further change in the private sector. Greenhouse gas emissions may be more effectively reduced through a bottom-up approach that is catered to the needs of the private sector. This involves businesses directly implementing changes, as opposed to the capitalist states committing to ambitious targets that are not possible without the input of the private sector.
