Written by Giulia De Palmas
Cop26 is over and not exactly as hoped. The Glasgow Pact unanimously adopted by the 197 countries participating in the UN Conference is a downward agreement: not only inferior to what environmental associations and movements were asking for, and to what environmental associations and movements asked for, but also to the recommendations of scientists compared to the 1.5 degree target. The reference to this threshold remains, as had already been done at the G20, but the road to reach it today appears increasingly tortuous. Cop26 president Alok Sharma announces the result achieved almost in tears, “I apologize for the way this process has unfolded - he declared. - I am deeply sorry, but it is essential to protect this package.”
So, it is no mystery that this long-awaited Pact, which came after long and complex negotiations and lasted one day longer than the scheduled timetable, is not what was expected from the Glasgow summit. It is a problem, because we can discuss about everything, but not the fact that moving forward at this rate, the human species may no longer be able to survive on Earth. Let's see together, point by point, what has been decided.
Rising temperatures below 1.5 degrees
All countries agree on the need to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees compared to the pre-industrial era. Only in this way can we really think about living with the consequences of climate change. The goal was also written in the final document, marking a step forward compared to the Paris Agreement, where there was talk of 2 degrees. The question is: how do they plan to achieve it?
The question of decarbonization
Coal is the most polluting fossil source of all and if we are to keep global warming within livable limits, we need to find ways to stop being dependent on it. In the Glasgow Pact, the reference to decarbonization appears for the first time, but compared to the first drafts of the agreement, the final text is downward.
The minimum target for countries’ decarbonization level by 2030 is set: a 45% cut in CO2 emissions compared to 2010. It is expected to reach net zero emissions around the middle of the century. Again, the 2050 deadline is missing and states like India, China and Russia have already moved the deadline to 2060, if not 2070.
States are also required to update their decarbonization commitments, the famous NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions), by 2022. Also, for the first time, the explicit reference to coal-fired power plants and the public subsidies they receive appears. However, contrary to what was hoped, it is not asked to eliminate them, but to “reduce” them. India has particularly fought for this change in terminology, supported by China, which declared, through its Minister of the Environment Bhupender Yadav “It is not the task of the UN to prescribe energy sources. Developing countries, like India, want to have their fair share of the carbon budget and want to continue their responsible use of fossil fuels.”
Climate finance
When it comes to climate finance, stock exchanges and world banks immediately come to mind, incomprehensible terms and graphs that are constantly updated. In reality, in this case the implication is much more practical: developing countries need funds from the richest countries (i.e. US) to be able to implement their ecological transition, learn to live with the consequences of climate change and be able to solve the damage already caused by the environmental crisis. They have every right to receive it, since, the most industrialized part of the world is responsible for that damage, that is, the one that produces the greatest amount of polluting emissions.
This is also a sore point, and which was discussed the most. The Glasgow Pact urges the richest countries to keep the promise of US$100 billion a year to feed a fund for developing countries, even if it does not specify how this money will then be disbursed. For years, in truth, this commitment has been reaffirmed and never kept. In this case, it was above all the United States and the European Union that resisted.
The reactions
Political leaders and delegates who took part in COP26 say they are satisfied with the agreement reached, or at least they try. John Kerry, the US climate envoy, said that “Glasgow is a program that tells us what we need to do. Believe it or not but this is the first time that coal has been mentioned. We are closer than ever to avoiding climate chaos… This is the beginning of something. We always knew Glasgow was not the finish line.”
Alok Sharma, despite the evident discomfort, nevertheless reiterated how history was made in Scotland. Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, added that the deal is “a big step forward, even if there is still a lot of work to be done in the coming years.”
The most honest reading is perhaps that of Antonio Guterres, UN secretary general, who at the end of the conference hailed the Pact as “a compromise reflecting interests, conditions, contradictions and the state of political will in the world today.”
The criticisms of the environmental movements
The first to react to the official communications is Greta Thunberg on Facebook with the statement “Cop26 is over. Here a brief summary: blah, blah, blah. But the real work continues outside these rooms. And we will never give up.” The Extinction Rebellion also speak of failure, while several associations still have to express themselves.
In the next few days these agreements will be analyzed and understood, but in the meantime the eyes are already on Sharm el-Sheikh, where the next Cop27 will be hosted.