COP26 wrapped up... and Australia named “Colossal Fossil”!
Tuvalu Foreign Minister Simon Kofe’s knee deep speech for COP26 went viral
COP26 - Glasgow
COP26 took place in Glasgow from 31 October to 13 November 2021.
During this time. world leaders were expected to hammer out details on their plans to slow catastrophic global warming.
From UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, President Biden on down, everyone seems to agree that this decade may be our last opportunity to stop catastrophic climate change.
How did this actually pan out for Australia?
Disappointingly, Climate Action Network International* named Australia the Colossal Fossil of COP26 due to its poor results during the two weeks of talks. (On the plus side Australila was voted best coffee of the conference)
At Glasgow, Australia received a total of five fossil of the day awards - significantly more than any other country - indicating a lacklustre approach to its climate policies because…
We announced plans to expand Australia’s oil and gas industries; and
Allowing a fossil fuel company the use of Australia’s official pavilion at Glasgow to promote its business.
What about actual achievements on a global scale, what else happened?
Halfway through the conference, some of the biggest achievements had little to do with the formal negotiations.
These were pledges - essentially side deals to the UN negotiations - by country and industry groups, for example:
more than 100 nations agreed to cut releases of methane by 30% by 2030, (methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide) a move scientists believe could have the most significant impact of all the side deals;
pledges to stop deforestation with countries like Indonesia and Brazil on board pledging billions of dollars to help make it happen; and
promises to stop financing coal plants and plans to start shutting a lot of them down. A pledge by 40-odd nations to phase out coal was welcomed particularly as major coal users like Poland and Vietnam were included however Australia, China and the US were not onboard with these pledges.
Plus, there was a surprise handshake between America and China with Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua explaining the two great powers had found common ground. He said,” We need to think big and feel responsible. We need to actively address climate change through co-operation, bringing benefits to both our two peoples and peoples around the world.”
And, India pledged - for the first time eve r- to a net carbon commitment by 2070! (This is compelling as India is the world’s third largest emitter and has never agreed to set a deadline for when the nation might achieve net-zero emissions)
Week Two got to the UN’s main job of negotiation, among nearly 200 countries and parties.
What happened?
As the Economist (2021) put it: “ They argued over rules for trading carbon credits between countries, issues around transparency, finance to help poor countries decarbonise, finance to help them adapt, and yet more financial provisions to help nations recover from damage done by extreme weather.”
And while the British hosts including COP26 president Alok Sharma kept to the mantra of keep 1.5 alive**, the measures that were put in place feel as though the odds are stacked against us to achieve this as currently, climate models predict that the world will warm by 1.9°C-3.0°C, with a median of 2.4°C, by 2100.***
When it came to the wording of climate action plans, text was watered down and allowances made for the large coal-reliant countries that were refusing to sign.
In the Glasgow Climate Pact nearly 200 countries and parties have agreed to -
Urgently increase the ambitions of their national decarbonisation programs by 2022 including an agreement to come back to COP27 in Egypt with larger commitments;
‘Phase down’ unabated coal power;
Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies; and
Double the availability of adaptation funding for developing nations.
The Decision Making process is challenging…
Whilst all of the above is positive change, according to the climate modellers, the pledges that are currently on the table are a long way from reaching the Paris agreement goals.
“There were politically charged discussions over whether or not the final text should mention “phasing out” or “phasing down” unabated coal, and whether to remove the mention of fossil fuels entirely. Delegates disagreed over whether “urges” or “requests” bore more weight, and bits of text mysteriously disappeared overnight on at least one occasion.” (The Economist, 2021)
And this curly point (again from The Economist, 2021) about how decisions actually get made in terms of the UN framework, means there is is a sticking point to getting action happening urgently!
“It is a little-known fact that there is no formally agreed rule for how decisions must be made within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Voting procedures for the convention have been a point of disagreement since the very first such conference in Berlin in 1995. A small group of oil-producing nations opposed the idea of a decisive three-quarters majority, and decisions ever since have been taken by consensus, even though there is no text requiring it. While sometimes praised for creating a truly global process on a gnarly issue, it is frequently and quite rightly blamed for the glacial pace of climate negotiations”.
So, where does the world stand on reaching those watered down goals?
Many who attended COP conferences over the years noted with much relief that
that there was no challenge to the science of global warming; and
no arguments against the need for action.
Cutting emissions is happening in real time (the UN speak is mitigation ). Mitigation was a key word in the draft paper.
The IPCC advice that emissions cuts of 45% are needed by 2030 was explicitly recognised.
To have that stated so clearly, rather than alluded to vaguely, is a big win for those who want to focus on keeping to 1.5C warming rather than the upper limit of 2C in the Paris agreement.
In addition…
there was acknowledgement that the Paris agreement was not delivering fast enough decarbonisation; and
that nationally determined contributions (NDC’s are countries’ national plans and targets for cutting or curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade) would not be adequate to ‘keep 1.5 alive’.
Delegates have agreed to go back and further review their countries’ commitments and instead of returning in 2025 with further pledges to cut emission levels by 2035, they now have about a year to come up with more tangible goals for achiveing net zero emmissions by 2030.
There’s a gap between
where we are now and the pathways to decarbonisation that countries have committed themselves to; and
the pathway that science tells us is required if we are going to stick to the 1.5 degree target, (which is vital for many countries for whom that gap is enormous).
But one outcome is for certain the drive to 1.5 is alive!
Going forward, what’s happening…
Address the Climate reporting standards:
"The International Sustainability Standards Board will produce the new global standard next year to replace a confusing mixture of disclosure practices that some companies now use to assess the impact of climate change."Applying Practical policies to offset carbon emissions:
This report by Grattan Institute suggests offsetting carbon emissions will be an essential part of Australia’s quest for net zero but must not become an excuse to delay cutting emissions. Offsetting can be part of a low-cost climate change policy but is also controversial: some see it as an excuse to delay reductions, others identify problems with environmental integrity, and there is much uncertainty about its real potential.Funding the transition:
Prof. Tim Flannery who was in Glasgow representing Climate Council Australia noted that the most important meeting of COP actually happened two months before the event when 45 global investment banks met to commit $130 trillion of funding towards converting the global economy to clean energy, which has private capital mobilising to confront the threat of climate change.
Further Reading/Viewing
Was COP a Success
Climate Change Jargon
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms
References
The Economist
Climate Council Australia
The Guardian
* Climate Action International is a network of global environment groups
** A reference to the Paris target of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels
*** Climate Action Tracker report
Want to get ethical?
We’ll help assess your intended investment against your priorities. We’ll work through what ethical mean to you, and how the companies you’re interested in manage environmental, social and governance issues (ESG) in their business.
Get our Guide to Ethical Investment with everything you need to get started
Stay on top of your finances
Getting your finances in order is one thing. Staying on top of them is something else again. A change in government policy, new legislation or amended regulations can have a powerful impact on how your finances are structured.
Subscribe to our regular newsletter to stay up to date with all the latest developments and changes.
Uncertain what to do next? Got questions?
Get certainty, direction and answers. Contact us now to talk through any issues you’ve got.
Together, we’ll get your money doing what you care about.