It begins today, the second week of the COP26. In this high-level segment, Sherpas take a breath and leave their place at the negotiating tables to their Ministries and close collaborators.
The Conference of Glasgow is at a turning point, and it becomes natural to try and take stock of the work done so far, especially since media are conveying diametrically opposite interpretations.
The British Prime Minister alleges historical results, while the young Greta Thunberg claims another historical failure, efficiently simplifying the negotiations as the “usual blah, blah, blah”.
But let’s concretely take a glance at the strengths and weaknesses of this first week of work to understand who, in a sort of virtual competition, is more right between Boris and Greta.
Meanwhile, one must acknowledge the launch of several initiatives by heterogeneous groups of countries. The first week witnessed the declamation of a series of interesting initiatives, autonomously supported by different countries and hence not part of the shared negotiating path per se.
Like the one that proposes to stop financing new coal plants in the 2030s or 40s – depending on each country’s stage of development – that was supported by 77 countries. However, bigshots such as China, the US and Australia are missing from the agreement. Poland, on its side, aims at joining the G20 but is now considering itself a developing country to shift the deadline to 2049. That said, the balance seems to lean more towards Greta Thunberg’s interpretation.
Another important initiative is that of stopping public financing of fossil fuels by 2023. It seems that Italy’s accession came last-minute, after a crucial tug-of-war between Minister Cingolani, in favour, and Minister Franco, that resulted in the lost opportunity to include Italy in the initiative infographic. In this case, the basic commitment is important, and there does not seem to be any possible distorting interpretations. Hence, we could attribute a point to Boris Johnson.
About 90 countries, led by the EU and the US, then joined the Global Methane Pledge, with the will to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. This proposal could represent a great initiative because methane has a 30 times more powerful impact on climate change than CO2 in the long term, but even 80-times in short to medium term. Unfortunately, China, India, and Russia, whose methane emissions are amongst the most significant, did not adhere to this commitment: we are not sure whether to evaluate this initiative as a draw or if Greta should gain a little advantage.
Another pact wants to shift $18 billion a year in favour of the development of clean energy. However, when the financial aspect is touched, the situation becomes thorny – considering what happened to date on funds allocated long ago (perhaps we will talk about this in the next few days). Not classifiable!
Then, the leaders’ declaration on forests and land use, which wants to turn the tide of deforestation by 2030: was signed by 110 countries. However, the adhesion of Brazil’s president Bolsonaro – who is severely favouring deforestation in the Amazon – makes questioning its real applicability. Hence, a double point goes to Greta Thunberg due to excessive “blah, blah, blahs”.
Indeed, in the meantime, the WMO has turned on an alarm light on the Amazon Forest because the current rate of deforestation is transforming it from a CO2 sink to a net emitter.
But beyond how effective these voluntary agreements between countries can be, there is an important underlying theme. All these actions have been marked through impromptu initiatives and not within the framework of UNFCCC. On the other hand, there have been no great steps forward on the issues on the COP agenda.
Beyond strengthening the Nationally Determined Contributions, the main point is to make Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on market mechanisms operational: we are still a long way from it.
On Thursday, the Chair of the dedicated group presented a completely new document, deleting the parentheses with the different options. Delegates did not broadly accept this amendment, and they went back to the starting point to build a shared text… but with a week less of time.
As to say, even with a good dose of optimism, the glass is this time more empty than full.
