COP26: Tempest in a Teapot?

Among the signatories is Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, which is particularly notable. His pledge comes as a surprise, as the rate of deforestation in Brazil rose by 22% between August 2020 and July 2021 alone. As such, it remains to be seen whether Brazil’s sudden commitment to halt deforestation can effectively be translated into action. 

Another critical agreement emerging from the COP26 is the so-called Global Methane Pledge, from which over 100 states have committed to. Although methane has a shorter atmospheric lifetime than carbon dioxide, it holds much higher warming potential. Indeed, over a period of 20 years, a unit mass of methane has an impact on climate estimated to be 84 times greater than that of CO₂, and methane is responsible for a quarter of today’s global warming. The reduction of methane emissions can thus have a rapid beneficial effect on global GHG emissions. Still, it should also be noted that, unlike carbon dioxide, a large portion of global methane emissions result from leakages. These could be avoided, for instance, by using existing technologies. In that respect, the commitment made by multiple states to rapidly reduce methane emissions is commendable, but its implementation in the short term will require careful attention. More crucially still, the notable absence of major methane emitters, such as China, Russia and India, already weakens the impact of this agreement. 

The International Partnership for a Just Energy Transition might be the most promising agreement to come out of this COP. As part of this initiative, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union have committed to financially contribute to South Africa’s energy transition. Today, coal accounts for 87% of South Africa's electricity, making it the world's 12^th largest emitter of greenhouse gases. In this respect, South Africa ranks ahead of the United Kingdom while having an economy that is eight times smaller. Besides, the consequences of South Africa’s high-carbon development are far from trivial. Across the country, climate has been warming at twice the global rate, endangering agricultural activities and continental logistics networks. The Partnership announced at the COP26 is set to mobilize $8.5 billion to help decarbonize South Africa’s economy. While this sum will most likely be insufficient, it is part of an innovative framework that aims to create a new path for clean development. Ultimately, the success of this partnership could elevate South Africa's green credentials on the rest of the continent for decades to come. 

However, on the last days of the conference, India, China and Saudi Arabia successfully toned down the level of ambition found in the wording of the final text. Instead of mentioning a "phase out" of coal use, the final agreement came to refer to a "phase down", a damaging decision. However, these efforts should be placed in the context of increasingly high demand for electricity in these countries. As most of their electricity supply stems from low-cost coal mining, we can hardly expect the same commitments from them and other countries that have already succeeded in eliminating coal from their energy mix, as is the case for the United Kingdom. Moreover, the agreement focuses exclusively on the use of coal in the energy sector, and disregards its use in other sectors. If we are to realistically meet the commitments made under the Paris Agreement, we would need to move away from coal altogether. 

Not high enough, not strong enough

Will these commitments be enough to tackle the global climate crisis? Simply put, the answer is a strong no. The agreements resulting from the COP26 reveal major flaws, which would only be acceptable in the context of a climate urgency that did not jeopardize the fragile balance of the ecosystems on which we all depend. Rather, the perpetual lack of a decisive turn on climate governance suggests the worst.

What’s more, only a very small portion of the aid has reached the African continent, which finds itself in urgent need of additional resources to face climate change. Many African countries are among the most affected by the consequences of global warming, while the African population is expected to double by 2050. Between 2014 and 2018, the so-called "adaptation" aid received by African countries only amounted to an average of $5 dollars per person and per year. 

Failure by the world’s richest countries to meet their climate commitments in the past greatly weakens the credibility of the new commitments that were previously mentioned. The final text agreed upon at Glasgow simply encourages an increase in the levels of climate finance, instead of revising mechanisms that help to ensure states’ accountability on these environmental matters.

On "loss and damage" too, the COP26 left many disappointed. While vulnerable countries have been calling for help from countries that have historically been the biggest emitters, the COP26 has not allowed such a mechanism to emerge. This mostly stems from fears that a strong enough commitment would allow vulnerable countries to take legally binding actions against developed ones. Yet, how can so-called "developing" countries be expected to embark on a costly and uncertain environmental transition without any substantial assistance from countries that are most responsible for the current climate crisis? This question clashes with the reality of the loss and damage discussion as we know it today.

This is a disappointing prospect. More discouraging, still, is the fact that it is largely unrealistic, as it assumes that all states will honor their pledges. In particular, commitments to achieve carbon neutrality are risky and uncertain, to say the least. As a reminder, states would need to reduce GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 to maintain world temperatures below 1.5°C. This would imply reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 at the global level.

From commitment to action

Beyond the results obtained in Glasgow, it is the very functioning of the COPs that must be questioned. Conceived as spaces for multilateral reflection, these conferences are not binding for the stakeholders involved. They are closer to Robert Keohane’s conception of a "regime complex" than to the integrated climate governance that could have been envisioned at the time of the Kyoto Protocol. The current perception of consensus as being the cornerstone of climate governance inevitably results in annual disappointment. While this regime also allows some states to move faster when others are reluctant to take ambitious action, it faces the fundamental "collective action problem".

In retrospect, then, the 26^th edition in Glasgow did not perform so poorly for a COP. States did commit to new and relatively ambitious actions, which could prevent a few tenths of a degree of warming before the end of the century. The COP26 also encouraged governments to raise their objectives for the coming year. However, it is no longer time to be satisfied with the announcement effects that have characterized the COP summits since their launch in 1995. Most governments now recognize the urgency of the climate crisis we are facing, even if they are not yet ready to push for collective climate action ahead of other national concerns. It is for that reason that we previously called for a shift from a COP of commitments to a COP of action, a call left unanswered as of now. 

What is left? The signing of the partnership between several Western countries and South Africa appears to be an encouraging initiative. In the same way, progress made around Article 6, which should allow for the creation of an international carbon credit market, gives additional consistency to the COP26. These two initiatives favor concrete action, and might spark a paradigm shift for the following COPs. Without any possible concession in the face of climate urgency, however, the objective must now be clear: give states concrete means to invariably respect their climate commitments.

Copyright: Paul ELLIS / AFP