COP26 – the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties – was billed as: “It is the last best hope” to tackle the impact of climate change on the planet.
The ultimate aim is to ensure that nations meet the targets laid out in the Paris climate agreement; and ensure that global warming is kept under two degrees Celsius, compared with pre-industrial levels, preferably at close to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
New International Energy Agency analysis indicates that if COP26 commitments are met, global warming could be held to 1.8 degrees Celsius.
Expectations were high when the conference took place in Glasgow on Oct 30.
I was among many looking toward the leaders to turn this hope into reality – it even went beyond schedule and ended a day later on Nov 13.
Now that the dust has settled, its time to take-stock: To see what’s done, and what’s not (or still to be) done.
What’s done
> At COP26, 114 countries (including China) agreed to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030; through finance for partnerships in developing countries to tackle the root causes of deforestation.
> The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero agreed to align US$130 trillion (RM547.6 trillion) of finance towards addressing climate change, particularly in emerging and developing countries (EDCs).
> Agreement by the United States and China to cooperate to reach net zero. Also, undated emissions reduction targets (known as nationally determined contributions) from large emitters including and major EDCs such as Nigeria.
> Recognition of the need to phase-down (not phase-out) coal power generation.
> A Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030 was made by over 100 countries, driven by the US and the EU.
> Increased recognition of the importance of adaptation, resilience, and loss and damage, with limited but significant funding.
Sure, the conference produced mix-results-with big agreements on some key issues. All this progress comes with significant caveats; change still need to be accelerated.
Further, these commitments rely on effective delivery, and EDCs are not yet all aligned with pathways to achieve the goal of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Still to do
The new global deal, especially the finalisation of the rulebook of the Paris Agreement, bears great significance for defending multilateralism and its implementation.
The conference delivered some notable deals on deforestation, fossil fuel subsidies, coal and methane reduction, and engagement with the private and financial sectors.
The China and US joint declaration helped bring about a broader consensus. However, a “gulf remained” between what countries have promised on emissions reductions and what is needed to meet Paris goals.
An initial draft had called for nations to “phase-out coal” projects this decade; but this language was changed to “phase-down”, after stiff opposition from India requiring the phasing out of fossil fuels in EDCs that are in the midst of industrialisation and poverty eradication.
Developed countries, therefore, must take the lead to cut emissions instead of pushing EDCs to stop consuming coal. Rich countries must implement their pledges of funding and technology support for the developing countries. In the end, the approved texts represent a compromise.
Unfortunately, the collective political will was not enough to overcome some deep contradictions. As I see it, fossil fuels subsidies need to be phased-out and coal use must end.
COP26 fell far short of what is needed for a safe planet, owing mainly to the same lack of trust that has so far burdened global climate negotiations.
EDCs regard climate change as a crisis caused largely by the rich countries. Worried that they will be left paying the bills, many key developing countries, such as India, don’t much care to negotiate or strategise.
They have a point. The shoddy behaviour of the US over three decades is not lost on them. Despite the worthy pleas for action, President Biden was unable to push US Congress to adopt a clean-energy standard.
Indeed, the rest of the world now sees the truth: America’s broken and corrupt Congress remains in the pocket of Big Oil and Big Coal.
Finance
As I see it, financing is at the heart of the geopolitical rupture on climate change. EDCs are already reeling under countless pressures: the Covid-19 pandemic, weak domestic economies, increasingly frequent and severe climate-related disasters, the multiple disruptions of the digital age, US-China tensions, and high borrowing costs on international loans.
Against this background of high economic anxiety, EDCs see the rich countries failing to honor their promise – dating from COP15 in 2009 – to mobilise a meagre US$100bil (RM421.2bil) per year for climate action in developing countries.
With US global influence waning, America’s nationalists have turned even more aggressively against the rest of the world. “America Firsters” in Congress would block any new appropriations.
Many governments in Europe are in roughly the same position, perched precariously between the nationalists and internationalists. And, with high European deficits, many parliaments have little taste to do more.
The result is the chronic deep under-financing of global public goods such as a safe climate, the Sustainable Development Goals, and Covid-19 vaccines.
Developed countries are not doing enough to support developing nations in their transition to clean energy or their struggles to adapt to climate change. Leaders of developing countries argued that rich countries, which built their economies through industrialisation, are to blame for global warming.
Developing countries need money for things such as building sea walls and moving residents to safe areas in extreme weather, as well as technologies to deal with droughts.
Other possible investment includes “a modernised, clean electricity grid” that would help them reduce carbon emissions.
Developing countries, especially the least developed and small-island states, are among the most vulnerable to natural disasters. Due to the coastal location of small-island states, they are more prone to natural disasters.
Eighty percent of the 1,200 islands that constitute the Maldives are less than one meter above sea level and face the threat of disappearing under the rising sea. Such countries lack the financial resources to defend themselves against extreme weather events, which usually cost billions of dollars.
It was in this context that the UN developed the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” in tackling climate change.
It was also in line with this principle that developed countries committed to a collective goal of spending US$100bil (RM421.75bil) a year by 2020 to help their less developed counterparts mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The limited progress in overall climate finance volumes between 2018 and 2019 is disappointing. In fact, even US$100bil (RM421.75bil) is far from enough for developing countries to transform their energy systems and achieve net-zero emissions.
They need at least between US$140bil (RM589.7bil) and US$300bil (RM1.26 trillion) by 2030 to cope with climate change.
Furthermore, many developed countries have chosen to provide finance in the form of loans rather than grants. With interest to be paid, this adds to the financial strains on developing countries, already reeling from financial losses because of climate change.
Countries also tend to provide finance for mitigation measures (which help alleviate the impact of climate) instead of adaptation measures (which help countries switch to green economies, thus more able to adapt to the effects of extreme weather).
About 70% of funding between 2013 and 2018 supported mitigation efforts, and only 21% was used for adaptation, which is the most pressing need for developing countries.
COP26 presented a moment for solidarity. What the developing world needs in earnest, among other assistance from advanced economies, is funding and technology for alternative lifestyles, clean and renewable energy pollution-free transport and industrial development.
The US$100bil (RM421.75bil) a year climate finance commitment in support of developing countries must become a US$100bil (RM421.75bil) climate finance reality.
Those suffering the most – namely, Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States – need urgent funding. More public climate finance. More overseas development aid. More grants. Easier access to funding.
The US$100bil (RM421.75bil) pledge has long been seen as a minimum (that) climate finance must increase over time. Realistically, India’s demand is now US$1 trillion (RM4.22 trillion).
Political mutual trust between the wealthier and low-income countries is essential for global cooperation on climate change.
Countries with large green areas and re-greening potential, as well as countries with vast seas that have the potential to contribute to carbon sequestration, need support and contribution from developed countries.
Individual countries’ current pledges will only cut emissions by 7.5% by 2030, but a 55% emissions cut is required to meet the Paris goal of maintaining global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Going by the latest pledges, the world could be heading to a temperature rise of 2.7 degrees Celsius this century.
The climate crisis had taken a toll on ecosystems and livelihoods, and that robust measures are urgently required to reduce carbon emissions and accelerate a green transition.
Despite having limited resources compared with developed countries, many EDCs announced or reaffirmed their ambitious climate goals at COP26.
What then are we to do?
As I see it, the financial failures at COP26 are both tragic and absurd. Consider that the much-vaunted Climate Adaptation Fund (established to help developing countries to meet their adaptation needs) collected all of US$356mil (RM1.5trillion) in pledges at COP26, or roughly five cents per person in the world’s developing countries.
Financing for “losses and damages,” that is, to recover and rebuild from climate disasters, fared even worse, with rich countries agreeing only to hold a “dialogue” on the issue. This financial voluntarism doesn’t work and needs to end.
COP26 showed definitively that asking national politicians to vote for voluntary funds for global public goods is a dead end. The rich-country politicians had a dozen years to get the promised climate financing in place, but they failed.
A rule-based system, with fair and transparent burden sharing, is the way to go to secure the financing we need for planetary safety and fairness.
Currently, China contributes 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions; the United States 15% and the EU 8%. All three have set ambitious emissions reduction goals.
China will peak greenhouse gas emissions before 2030 and become carbon neutral by 2060. The US will reduce its emissions by 50% by 2030, and become carbon neutral by 2050. The EU has pledged a reduction of 55% by 2030, and to also become carbon neutral by 2050.
China has seen a spectacular development of its low-carbon technology. Today, 45% of all wind turbines and 72% of all solar panels worldwide are produced in China.
But while clearly a world leader in renewable energy, China is still very much dependent on coal. China will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad. That is a significant development.
The lofty goal that the international community has set can only be achieved by even more stringent national contributions, strict adherence to these pledges and close cooperation, in particular among the three major players on climate policy.
One cannot expect fruitful cooperation on climate while rivalry or even hostility on other issues persists.
Former banker, Harvard educated economist and British Chartered Scientist Prof Lin of Sunway University was chairman, Rio International Experts Group on Finance for Sustainable Development, UNCSD, New York, 1994-2004. Feedback is most welcome. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access
Cancel anytime. Ad-free. Unlimited access with perks.
