COP26: The Glasgow Climate Pact
The text was not radically different from the draft issued earlier in the day, although one last-minute change to the drafting caused many delegates to express deep unhappiness.
Wording on coal and fossil fuels appeared in the final text – the first time they have been mentioned in a final COP decision. But the wording was progressively diluted from draft to draft: having begun with unexpectedly tough language on the need to speed up the phasing out coal power and subsidies for fossil fuels, it emerged from the negotiations as a call to accelerate the “phase-down” of “unabated coal power” and “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” while recognising the “need for support towards a just transition.”
The switch from “phase-out” to “phase-down” was requested in the final session of the conference by group of nations including China and India, whose environment minister said it reflected the “national circumstances of emerging economies.” But many other nations expressed dissatisfaction with this, including some of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, with the Marshall Islands “profoundly disappointed” and Fiji “immensely disappointed”.
The island nations were also among those disappointed by what they saw as weak provisions on climate finance and ‘loss and damage’. The pact does represent some progress in this area, urging developed countries to “at least double their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties from 2019 levels by 2025.” There will also be a new dialogue on how to fund support for vulnerable nations. But a facility for support that had been included in the initial draft of the decision was cut, apparently at the instigation of developed nations. The delegate from Antigua and Barbuda, speaking on behalf a number of developing nations, officially registered a grievance over the absence of such a facility from the Glasgow pact.
There was more general praise for the agreement on mitigation, requesting countries to improve their 2030 climate targets by the end of 2022. While not as strong as some had hoped, this is a significant acceleration of the Paris timetable for emission reduction, and is widely seen as necessary for any serious attempt to limit global warming to well below 2C.
Rules for global carbon markets were also agreed. This has not been such a high-profile topic as coal or ‘loss and damage’ during the negotiation, but was an important piece of unfinished business from the Paris Agreement, and could open the way for huge amounts of spending on initiatives such as renewable energy and reforestation. Concerns remain about the potential for greenwashing, but a number of possible loopholes were closed, and the system will include some provisions to prevent the double-counting of carbon credits, as well a block on the carrying forward of credits issued before 2013.
For UN secretary-general António Guterres: “The approved texts are a compromise. They take important steps, but unfortunately the collective political will was not enough to overcome some deep contradictions.” The secretary-general called for accelerated action, telling delegates that “it is time to go into emergency mode – or our chance of reaching net zero will itself be zero.” And he ended with a firm message to all the parties involved in the process: “COP27 starts now.”
COP26 headlines
Negotiators Strike a Climate Deal, but World Remains Far From Limiting Warming (The New York Times)
COP26 climate deal includes historic reference to fossil fuels but doesn't meet urgency of the crisis (CNN)
COP26 agrees new climate rules but India and China weaken coal pledge (Financial Times)
Alok Sharma denies climate pact failure and hails ‘historic language’ about coal (Independent)
U.N. climate summit reaches carbon markets deal (Reuters)
The Glasgow climate pact, annotated (The Washington Post)
1.5C 'only just' in reach: Business leaders and green economy react to Glasgow Climate Pact at COP26 (edie)
Cash, coal, cars, trees… and choreography: how Britain kept Cop26 alive (The Observer)
40,000 attendees, 15 days — but was it all a waste of time? (The Sunday Times)
Was COP26 in Glasgow a success? (The Economist)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Media cookies collect information about you sharing information from our website via social media tools, or analytics to understand your browsing between social media tools or our Social Media campaigns and our own websites. We do this to optimise the mix of channels to provide you with our content. Details concerning the tools in use are in our privacy policy.