The 200 countries participating in COP26 (the 26th Conference of the Parties) in Glasglow, Scotland, hoped to have a final agreement on tackling climate change by the end of the day Friday. At the time of this writing, an agreement had not been finished or ratified, and it wouldn’t be unexpected to hear the Friday deadline was missed.
Also at the time of this writing were three primary points of contention:
○ Fossil fuel-dependent nations are still hemming and hawing about cutting back fossil fuel use, particularly coal, which is a major source of climate change-contributing pollution.
○ Wealthy developed nations are still reluctant to pony up the money to assist developing nations bolster their defenses against climate change-caused harms, even though developed nations have contributed the most to global warming while developing nations bear the brunt of the damage.
○ What concessions and agreements have been made so far are on track to warm the earth by 2.5 degrees Celsius, according to a U.N. report released early this week, but the temperature rise must be kept to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030 to divert the worst of climate change’s effects.
On Nov. 4, 40 countries pledged to phase out coal. The U.S. and China — two of the biggest coal users and overall emitters of greenhouse gasses — did not sign the pledge. Instead, Nov. 10, the two countries made a joint announcement to “enhance ambition” on climate change, as reported by The New York Times. China agreed to cut back methane emissions, but the announcement was vague overall, lacking concrete timeframes and amounts.
The latest draft of the COP26 agreement takes a much softer stance on fossil fuel use than earlier drafts, illustrating the far and powerful reach of the coal, oil and gas industries on the world’s top leaders. A previous draft asked countries to phase out coal and end fossil fuel subsidies; the latest version requests the elimination of “inefficient subsidies,” instead. Nature Magazine estimates “governments around the world pour around half a trillion dollars into artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels” annually. In the U.S. alone, the Environmental and Energy Study Institutes says fossil fuel subsidies conservatively amount to $20 billion per year.
There are some good things coming out of the conference. One hundred nations pledged to end deforestation (clear cutting wide areas of trees) by 2030. One hundred countries also agreed to decrease methane emissions by 30%, also by 2030. And India, one of the world’s top coal consumers, made a vow to go “net zero” (taking as much carbon out of the atmosphere as it puts in) by 2070 and make renewables half of its energy portfolio by 2030.
While some progress is being made at the COP26, many of the pledges and vows are couched in vague, wishy-washy language that make it difficult to hold any entity accountable for not meeting the goal. There are lots of “recommendations” and “requests” with hopeful but flexible goals.
Scientists have been warning us for more than a decade that climate change is a global problem with dire consequences. We wasted years trying to convince people that climate change was real, and now we’re out of time for baby steps.
We need big changes, and we need them now.
Several industries’ short-term profitability will be impacted, and we’re all likely to experience some growing pains. However, all the short term discomfort will give us a chance at a long-term future that is not constantly under existential threat.
