COP26 Final Declaration: What the Climate Summit Achieved


analysis

Status: 11/14/2021 1:12 a.m.

Glasgow should go down in history as the summit to bring about the global exit from coal. And he should bring the world on a course of 1.5 degrees limit. What has been achieved and what has not been achieved?

By Werner Eckert, SWR, currently Glasgow

Self-commitments and their effect

So far, 151 countries have submitted new voluntary commitments (NDCs) on climate protection. This dampens the expected global temperature increase to 2.4 degrees by the end of the century. Far from the 1.5 degrees that the states jointly strive for. But also significantly better than the five to six degrees that were expected with a simple “business as usual”.

In addition, a quarter of the countries still have to submit such voluntary commitments and there will be another tightening round by 2025. New in Glasgow has been the request to make improvements in the coming year. This goes mainly to China and India, which have so far presented very inadequate plans.

More than ever it is formulated in the final documents that the 1.5 degree limit requires faster and more decisive action and that the annual amount of CO2 that is released must be practically halved by 2030. The pressure has increased on several levels.

If you look at the long-term declarations of intent of all countries and assume that they will start working towards it immediately, the best case scenario is currently 1.8 degrees. If, on the other hand, you look at the specific targets up to 2030, emissions will continue to rise by then (plus 13.7 percent).

Announcements and initiatives

Several climate protection initiatives have been launched or expanded in Glasgow. However, they are not binding and in many cases it is not possible to check whether and what they bring beyond the national commitments.

There is an initiative to protect the forests, several platforms on the subject of coal and a declaration by several countries that no longer promote fossil fuels abroad. US President Joe Biden’s methane initiative has been expanded. A group of states have agreed to speed up the end of the internal combustion engine.

Germany has joined most of these initiatives, except the Auto Initiative. At least the advance on methane, the second most important greenhouse gas, and the forests could also have a practical effect.

Finances

The industrialized countries had already promised in 2009 that they want to mobilize 100 billion US dollars annually from 2020 onwards to help others to phase out fossil fuels and to adapt to the consequences of climate change. It is about help, but much more about loans and investments, for example in modern technologies and structures.

Profitable business for companies from industrialized countries is definitely possible. Nevertheless, the promise has not been fulfilled. The funds will probably not rise to this amount until 2023.

In the future – this is new in Glasgow – more attention will be paid to the distribution. So far, only 20 percent of the funding has gone into adaptation measures. About half of the amount was actually agreed. In Glasgow it has now been decided that the appropriations for adjustment will at least be doubled. All of this is initially limited to the period up to 2025.

How things will continue will now be clarified by 2024 after the resolutions. The important thing is the yardstick: the needs of those affected. This can result in much higher financial flows, as developing countries put their needs in the trillions.

Damage and loss

For years, developing countries have been demanding a mechanism by which damage and losses caused by climate change can be offset. The flood on the Ahr showed what that means – damage amounting to 23 billion euros. A rich country like Germany can do that. Many poorer countries are harder hit and have fewer resources. But the industrialized countries fear that incalculably high financial claims could arise. Germany is working with insurance companies on concepts that make this manageable.

A secretariat is now being set up to deal with the subject. There is no such thing as a financial institution like the one the developing countries had asked for. But at least there is a chance. And Scotland created facts and provided £ 2 million to at least get a start. Germany has added ten million euros here.

From coal to renewable energies

Even the announcements of all the important countries that they want to operate climate-neutrally by around the middle of the century are a clear signal: In a climate-neutral economy, coal, oil and gas can no longer play an essential role (only via CCS, by separating CO2 from the exhaust gases, compacted and stored underground – a time-consuming and expensive process). This means that coal-fired power plants – if at all – can only be calculated with relatively short running times. That makes them very expensive.

In addition, there is the signal from the Glasgow text that the states should step up their efforts to phase out coal. This will be tried out using South Africa as an example. Some states, including Germany, have launched an initiative to enable this country to make an energy transition and thus prevent the construction of new coal-fired power plants. Indonesia and several other Asian and African countries have expressed an interest in joining.

A number of countries put on record in Glasgow that they had already anchored the coal phase-out. The most recent G20 decision already stated that major nations no longer give money for international coal projects. In Glasgow, the financial sector has also made it clear that it will no longer finance investments in coal-fired power stations at all or only with high risk surcharges.

The passage on the reduction of subsidies for other fossil energies, such as oil and gas products, turned out to be weak. John Kerry, the US climate envoy, described it as “madness”, and the money could be so well used differently. Nevertheless, the final text only states that “inefficient subsidies” are to be cut. However, this opens the door to the imagination. Everyone can understand what he wants.

Political consequences USA-China

Surprisingly, the USA and China made a joint declaration on climate protection in Glasgow. You are building on the agreement of 2015 between the Obama administration and Beijing, which made the Paris Agreement possible in the first place. On the one hand, the current declaration is seen as a political anchor for the divergent relations between the two countries.

On the other hand, the USA is bringing China back on board when it comes to international climate protection. President Xi Jinping was the only important head of state who had not come to Glasgow. After Paris and while Donald Trump was leading the United States, he was initially heavily involved in climate protection. But last year the conflicts with the United States were a hindrance in other areas.

Without China, however, the problems cannot be solved. So far, Beijing has promised to cut its emissions around 2030. Conversely: Until then, they will continue to rise. If it stays that way, there is no way of meeting the 1.5 degree limit. China is responsible for around 30% of global emissions. Analysts say: China should bring the date forward to 2025 at the latest. Even if the current statement does not say so, it improves the outlook.

The rule book for the Paris Agreement

Work has been going on on the rule book for the Paris Agreement since 2015. Several attempts have failed. It has now been concluded in Glasgow. There are rules according to which states collect, calculate and report their national climate protection commitments. International cooperation between states on climate protection is also regulated. It can make perfect sense not to invest a certain amount of money in climate protection in your own country, but elsewhere, where you can achieve much greater effects with it.

There was a lot of wild growth under the old Kyoto Protocol. Credits were created that did not really benefit the climate. This should now get better under the Paris Agreement. States and companies can now conduct such cooperation according to fixed rules. Significant loopholes have been plugged in the process. There will be no double counting of saved tonnes of CO2, the rules provide for a comparison in the donor and recipient country so that this can be checked.

There will be no credits for countries simply not cutting down their forests. But the price was that old climate certificates from the time before the Paris Agreement are now being transferred to the new system. That will tear a hole, but at least its size can be estimated and, given the gigantic increases in greenhouse gases in China and India, it is almost small.

source site