COP26: changing the world?
COP 26 brings together 191 states in Glasgow in November in what needs to be the farthest reaching and most productive climate talks ever to have taken place. In this article, we examine what threatens to limit the success of the talks.
We will highlight which countries’ leaders have opted out of coming to Glasgow, their reasons for doing so and the impact that this could have. We will also set out the evidence from a leaked document which shows attempts by some countries to exert leverage over the scientists to secure their national economic interests.
The aims of COP 26 are to extend the emission reduction goals that emerged from the Paris Agreement in 2015. But there are distinct differences between different nations’ priorities and the international pledges towards tackling climate change. Whereas COP26 president, Alok Sharma says that he wants COP26 to be where coal power is consigned to history, India, Australia and China continue to produce and fund coal power. Negotiations need to agree upon common time frames and approaches for future emissions reductions.
Moreover, in 2009 developed countries pledged to raise $100 billion per annum by 2020 to help developing nations deal with the impacts of climate change. The most recent data from the OECD shows that in 2019, only $79.6 billion was raised, effectively a shortfall of over 20%. Experts say that the failure to meet this goal only damages trust at the climate talks. At COP 26 a new finance goal needs to be set.
Failure of leadership?
China’s Xi Jinping reportedly will not be at COP 26 in person but is likely to make an appearance by video. There is speculation whether his absence is due to COVID 19 or Xi’s decision to stay away could prelude to China refusing to set new climate change goals. China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and therefore its non-attendance strikes a major blow to the heart of COP 26.
Russia is another state whose leadership has failed to commit to attending Glasgow. Putin’s presence was perceived to be key to the success of the summit given that it is the fourth largest emitter and in 2019 produced slightly over 5% of the world’s emissions. While Russia maintains that addressing climate change is “one of our foreign policy’s most important priorities” Putin’s unwillingness to attend Glasgow’s summit indicates differently. Indeed, the Climate Change tracker, an independent scientific tracker stated that Russia was critically insufficient in its policies and had not put enough money or resources towards meeting its Paris goals.
Reluctant attendance
In September, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison signalled that he was not planning to attend COP 26 and framed his attendance as a burden, ““Its another trip overseas...and I've spent a lot of time in quarantine.” Morrison received great international backlash for this move and was placed under great scrutiny for his government’s slow climate progress. Australia retains a heavy reliance on coal-fired power, which makes it the most carbon polluting nation in the world per capita. Canberra is also staunchly protective of its fossil fuel industry and has pledged to continue mining and trading dirty fuels as long as there is demand in Asia.
However, over the last weeks, Morrison has stated that he will be in attendance in Glasgow and has even led largely unsuccessful efforts to persuade his cabinet ministers to opt for the policy of net-zero emissions by 2050.
Morrison’s decision to attend COP26 came with international pressure from allies such as the US. America’s recent Aukaus Agreement to supply nuclear powered submarines to Australia perhaps could have played a role. Although Morrison has shifted his position on Australia’s climate action, he maintains that Australia’s economy is nonetheless his central focus, and the government’s coalition partners - the National Party- are staunchly against reducing emissions.
Although Australia is attending COP26, this hardly changes its domestic capacity or willingness to push through an ambitious climate agenda.
National interests versus reducing emissions
India is also another state attending COP26 with Prime Minister Modi having previously stated that he wants India to be a global leader on green energy. Despite this ambition, India still derives 70% of its energy from coal and is building yet still more coal-fired power plants. India is the second-largest producer and consumer of coal after China and the coal industry is deeply entrenched into the national economy of India.
Despite this, India has set out ambitious targets for reducing emissions relative to GDP by 33-35% by 2030 from their 2005 level. It also aims to garner 40% of electricity from renewable sources and enhance its carbon sink by planting trees.
Global leadership?
The US has placed the fight against climate change at the centre of US domestic and foreign policies. Biden has set an important new tone for the international community. It is often perceived that Climate change conferences are centred around the cooperation of China and the US despite their differences over policy. Another framing is that the US and EU must lead the way in setting ambitious COP26 targets. However, some commentators have expressed the view that this overlooks the role of smaller and developing countries.
One such country, the UAE, seems an unlikely player but has made a considerable difference to the call for climate action in the Middle East. Abu Dhabi recognised that the world is moving away from fossil fuels and was the first Middle Eastern country to announce the net-zero goal by 2050 fully aligned with the Paris Climate Accords. It has committed $160 billion to this effort, reconciling their pledges on climate action with tangible and viable policy solutions. They have also built up infrastructure for green power, including solar and wind farms, of which they have the largest in the world. Abu Dhabi will plant 30 million mangrove seedlings during this decade to preserve coastal ecosystems.
Already we can see how countries like Abu Dhabi who put actions to their pledges have caused shifts in the regional appetite for change. Saudi Arabia has recently announced their ambition to reach net-zero emissions by 2060. Although we cannot tell whether they are directly related, it is certain that changes to regional attitudes on climate policy place greater pressure on other nations to follow suit and make similar pledges.
Those nations in attendance will carry responsibility to make COP26 a success, but there are other ways in which success at Glasgow has been undermined in the past months and weeks by manoeuvring by other State players and organisations.
Intense lobbying on eve of COP26 reveals the true priorities of big carbon emitters
While the assembled nations in Glasgow will claim to be acting strongly in order to curb climate change, a leaked document shows states such as Saudi Arabia, Australia and India have been lobbying behind the scenes to reduce the sense of urgency behind the need for immediate action. A scientific report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be a key document which informs the commitments made at COP26 yet its contents have been subject to modification from 32,000 submissions made by governments, companies, organizations and other groups.
The IPCC has resisted all efforts to influence the contents of its scientific reports and analysis, while being open to scrutiny of its work. Many experts argue that only a combination of rapid reductions in emissions alongside investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS), which might not be a sufficiently feasible technological solution, can offer the prospect of bringing the rise in global temperatures down to acceptable levels. Yet several countries, such as Saudi Arabia, China, Australia and Japan, have tried to argue that the onus in the draft report for COP26 should be on CCS technologies to reduce emissions from fossil fuels rather than reducing reliance on the fuels themselves. Mention in the IPCC draft report of the how lobbying has adversely impacted action on climate has been objected to be by Australia, which has defended its own heavy reliance on coal-fired power stations for domestic energy production.
Just like the icebergs which are being threatened by the impact of warming seas, our view of COP26 should be informed by the knowledge that the majority of its agenda takes place below the surface, where the lobbying efforts of governments and companies with vested interests in the carbon-based global economy will try to influence its outcome.
By Sofia and Amirkaur
