The Road to Glasgow COP 26

The world stands at a critical juncture as the Conference of the Parties (COP) prepares to meet for the 26th time in Glasgow. Immense challenges stand in the way of securing international resolve to the climate crisis. In this article, we explore what we can learn from previous meetings in Kyoto and Paris to understand how the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate has rallied nations to work together in a positive way to attempt to resolve an intractable environmental problem. 

Why is the Kyoto Protocol critical as a basis for action on Climate Change?

The Kyoto Protocol of December 1997 puts into practice the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC came into force on 21 March 1994. It has near-universal membership and the 197 countries that have ratified the Convention are called ‘Parties to the Convention.’  The aim of the UNFCCC is to act in unison to prevent “dangerous” human interference with the climate system.

The Kyoto Protocol is a landmark framework as it recognised that there was a need to act, borrowing from the Montreal Protocol (1987), one of the most successful multilateral environmental treaties in history. The Montreal Protocol bound member states to act in the interests of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Ambition 

The Kyoto Protocol resolutely establishes a need to act and establishes binding targets for reductions from the states which have signed, along with monitoring and review systems. In aiming to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, realisable goals are set that “should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."

Roles and responsibilities

In recognition of their historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, EU countries and the US are expected to do the most to cut emissions. In the Kyoto Protocol they are called Annex I countries and belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including 12 countries with "economies in transition" from Central and Eastern Europe. Annex I countries were expected to reduce emissions in relation to each country's baseline levels 1990 levels by the year 2000. 

Under the Convention, industrialised nations or Annex I countries agree to support climate change activities in non-Annex I countries by providing financial support above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries. 

Regular updating of commitments 

Each year, the Parties to the Convention meet to report on progress and agree next steps. In 2015, at COP 21, the Parties, aiming to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, adopted The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC, which established an enhanced transparency framework. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change, adopted by 196 Parties at COP21 in December 2015 and coming into force on 4 November 2016. It aims to limit global warming to below 2 and preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement required all signatories to set emission-reduction pledges. These set targets are called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Every five years countries are required to assess their progress towards implementation. 

Multilateralism 

 The Paris agreement was partly so instrumental as it managed to bring almost all countries on board. Most international institutions such as the UN have no binding power, yet they manage to bring change through emphasis that the only way to solve a global problem is with a collective, global solution. Paris enacted a multilateral solution to politicians more often consumed with national issues and policy. 

Paris also saw leadership from the EU states who coordinated diplomatic action to persuade states to primarily adopt climate goals but also make these goals as ambitious as possible. The EU upheld their responsibility to prevent climate change through taking concrete actions. 

Inclusiveness was a great lesson learnt from Paris. There was a concerted effort to include all stakeholders in the dialogue on climate change. The meeting established the Global Covenant of Mayors which brought thousands of cities together to work on climate action. Opinion makers, influencers, industrial leaders, and youth delegations were all brought into discussions, expanding the traditional fora of debate on climate change. 

Inclusiveness naturally links with the use of digital communication. Social media gave the Paris Agreement a unique opportunity to crowdsource ideas, hold consultations, communicate with the outside world, mobilise people and ideas. This served to increase connectivity between leaders and public opinion, a communication which has grown since 2015. 

Another major success of the Paris Agreement was that it formed a broad consensus on the science of climate change. David Victor, professor of Innovation and Public Policy at the University of California, San Diego, stated that there was “less scepticism on science and more disagreement about how to set priorities.” States acknowledged the key points that the Earth’s temperature is increasing at unprecedented rates, and that human activities such as use of fossil fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - are primary drivers of this change. They also recognised that this had a detrimental impact which can cause heat waves, droughts, and floods, rising seas, ocean changes, Arctic ice thaws, and species extinction. 

Although these factors reflect the important takeaways of the Paris climate accord, there have also been some major learnings which will be under great scrutiny in COP 26. Most markedly, the US withdrawal from the accord during the presidency of Donald Trump, showed clearly the vulnerability of the Paris agreement to national political agendas. The paradox of the Paris Agreement is that its success depends on states such as China and the US, which as well as being geopolitical rivals, have ambivalence over the economic costs of dramatic reductions in their emissions and have the capacity to thwart any further agreements. 

An inadequate Agreement?

 The Paris Agreement has been criticised for not going far enough. According to some scientists, the pledges made by countries to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees or even 1.5 degrees are not sufficiently ambitious. Analysis by UNFCCC in 2021 estimates that even if countries follow through on their current commitments under the Paris Accord, by the end of the century global temperatures will rise by 2.7 degrees centigrade. Experts point out that even at the time of negotiation, the Paris Agreement was recognised as not being adequate, but simply a first step on which later COP meetings would need to build. 

A way forward?

Several countries have strengthened their commitments to reductions in emissions ahead of COP 26. For instance, President Biden in the US has aimed to cut emissions by 50-52% below the 2005 levels, doubling the commitment of President Obama. Yet, it is hard to see how President Biden will fulfil this ambition without congressional support and federal legislation. China has also pledged carbon neutrality by 2060 and yet it continues to support and build coal-fired power plants both domestically and abroad. Here, we can observe the distinction between pledges made in the name of Climate Agreements and their practical implementation. The idea of Climate clubs was championed by Yale University economist William Nordhaus who suggested that there should be penalties for breaches in emissions.

Moreover, it has been suggested that progress on climate change can be made not by global actors but by smaller groups and economic sectors, such as in the aviation or steel industries. There is also scope for bilateral deals between sets of countries, or groups such as the G20.It is hard to see how attempts to shift priorities to suit national economic interests will secure success for COP26.

Rather than retreat from the ambition of the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, and particularly multilateralism, there needs to be stronger commitments made that afford less flexibility for those who would rather ignore the depth of the climate crisis and their national responsibilities to be part of the solution.

Written by Amirkaur and Sofia