16/11/2021

(AU The Age) Good COP, Bad COP: Climate Wins And Losses From Glasgow

The Age - Lesley Hughes | Wesley Morgan

Authors
  • Lesley Hughes, a Climate Council spokeswoman, is a professor of biology and pro vice-chancellor at Macquarie University.
  • Dr Wesley Morgan is a Climate Council researcher.
COP26 has finished and the question on everyone’s minds is: “was it a success or a failure?” Climate change is the world’s most wicked and complex problem, so there is no simple answer.

But let’s start with the pretty good. Intense pre-COP negotiations resulted in a number of substantial commitments in the first week of the meeting.

On day two, there was the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests & Land Use, a global pledge to end and reverse deforestation by 2030.

More than 100 countries signed up, covering land containing about 85 per cent of the world’s forests.

The declaration included pledges of about $26 billion of private and public finance.

COP26 President Alok Sharma speaks at the close of COP26. Credit: Getty

Day two also saw the announcement of the Global Methane Pledge, designed to reduce methane 30 per cent by 2030.

More than 100 countries signed up, representing about 70 per cent of the global economy.

Coal was the focus of day three, culminating in more than 190 countries and organisations signing up to the Global Coal to Clean Energy Transition Statement.

This is aimed at phasing out coal power and ending support for new coal power stations. Signatories included Vietnam, a potential major destination for Australian coal.

A deal has been reached at the COP26 Glasgow climate summit between 197 countries, with coal power being "phased down".

In the second week, after most world leaders had gone home and the negotiators got down to the business of drafting the final statement, a joint announcement from the US and China caught many by surprise.

The US-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s outlined an agreement to boost co-operation on climate action.

Importantly, “2020s” is mentioned eight times in the body of the declaration, signalling that the world’s two biggest emitters understand the importance of near-term action to avert climate catastrophe.

Emphasis on action “by 2030” is among the most significant themes of the final Glasgow Climate Pact. All countries are urged to “revisit and strengthen” 2030 targets in advance of COP27 in Egypt next year.
Countries have also agreed on “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”.

This sentence alone captures the complexity of the negotiations. On the one hand, this is the first explicit mention of coal and fossil fuels in 26 years of COP declarations and decisions.

On the other, the words “unabated”, “inefficient” and “phase-down” may be viewed as get-out-of-jail-free cards for some fossil-fuel consuming and exporting countries.
While many countries brought an increased level of ambition for emissions reduction to the Glasgow table, the ultimate goal of “keeping 1.5 alive” – that is, keeping warming to no more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels – has not been met.

Analysis by Climate Action Tracker shows that even with the new 2030 pledges, a global temperature rise of 2.4 degrees by the end of the century is a real possibility.

This means catastrophically more severe climate extremes, and sinking prospects, literally, for low-lying nations, including many of our Pacific neighbours.

Another major disappointment is that the developed world fell short of fulfilling a decade-old promise to deliver $US100 billion each year to help poorer nations deal with climate impacts.

So who were the bad COPs in Glasgow? There is one that consistently stood out. Australia.

Perhaps nothing was more symbolic of Australia’s lack of commitment to the goals of the Glasgow COP than the pride of place at the Australian pavilion given to Santos, one of our largest gas and oil companies.

Multiple assessments of Australia’s commitment and actions to reduce dangerous climate change have ranked us at the bottom of the international pack.

The “Australian Way” plan to get to net zero by 2050 is a hotchpotch of creative accounting, claiming credit for emission reduction actions of the states and territories and the previous Labor government, spruiking technology that doesn’t work, and magical thinking about technology that hasn’t been invented yet.

Glasgow summitThe Glasgow summit’s final agreement:
what you need to know
On top of this, the government has refused to strengthen Australia’s 2030 emissions targets – the weakest in the developed world – and refused to sign on to commitments to reduce methane and transition out of coal.

Everyday Australians and businesses pay a high price for the Morrison government being out of step with the rest of the world.

Not only does Australia continue to obfuscate and delay, we are only contributing about a 10th of our fair share to help poorer nations cope with the climate impacts we have helped cause.

At the end of each COP, the Climate Action Network, an international umbrella organisation of over 1000 groups devoted to increased climate action, presents the Colossal Fossil Award to the country or organisation deemed to have been least helpful at meeting the objectives of the meeting.

No prizes for guessing who got it this year.

Glasgow Climate Summit
Explore

Links
at No comments:

(The Conversation) The Ultimate Guide To Why The COP26 Summit Ended In Failure And Disappointment (Despite A Few Bright Spots)

The Conversation -  | 

AP

Authors
  •  is Director of the Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University
  •  is Director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University     
After two hard-fought weeks of negotiations, the Glasgow climate change summit is, at last, over.

All 197 participating countries adopted the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact, despite an 11th hour intervention by India in which the final agreement was watered down from “phasing out” coal to “phasing down”.

In an emotional final speech, COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for this last-minute change.

His apology goes to the heart of the goals of COP26 in Glasgow: the hope it would deliver outcomes matching the urgent “code red” action needed to achieve the Paris Agreement target.

At the summit’s outset, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to “keep the goal of 1.5℃ alive”, to accelerate the decarbonisation of the global economy, and to phase out coal.

So, was COP26 a failure? If we evaluate this using the summits original stated goals, the answer is yes, it fell short. Two big ticket items weren’t realised: renewing targets for 2030 that align with limiting warming to 1.5℃, and an agreement on accelerating the phase-out of coal.

But among the failures, there were important decisions and notable bright spots. So let’s take a look at the summit’s defining issues. Weak 2030 targets

The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2℃ this century, and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5℃. Catastrophic impacts will be unleashed beyond this point, such as sea level rise and more intense and frequent natural disasters.

But new projections from Climate Action Tracker show even if all COP26 pledges are met, the planet is on track to warm by 2.1℃ – or 2.4℃ if only 2030 targets are met.

Despite the Australian government’s recent climate announcements, this nation’s 2030 target remains the same as in 2015. If all countries adopted such meagre near-term targets, global temperature rise would be on track for up to 3℃.

Technically, the 1.5℃ limit is still within reach because, under the Glasgow pact, countries are asked to update their 2030 targets in a year’s time. However, as Sharma said, “the pulse of 1.5 is weak”.

And as Australia’s experience shows, domestic politics rather than international pressure is often the force driving climate policy. So there are no guarantees Australia or other nations will deliver greater ambition in 2022.

Thousands of activists and protesters march in Glasgow to demand action from world leaders to combat the climate crisis. EPA/ROBERT PERRY

Phase down, not out

India’s intervention to change the final wording to “phase down” coal rather than “phase out” dampens the urgency to shift away from coal.

India is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China and the United States.

The country relies heavily on coal, and coal-powered generation is expected to grow by 4.6% each year to 2024. India was the most prominent objector to the “phase out” wording, but also had support from China.

And US climate envoy John Kerry argued that carbon capture and storage technology could be developed further, to trap emissions at the source and store them underground.

Carbon capture and storage is a controversial proposition for climate action. It is not proven at scale, and we don’t yet know if captured emissions stored underground will eventually return to the atmosphere. And around the world, relatively few large-scale underground storage locations exist.

And it’s hard to see this expensive technology ever being cost-competitive with cheap renewable energy.

In a crucial outcome, COP26 also finalised rules for global carbon trading, known as Article 6 under the Paris Agreement. However under the rules, the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to “offset” its carbon emissions and carry on polluting.

Combined with the “phasing down” change, this will see fossil fuel emissions continue.

COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for the last-minute change in the wording of the pact, from ‘phasing out coal’ to ‘phasing down’.  AP Photo/Alastair Grant

It wasn’t all bad

Despite the shortcomings, COP26 led to a number of important positive outcomes.

The world has taken an unambiguous turn away from fossil fuel as a source of energy. And the 1.5℃ global warming target has taken centre stage, with the recognition that reaching this target will require rapid, deep and sustained emissions reductions of 45% by 2030, relative to 2010 levels.

What’s more, the pact emphasises the importance to mitigation of nature and ecosystems, including protecting forests and biodiversity. This comes on top of a side deal struck by Australia and 123 other countries promising to end deforestation by 2030.

The pact also urges countries to fully deliver on an outstanding promise to deliver US$100 billion per year for five years to developing countries vulnerable to climate damage. It also emphasises the importance of transparency in implementing the pledges.

Nations are also invited to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022. In support of this, it was agreed to hold a high-level ministerial roundtable meeting each year focused on raising ambition out to 2030.

The US and China climate agreement is also cause for cautious optimism.

Despite the world not being on track for the 1.5℃ goal, momentum is headed in the right direction. And the mere fact that a reduction in coal use was directly addressed in the final text signals change may be possible.

But whether it comes in the small window we have left to stop catastrophic climate change remains to be seen. 

Links
at No comments:

(The Conversation) COP26: The Glasgow Climate Summit Demonstrates An Appetite For Change Australia Simply Can’t Ignore

The Conversation - 

Alberto Pezzali/AP
Author
 is Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University
COP26 president Alok Sharma has described the pivotal United Nations talks, which concluded over the weekend, as only a “fragile win” for ambition on climate change.

But, against the odds, the summit produced the goods on several important aspects of international climate policy.

It resolved tricky outstanding issues for implementing the Paris Agreement. And most importantly, it reinforced the multilateral consensus that much stronger climate action is needed in both the short and long term.

Stabilising the climate depends on a lot more than the outcome of multilateral negotiations like Glasgow. But those agreements set a frame for real-world decisions.

Here’s a preliminary interpretation of some of the decisions at COP26 on climate change mitigation, and the implications for Australia.

Some were unhappy with the COP26 outcome, but it created momentum for change. Alastair Grant/AP
Coal power “phase down”

Global climate negotiations are usually a relentless grind, with occasional fireworks. One such firework moment came in the final session when India, supported by China, demanded the Glasgow Climate Pact’s language on coal should be weakened from “phase-out” to “phasedown” of unabated coal power.

To prevent the disagreement scuttling the entire deal, the revision was agreed to, despite bitter protests by many countries intent on stronger action.

The wording of United Nations agreements is cumbersome, but deliberate. Here’s the full reference to coal in the final COP26 text. It calls on the parties to the Paris Agreement to:
accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances and recognising the need for support towards a just transition.
(By way of definition, “unabated” coal power refers to the absence of carbon capture and storage in power stations. This technology is very expensive for power generation and unlikely to be used at large scale.)

So what does the above text mean, exactly? At the core of it, the international community is spelling out an expectation that countries strive to greatly reduce the use of coal in electricity generation, and to stop subsidising fossil fuels. The original “phase-out” language would obviously have meant nations should stop using unabated coal power altogether.

On the face of it, the change in wording makes a big difference. But the signal to investors in coal mining and coal power plants is the same: the international community has decided coal-fired power must fall, and its end is coming.

No previous United Nations climate change decision has so directly called for action to cut fossil fuels. So even the weakened language is unprecedented.

What’s more, nations can act independently of – and more ambitiously than – the wording in the COP agreement.

For example, China recently pledged to rely much less on coal power and stop building coal-fired power stations abroad. And the surprise US-China joint declaration on climate change announced at Glasgow enshrines the “elimination of support for unabated international thermal coal power generation”.

The international market for thermal coal – the type burned for electricity – will shrink and could do so quickly. Australia is the world’s number two thermal coal exporter behind Indonesia. We’d better get used to the fact the business is in decline.

The market for thermal coal is likely to shrink quickly. Li Bin/AP

Ratcheting up 2030 targets

Another key aspect of the Glasgow pact is the call for stronger 2030 emissions targets and short-term action.

By the end of next year, nations are asked to strengthen their 2030 targets to align with the 1.5℃ temperature goal. This puts big pressure on Australia.

The federal government still retains the very weak target of a 26-28% emissions reduction by 2030, based on 2005 levels, and recently said the target will be exceeded by up to 9%. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s insistence on Sunday that the target is “fixed” will not cut it over the next year.

Almost all other developed countries have strengthened their targets already, some greatly so. An important reference point is the United States, which has adopted a 50-52% reduction target in the same time frame.

In yet stronger language, the Glasgow pact “urges” countries that haven’t yet submitted a long-term emissions-reduction strategy to do so by next year’s conference.

This puts the onus on the federal government. Its recent “plan” to reach net-zero by 2050 falls far short of the mark of what constitutes a real national strategy.

Countries without a long-term emissions-reduction strategy should address this by next year. Alex Plaveski/EPA
International carbon trading

 COP26 managed to resolve an issue that had proven extremely difficult since the Paris talks – rules for future international carbon markets.

The compromise reached appears to largely close loopholes for double-counting of emissions reduction. What kind and extent of international emissions markets will emerge under the Paris Agreement framework remains to be seen. However, the rules to underpin them are now available.

From an Australian perspective, an outcome on international emissions markets is very positive. Australian governments and negotiators have worked to help make it happen.

It opens the door to Australian companies or governments purchasing emissions reductions achieved in other countries, if this turned out cheaper than acting more strongly to cut emissions at home. It will also help Australia work with countries in the Pacific and Southeast Asia to reduce emissions there, and to share the resulting emissions reductions between countries.

Australia’s large land mass and unlimited potential for cheap renewable energy means it’s better positioned than most countries to become a net-negative emissions economy in the long term. In other words, Australia could one day remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than it emits.

So an international carbon trading framework means Australia could eventually sell emissions reduction credits to other countries, and the revenue could fund large-scale CO₂ removal from the atmosphere.

A momentum that cannot be ignored

Earth’s climate will not be determined by what is agreed at global climate talks, but by the actions that businesses and people take, and the policies governments put in place.

The Glasgow outcome, however, shows there is global resolve to get on top of the problem. Governments that might prefer the old ways of a carbon-intensive economy cannot ignore that momentum.

Links
at No comments: