Greenpeace summed talks about climate: Bad situation for fossil fuels companies, not bad enough
Article continues below
“It’s been a bad week for the fossil fuels companies, but not bad enough, and things need to get a lot worse for them before this COP is over if we’re going to call Glasgow a success.
"We’ve seen some big announcements, but too many pledges have been voluntary and too often the small print includes big loopholes. The goal hasn’t changed, it’s 1.5C, and while we’re closer than we were, there’s still a long way to go,†Greenpeace International Executive Director Jennifer Morgan says.
“The leadership at this COP has come from youth activists and the so called climate vulnerable nations, while many leaders of bigger and richer countries are yet to step up.
"The magic dust at these COPs is often trust, it’s what can unlock the talks, and the way to build it in week two is to make breakthroughs on the promised $100bn a year of finance, on adaptation, and loss and damage. As the prime minister of Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley said, the countries here in Glasgow need to “try harder, try harderâ€.
“Greenwashing is proving predictably insidious, especially the push to promote offsetting. But the scammers are being called out loud and clear, both inside and outside the convention centre, especially by Indigenous Peoples who protect 80% of the planet’s biodiversity. The UN Secretary General’s new Group of Experts will address the “deficit of credibility and surplus of confusion†on offsets. That’s good news.
“The big decisions at COP26 need to be consistent with the science and designed to build trust. That means no new fossil fuels and a scaling up of support for the most vulnerable. The $100bn climate funding target, with more cash on top, is overdue, while the unnecessarily hard nut of adaptation has to be cracked. We are here in Glasgow because lives are on the line. Next week is a test for humanity and a time for action,†Mottley said.
India: Prime Minister Narendra Modi did more than expected, and pledged to increase renewable energy targets, reducing carbon intensity and net zero emission by 2070 described by Greenpeace India as being “in general the right direction of travelâ€. But campaigners urged Modi to go further in order for India’s energy system to be 50% powered by renewable sources by 2030.
U.S.: As the biggest historical emitter, nothing less than ambitious action is required from the US to significantly cut emissions over the next decade. But President Biden’s main contribution to the COP so far has been a partnership with the EU on cutting 30% of methane emissions by 2030. While important given the potency of this. greenhouse gas, this doesn’t add up to a transformative plan to deliver on the U.S.’s 2030 climate target.
The U.S. will need to bring forward many more tangible and binding plans to cut emissions, remove fossil fuel subsidies and invest in green infrastructure over the next decade for it to be able to truly claim climate leadership on the world stage.
China: Prior to the COP, there were hopes that President Xi Jinping would announce a peak in domestic emissions before 2025, alongside commitments to reduce coal use in its energy system but the failure to do either is obviously a major disappointment.
EU: Despite liking to claim climate leadership, the EU is currently taking a conservative approach to the negotiations, rather than spearheading higher ambition in discussions around the final Glasgow Agreement text. Its failure to strongly endorse the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) statement is particularly disappointing.
The EU needs to urgently strengthen its support for the HAC’s position and increase adaptation support for the most vulnerable nations, both as a matter of principle, and if we are to stand a chance of unlocking the politics in order to get a successful outcome.
Australia: Has come under fire after Greenpeace revealed three quarters of Australia’s ‘significant’ climate aid projects in Pacific don’t mention climate change.
Russia: Putin did not attend the World Leaders’ Summit but Russia approved a weak low carbon development strategy, failing to commit to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and emphasising an increase in the absorption of greenhouse gas emissions by managed ecosystems, with minimal planned reductions across the main sectors of the economy.
UK: Set out plans to introduce climate regulations for the financial sector, but firm level net zero commitments will still not be mandatory, and the rules appear to allow plenty of wiggle room for financial institutions to continue with business as usual, rather than ‘rewiring’ the system as the Chancellor claims.
Climate finance: there has been lots of mood music around possible new pledges to meet the decade old promise of $100bn a year from richer nations to less developed countries, but the pledges simply don’t give enough detail to say with any confidence that the new goal will be delivered.
Much more ambition is still needed, alongside guaranteeing at least 50% of contributions will go towards adaptation, as well as transparency about the nature of different countries’ current commitments.
Forests: governments signed a voluntary agreement to green light another decade of forest destruction, following years of failed promises on this issue. Tangible policies to actually deliver on promises of zero deforestation and protection of Indigenous Rights were lacking and there are major question marks surrounding the new funding that has been pledged.
Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali said: “There’s a very good reason Bolsonaro felt comfortable signing on to this new deal. It allows another decade of forest destruction and isn’t binding.†The deal itself has also been undermined following Indonesia’s environment minister describing it as “inappropriate and unfair,†despite her country signing up two days before.
Methane: Some leaders signed a pledge to slash methane by 30% by 2030, in a bid to stop leakages from oil and gas wells. This initiative needs to be the start and not the finish of the ambition on cutting this potent greenhouse gas, which has 28 times the warming potential of CO2.
The commitment failed to rule out new fossil fuels altogether, despite global scientists and energy experts concluding this is necessary to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, and it failed to tackle industrial meat and dairy agriculture which drives methane emissions. ■