_(51652445339).jpg){kind=link}
Robert O. Keohane and Kal Raustiala, In, Post Kyoto International Climate Policy: Implementing Architectures for Agreement, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Originally, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was the 1992 parent treaty to the Paris accord, a Conference of the Parties (COP) took place every year. However, under the more recent Paris Agreement, countries revise their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to every five years. The opening statements at COP26 included a warning that one year at the most was needed for reports of progress.
Prior to COP26, which took place October 31, 2021 to November 12, 2021 in Glasgow, most countries had submitted new and updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) signalling their committments. The NDCs were due by October 12. Developing countries facing increasing climate change threats were the most responsive. Ethiopia was notable in the resources it had devoted to its committment despite the challenges it had experienced with the pandemic and the effects of climate change. Two of the largest emitters - China and India did not submit updated NDCs.
Aside from the submissions of NDCs, 65 countries, including China and South Korea, had previously pledged to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century. However, some countries which included Brazil, pledged less than they had at the Paris Agreement. Generally speaking, lack of data on prior NDCs limited understanding of the changing committments by respective nations.
The first two days of COP26 featured World Leaders Summits. There were opening speeches from national leaders. Participants included some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). There were displays, special meetings on particular topics, and events.
Some previously defined goals had general approval. Deforestation and methane reduction, short-lived but with lasting effects over time were "low hanging fruit" (methane reduction was potentially an easier fix and addressing it would theoretically buy more time to deal with reducing carbon emissions) led by US and the EU seemed to do well as far as consensus.
Each day following focused on a different themes in sessions. A few examples were finance, energy, youth participation, public empowerment, construction, and transportation. (These sessions were live streamed on YouTube). Since future actions by respective nations faced many common but also unique complexities and perspectives. COP26 sessions helped illluminate some of these complexities and also helped define pragmatic approaches to the COP26 goals.
The call for unity was not good enough
What the sessions could not address easily was the reality that the political and economic roads nations would need to take were complex, globally and nationally.
The call for unity at COP26 was not good enough which demonstrated that serious efforts were needed toward the right combination of binding and nonbinding measures.
While the 1997 Kyoto Protocol under the UN offered some legal means covering 18% of global emissions from those nations that actually participated, the Paris Agreement relied on a combination of binding legal measures and nonbinding voluntary and political measures. However, effectively speaking, there was no viable enforcement mechanism in terms of a global framework that ensured that national milestones and actions would happen in a timely manner.
It might take a multi-pronged approach toward a global rule of law when it comes to climate change. For instance, while the International Court of Justice has not as of yet heard a climate-related case and while it would not necessarily have effective enforcement powers across all nations, it could be a strong addition toward compliance. Then are avenues such as arbitral processes engaging individual nations. In general, any global compliance would also rely on compatible national legal measures.
Too many attendees were more interested in building walls to protect gas and oil interests
There was a sense of a great divide and an epic struggle over the planet's future.
Examples of resistance that could inhibit or seriously block nations' COP26 goals were present at the Conference.
Around 503 attendees mostly representing fossil fuel industries outnumbered eight nations most affected by climate change. Their number was higher than any one nation. Their very presence was both repressive and oppressive for many participants.
One side persisted within a slick iridescent bubble of denial and resistance. There were co-opted phrases supporting what is called (greenwashing) such as green, community, unity, commitment, clean energy…. Inside that bubble, too many attendees spent far more money on building literal walls and protecting gas and oil industries to varying degrees rather than significantly addressing climate change goals.
Outside the bubble there was a trail of broken promises and low trust. People from around the world gathered to speak of a gray landscape of human scale realities where many millions of people live on land masses in the nordic north, the global south, thousands of islands, and coastal areas.
These lands around the globe hold the lives of diverse people , neighborhoods, communities, and countries that are frequently geographically and socially isolated with a poor resource base, perhaps stolen by others, and high transportation costs. They have relatively tiny carbon footprints barely traceable in the sand.
Their death and destruction already shadowed the planet in the present. As far as the future they had the most to lose in the shortest period of time and yet the most to gain in the short term and in the long term, often with relatively low tech solutions, but only with international help.
In the face of uncertainties now and ahead they asked for stronger commitments such as enough international ad hoc funding given uncertainties in order to fight anthropogenic-driven changes that for the most part they did not cause.
The largest emitters were mostly silent
As Cop26 entered its final days climate activists filed a legal document with the UN secretary. They sought the status of a global level 3 emergency – the UN’s highest category. They call for emergency powers to match the same level of response adopted for the pandemic. (Of course in that case the pandemic has shown many inequities and evidence of greed from more prosperous nations).
As the days grew short at COP26 back peddling increased and a draft text to be distributed for agreement was watered down. India demanded weaker language on coal phase-out. COP26 was extended another day. The largest emitters were mostly silent.
On November 13. Finally, though a day late and a dollar short a Glasgow Climate Pact was signed with mixed results. There was acknowledgement that fossil fuels are the main drivers of climate change. There was at least formal recognition of a 45% reduction of global greenhouse gases by 2030. There was an agreement to accelerate reduction of emissions. There was agreement that rules were needed to manage a global carbon market. Reports on progress toward net zero would be due in one year rather than five. There was talk of doubling funding for adaptions by developing countries by 2025.
There were enhancements outside the UN process including multilateral agreements, coalition building among some nations and NGOs, and perhaps, at the least, an uneasy alliance between China and the US.
This recent COP involving 197 states unpacked a bit more of the nature of the problem in its sessions. For instance, how tough it is to deal with climate crisis on a human scale when it comes to issues such as actual participation in decisions, job creation, phasing out fossil fuels, social and political barriers, gender inequities, sovereignty, and basic needs and rights, e.g. food and water or the right to be heard across diverse countries.
There were critical problems. Pledges were not good enough.There was a continuing breakdown of trust between poorer and richer countries. There was a large gap between nations' committments and scientific consensus. No country had offered viable short term goals even though these goals represent a significant challenge in terms of strategies over the course of a year.
COP 26 revealed
the nature of the problem
Climate Action Tracker (CAT) wrote that if all promises were kept it was possible that a global temperature could be held at 1.8 C, but there was no guarantee promises would be kept by the largest emitters.
The United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Norway and Australia represented five wealthy fossil fuel producer and exporter countries with high levels of historic responsibility for the climate crisis, coupled with low levels of dependence on fossil fuels for economic development.
There was formal recognition that global greenhouse gases should be reduced 45% by the year 2030 an open letter by scientists and academics argued for an International treaty. According to the 2021 Production Gap Report,, achieving 1.5 C would require an average decline in fossil fuel production of at least 6% per year between 2020-2030. Yet, the fossil fuel industry is increasing production of gas and oil 2% per year. Offsets will not help.
In a message to the United States one activist pleaded forget your money just stop emitting a death sentence.
The United Nation's process is a critical part of addressing the climate crisis, but it is not a adequate venue for speaking truth to power.
Activists outside the bubble are promoting another kind of power. The pandemic and the planetary climate "crisis" have brought a more fervent and informed demand for a new structure that bypasses capitalistic practices - a sea change if humanity is to survive. ...And for some powers that is a very scary idea.