A sensitive but useful statistic will be to calculate how much Carbon was emitted to host at least 40,000 participants at COP26 in comparison to how much Green House Gases (GHG) will be removed from the atmosphere as a result.
The key question to be answered then is ; If we are to calculate the carbon footprint of each participant at COP26, will it have been worth it ?
We need to look to the Goals for COP26 and the related agreements for answers. The Goals are:
- Secure global net-zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degree celsius within reach.
- Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats.
- Mobilise finance.
- Work together to deliver.
Secure global net-zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees celsius within reach.
NDCs and Emissions
Analysis published during the talks suggest that we are headed for Global average temperatures of 2.4 degree celsius considering the snail pace ambitions of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) presented. Based on the Paris Agreement, the NDCs are to be revised every 5 years but, at this rate, 1.5 degree celsius by 2030 will not be achievable. Commendably, COP26 set out a road map to quicken this.
Phasing down and phasing out : Dirty fuel.
Wondered how the solution to threats of human existence fell to a play on words.
Coal is a red rated contributor to the climate crisis, if not phased out rapidly, we have no chance at 1.5 degree celsius by 2030 (IEA). A good majority of coal mines need to be shut down – phased out and no new ones built was the goal, yet India fiercely insisted the change of phrase to “phased down”. There was also a strong advocacy for the goal to be “ limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels as opposed to “Secure global net-zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degree celsius within reach”. The latter is more precise and was maintained, a considerable win for the planet. Why does this matter? The language used has the power to communicate the urgency or otherwise of the climate crisis and the effort that will be applied as a result.
Climate justice, adaptation and finance
“Poorer” nations are suffering the brunt of the climate crisis, even though they are the lowest emitters.The agreement in 2009, was to achieve at least 100bn dollars a year by 2020 to help build resilience and adapt these nations .This sum has generally been critiqued as woefully inadequate, yet only 80bn dollars was raised. A promise was made to increase finance for the next five years to $500bn. There was also the issue of the proportion of funds that goes into adaptation projects. In the dark, the light is that an agreement has been reached to increase finance that goes into adaptation projects.
It is clear there is a massive credibility, action and commitment gap
Work together to deliver
COP26 had and still has a massive effect on awareness creation. The event’s publicity drew the attention of many and possibly changed hearts and minds. There is so much more information, initiatives and commitments out there as a result.
The Greenwashers
This is however not all rosy , a lot more people are also masking under climate change to achieve their gains without actually truncating emissions or adapting to climate change.There will always be bad nuts, our job is to build systems that accurately weed them out.
Finally, if we apply a strict logical sequence to emissions created and decisions or promises made at COP26, it may fall short. If we also look at the precedence of meeting goals and promises made at climate change related events in the past, we will have to agree with the school of thought that says” it is clear there is a massive credibility, action and commitment gap”.
The school of thought that states that ” Glasgow was never going to be the endpoint in the process of tackling the climate crisis” is disappointing and belittles the importance of the Conference of Parties. As optimistic believers in the ripple effect of COP26 , we believe it will go a long way to propel the achievement of our global goals.
