By: Meghann Principe
The Global Climate Summit of 2021, or COP26, took place October 31st and ended on November 12th. Although it took nearly two weeks and was the most well-attended global climate summit to date, this global charade could have been an email (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-have-sent-the-most-delegates-to-cop26). Before COP26, the United Nations Environmental Programme reported that we were on our way for global temperatures to increase to 2.7ºC (https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/cop-26-glasgow-climate-pact/). World leaders had previously established a goal of limiting global warming to 1.5ºC (https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/cop-26-glasgow-climate-pact/). However, COP26 President Alok Sharma admitted that after negotiations concluded, “we have kept 1.5 degrees within reach, but its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action” (https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/cop26-climate-summit-made-progress-came-short-catholic-agencies-say). Following the promises of COP26, it was reported that we are now on track for global warming to rise 2.4ºC (https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/cop26-climate-summit-made-progress-came-short-catholic-agencies-say). Although there was some progress in commitments of global change to limit our temperature rising, our world leaders have still fallen almost an entire degree short of their goal. To date, human activities have already led to about 1.1ºC of global warming, and we have already felt and seen the impacts that this increase in temperature has had on our planet (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_L16_adv.pdf). In order to limit temperature rise to 1.5ºC, it is necessary that we cut global emissions by half before 2030 (https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow). This does not seem feasible now, even after COP26 (https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow). Some of the world’s largest emitters have not offered net-zero targets that are actually strong enough to reach this goal (https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow). The agreement signed at the end of COP26, the Glasgow Climate Pact, called upon countries to “revisit and strengthen” their net-zero targets for 2030 (https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow). This weak language that fails to enforce any sort of accountability is seen throughout the entire agreement. The phrases used to call for action in the Glasgow Climate Pact are “notes with concern, urges, emphasizes, welcomes, etc.” These do not require action, but rather ask nicely for world leaders to affirmatively make these changes. Whenever the pact is discussing specific actions to take, it uses the word “invites.” Nearly all of the pledges made under this agreement lack any sort of policing to ensure that they are followed through with (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59277788). For example, over 100 world leaders committed to ending deforestation by 2030 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59277788). While this sounds nice, there is no enforcement system in place (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59277788). Another commitment made by world leaders at the COP26 is to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies. Yet, no dates have been set by the leaders of these countries (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59277788). Environmental advocates were looking forward to the promising prospect of the Glasgow Climate Pact calling upon leaders to phase out coal. However, only one country out of the five largest coal producing countries, Indonesia, signed. The United States, Australia, India, and China did not sign the agreement. Instead, the final agreement in the Glasgow Climate Pact included the last-minute change of a “phase-down” of unabated coal production rather than the total phase out that environmental experts are strongly advocating for (https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/cop26-climate-summit-made-progress-came-short-catholic-agencies-say). This comes at a time when China, the world’s largest producer of coal, is currently producing at its highest level in years (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/15/australia-coal-scott-morrison-cop26/). It is noteworthy that the Glasgow Climate Pact specifically mentioned fossil fuels, as this was the first mention of fossil fuels in any final agreement to come out of a climate summit (https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/cop-26-glasgow-climate-pact/). More than 20 countries, including the United States, did commit to end their financing of overseas fossil fuel projects, but this does nothing to alleviate the fossil fuel projects financed in their own countries (https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/cop26-climate-summit-made-progress-came-short-catholic-agencies-say). One major criticism of the COP26 is the representation from the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry had over 503 lobbyists in attendance (https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/hundreds-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flooding-cop26-climate-talks/). There were more lobbyists for fossil fuels present at COP26 than the number of delegates from any single nation. (https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/cop-26-glasgow-climate-pact/). It seems like world leaders are more concerned with protecting corporate profits than they are with protecting our “Mother Earth,” as they referred to our planet in the Climate Pact. If the nation representatives wanted to truly make a difference and protect our planet, then they would have used stronger language and provided policing and enforcement measures to keep the Climate Pact promises, remained steadfast in their goals of a maximum 1.5ºC increase and a total phase-out of coal, and not invited fossil fuel lobbyists to be present.