Looking Back At Cop26

Reflecting on COP26 from the perspective of COP28 allows for an assessment of the progress made towards the ambitious goals set at the 2021 Glasgow climate conference. COP26 aimed to secure global net zero by mid-century and limit global warming to 1.5 C degrees, underscoring the urgency of climate action. This summary reviews the conference's key outcomes and commitments, providing a basis to evaluate their implementation and effectiveness by COP28.

The key goals of COP26 included achieving global net zero and limiting warming, with strategies focusing on reducing emissions to reach net zero by 2050 through phasing out coal, curtailing deforestation, transitioning to electric vehicles, and increasing renewable energy investments. Adapting to protect communities and natural habitats was emphasized, highlighting the importance of safeguarding ecosystems and human settlements from climate change impacts. Mobilizing finance was a major aim, seeking to secure at least $100bn annually in climate finance for mitigation and adaptation in vulnerable regions. Furthermore, collaborative action and finalizing the Paris Rulebook were stressed, highlighting the need for finalizing the Paris Agreement’s guidelines and enhancing global cooperation against the climate crisis.

The main outcomes from COP26 included the non-binding Glasgow Climate Pact, extending the Paris accord, and outlining decisions to combat climate change. The completion of the Paris Rulebook provided guidelines for implementing the Paris Agreement, encompassing emissions reporting transparency, common emissions targets timeframes, and standards for international carbon markets. Additionally, sector-specific agreements were significant, with notable commitments in forest conservation, methane reduction, automotive emissions, and private finance. This included an agreement to reverse forest loss by 2030 and to phase down coal power.

Responses and reception to these outcomes were mixed. Leaders like UK's Archie Young expressed satisfaction, while UN's António Guterres described the agreements as a "compromise." European Commission's Ursula von der Leyen and the Maldives’ Environmental Minister, Shauna Aminath, emphasized the urgency for ongoing efforts and the existential threat for vulnerable nations. Critiques from environmental groups targeted the Glasgow Pact for not fully addressing the urgency of fossil fuel phase-out and questioned the feasibility of maintaining temperature rises below 1.5 C degrees.

From the viewpoint of COP28, evaluating the tangible actions taken in response to these commitments is crucial. The effectiveness of the Glasgow Climate Pact and the Paris Rulebook can be gauged based on progress in emission reductions, coal phase-out, renewable energy transition, and climate finance mobilization. The response of nations to commitments, particularly in deforestation and automotive emissions, will indicate the level of global cooperation and sincerity in addressing the climate crisis. Additionally, assessing adaptation measures and support for vulnerable nations is essential to understand the real impact of COP26 agreements. This retrospective analysis serves as a measure of the actual progress against the ambitious goals set during COP26.

Transcript

0:00

Welcome to the Going Green podcast. COP28 is virtually upon us, but I want to go back and have a look at some of the pledges we made in COP26 and see, well, how have we got on? How do we do with those pledges? Well, have a look at that over the next 30 minutes or so. Right, OK, so COP26, can you remember back that far? It seems quite a long way. I know it does. We had sort of Boris Johnson, quite a lot of prime ministers actually since then, haven't we? So we had Boris Johnson in charge there, and they were looking at exciting things like forests. Could we rebuild the forests? Could we get rid of methane? Could we sort of finance all the other countries? A lot of countries wanted a lot of money from us to actually sort of get down to do something. So that was COP26 in Glasgow. Hundreds of governments, private institutions, they all sort of were making pledges to do this, that and the other. And there were a few notable exceptions of certain countries that didn't really make sort of good pledges. And, well, how have we got on so far, Paul? Well, it's one of those things where we've sort of done stuff. Stuff's been happening, but any pro... I wouldn't say no progress has been made, but it's one of those things where actual measurable progress hasn't been made, but progress has been made in regards to, you know, we made these pledges or things like to do the forestry. And of course, lots of places are now measuring their deforestation or their reforestation levels. So it's one of the things where, you know, have we committed to actually bringing those things down? The answer is no. Are we now actually measuring what we need to measure to determine if we are keeping to that goal? The answer is yes. So, yeah, it's one of those odd things where the pledges are, the answer is we're measuring them. And the fact that previously when we weren't, it's sort of like, well, how do we know we're doing any better? This is the whole case in point. This is what people are now looking at and trying to work out strategies to do things. But of course, you've got to work out how to measure things going forward. So that's one of the major sort of policies. All these things are off there, not being measured. But those places are sitting up things that measure and organize and understand what they do. It's like, yeah, yes, you can reforest an area, but you need to work out not where the area is, but how many trees are in the area compared to normal compared to how much you reforested or deforested. But the pledge was to end and actually start reversing deforestation by 2030. A few years have passed and, well, certain countries sort of said they were going to do various bits and pieces, and certain countries, well, they haven't. So we had, what, 140 countries joined a coalition and there were really big countries in there that said they were going to do something like Brazil. Yeah, Brazil was things. They said virtually these 140 countries, which cover actually 90 percent of the world's forests. That's one of the big things to do. Because, of course, places like Saudi Arabia and those sort of lovely Middle Eastern countries where there's hardly a tree in sight, well, there's not a lot they can do. There's not a lot they can do. But it is countries like Brazil, Indonesia and things like the Dominican Republic of Congo, which cover most of the forests of the world. That's where they are. But they're still chopping down forests. Yeah, so they don't seem to, yeah, they got this end it by 2030. I almost get the feeling they want to sort of carry on until 2029 and 7-8. Unfortunately, yeah. But the point that they're making is, of course, unfortunately, they basically plotted a nice line since where we were at COP26. And then they said, of course, that's how much the deforestation area per year, as in that sample, the area, the forest per year. And they drew a nice line from that level. So obviously zero with a line saying 2030. And basically then we're saying, right. So last year in 2022, I say 2022, the year's right, we were actually 21 percent higher in deforestation amounts, as in the rate of deforestation. Yeah, it actually went up. Well, I wouldn't say it went up. Well, it did. In my book, it went up by about 6.6 percent. Yeah. And it should have gone down a bit, which is why it should have gone down 21 percent. Yeah, the answer is it should have gone. The target was to reduce it by 21 percent. And unfortunately, it actually saved the level, say, more, a bit higher, of about 6 percent. Meaning, of course, the difference between the target level and, of course, welcome statistics. So that's what they're going to be talking about this cop saying, look, we've missed the targets and the gap difference is getting bigger. What can we do now? Extra to deal with that? That's essentially what all these cops basically do in relation to things that decided at previous ones. And then they're always looked at and reviewed and see if they can do anything this time. So that's probably not on the agenda this year, I'm afraid, because they have to decide it. But is that something to look at later that they need to come back on? Yeah. I know on the agenda this year, they're more talking about methane because it's one of those things where loads of places said, yes, we'll cut it. But no targets. We won't actually set targets. But it's bad enough, though, when you set a target and you don't sort of succeed in doing it. But in perspective, how much of the world's forests have disappeared each year since COP26? And that's a forest the size of the Republic of Ireland has disappeared each year. So that's sort of a lot of forests that disappear. Yes. And the other problem is, of course, if you want to sort of replace the forests, we can get the trees from. And I know one of the problems if you take a tree, let's suppose you take a tree, you take a little seedling and it's going to be about yea high. And it's sort of we've got to the bit where it's already germinated because you've got a problem there. Then I've got to manage to turn that into a tree that's going to survive. And that's going to take quite a few years because you plant a tree and probably the first thing that comes along is sort of a rabbit or something like that. The squirrels come along and get rid of the seeds in the first place. Then along comes the rabbit and it says, oh, look, there's a nice couple of leaves here. That's that tree gone. Then they grow up a little bit more and the deer come along and say, oh, yeah, I can manage to eat those leaves. So that's that one gone. They get a little bit bigger and the squirrels decide that that bark would be better somewhere else and they they ring the tree and that kills it. So you've actually got to get a tree to a reasonable state before you can sort of cope with it. So just plant your trees. No good. You've actually got to plant a reasonably mature tree, which means we've got to have a lot of trees. And how do you fancy growing sort of, I know, three islands or four islands worth of trees ready to plant throughout the world every year every year. And that's a problem. Yes. And this is why doing these cops and cops and sort of reviewing sort of where we are on these pledges that we previously made. You know, look at the pledges next year of 24, 27. Yeah. Taking a couple of years to actually look at them and showing what we're doing. Are we increasing the amount of tree production? That's the wrong way to put it. But actual tree forestry as in tree growing production. And the answer is there's no signs that we are. Even though we need to grow the trees, a size of island every year. No, there's no. Not really anything for it. No signs that it's actually happening in regards to the production. Because, of course, how long does it take to grow a tree to a state where it's ready to go into a non-retrore area, but to be planted in these areas? And the answer is it's seven years. So we're sort of saying there's a seven year. And that means we're 2023 doing a quick bit of us. We've got to start doing it by 2030. We've already got to start it. Yes. You can see the whole problem of all these goals and targets. However, if you don't set a target, no one gets on and does anything. So if we actually did do things, then we might actually get going. So the whole point and whole idea around all these things of COP. So, you know, but that's where looking and reviewing these targets, you can see then people aren't doing enough. Governments aren't doing enough. Private firms aren't, you know, everybody's not doing enough. And that's just one of those unfortunate things where we don't say we're not doing enough. No one does any more. So, yeah, although it's sort of, you know, sort of like bad, you haven't been working hard enough on it. The answer truly is it's knowing that we're not working hard enough might spare more action or more things. So, yes. So the answer is more trees required. And it's suddenly looking at saying we missed it by 21% from the target to the target on target. Maybe we now need to grow an extra island as well as the island we need to grow this year. The mask gets mind boggling very quickly, but that's what effectively needs to happen. And it isn't. But that's why we're talking about it. And that's why, you know, people sort of, you know, you can go and moan at sort of your governments or your officials and say, we need to be growing. What's the plan? You know, where's the money? Who's, you know, all the elections are going to take place. That's one of the things you could raise is sort of what's your plans do all these things and just just going through your parts. That's a slightly different issue and regaining all the things. But yes. So another thing that came out of COP26 was, of course, all these this me thing, I say, band reduction. They managed to they wanted the band and they managed to negotiate to this word called reduction. So in twenty twenty six, COP26. Yeah, you can't do in twenty twenty six. I know they decided that there was a lot of me think all this oil production creates methane and they just burn it. They burn it for power. Now, they just burn it off at the source. And basically, as we know, that methane is something that's like forty times worse than CO2 for its greenhouse emission effect. But that's why you burning. It's a good idea. Sounds crap idea, actually. But that's why they burn it because if you just release the methane, that's really bad. Whereas if you burn it, it turns into CO2 and that's 40 times better, isn't it? So it's less. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think better is definitely the word I would choose if I was actually doing this. But that's the way it goes. So, yes, that's the whole reason behind all this. And we say, well, definitely could we do two things actually? Well, first, you don't release methane at all. And then potentially, could you not burn that to generate power later down the line, as in instead of just capping off and preventing being released, could we use it? Now, these are the ideas that they had sort of to the idea of because they're not talking about they just want methane production or methane levels being reduced, which is the whole thing, whether it's burning it or using it. And they didn't care how it was used. They just want to reduce in the amount is being emitted. That's the actual what the targets are being set for rather than sort of saying, you know, emitting it. And one of the things, of course, is they're saying lots of places who are mitts, these are the I say oil production, but it's not quite oil in relation to the chemical gas and a whole bunch of extra things. They've been not doing anything. And so, of course, the amount of methane in the atmosphere is increasing. Who would know if you don't do anything increases? We just want to get looking at these targets, looking at the measuring of all these things are going through. And so at COP 28, I think China and America are set to say to do a deal on methane reduction, but it's oil production, but methane reduction, a deal essentially on getting going on this methane reduction. And of course, other the EU are set to introduce a new fuel ban where they're proposing to limit the amount of fuel they buy by sitting in a methane cap as in how much methane is produced per unit of fuel. And then they're sitting a cap on that. So then they can now only buy amount of methane cap. And so therefore, reducing the amount of oil they can physically buy, which of course that's incentivizes if companies want to then sell to the EU, they need to reduce their methane because then they can sell more because they've got this cap or not amount of oil they're buying up. But the amount of methane that's being produced. So it's all these sort of sideways sort of approaches and how do you approach these sort of bands and things? And potentially, you're looking at a huge deal where that could be quite beneficial because that's going to emphasize that you're only going to buy oil if it's low methane emitting, in which case then if your oil is low methane emitting, you're going to get a better deal, more money. And so that's where the whole measure goes. Well, there's this recent report out by the UN Environment Programme entitled the Emissions Gap Report 2023. And the title is Broken Record. Temperatures hit new highs, yet the world fails to cut emissions. And it is really quite a gloomy sort of looking report, really, and they're looking at sort of how things are going. They're hoping that by COP29, like next year, then they might come back with some actual good news to say that we've actually turned a corner. But at the moment, the record is sort of really bad because you've got a lot of analysts predicting that it was peaking in 2023. I just hope that they then don't revise their sort of report to say, yeah, and then it peaked more in 2024 rather than actually starting to go down. Now, we have seen some changes because of the global pandemic, but that was a whole global economy sort of came to a halt. And that did some good. But, you know, a couple of years on, we're looking now at sort of more higher emissions. Even the climate analysts are only saying there's a 70% chance that these emissions will peak in 2023. That means there's a good 30% chance they won't. And that's not that good. The idea is, of course, we've got things like electric cars. They're trying to help. We've got solar and wind production power. It's coming online. There is more and more of that than there was. But it's one of those things, as mentioned, it's one of those things where, as I said, currently we're measuring things and then realising how far behind. And it's a simple thing. It's no one being held accountable to the whole point of things. Oh, we missed the target. Oh, dear. What was a shame? Yes, we're going to miss 2030 target. We're going to miss our 2050 target. It doesn't worry. We can set a new target. By the way, while that's happening, we're seeing massive fires throughout America, Canada, Europe. Most con I think it was actually. Yeah, we actually managed it across most of the world. It was all seven continents. We're actually on fire at one point last year. And then we've got the floods and we're getting sort of these sort of extra sort of floods and they sort of hit the news really sort of less and less. Well, and why? Because they're coming more and more common. It's it's not news. Oh, this is they got flooded. Oh, yeah. But last week as well. Yeah. So you can see the sort of the idea that some of cop or the idea around all these pages of things. They're great. They make great headlines. Well, should I give you a great headline? All right. Since Cop 26 has give you a great headline carbon dioxide concentrations in the year were 50 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. And that happened the first time in 2022. Yeah. And if you're interested, that's not only to come outside, break the record. So did methane and sodium dioxide. So, yeah. And of course, as that happens, then the temperature rises. The earth is now what? One point two five degrees warmer, hotter, if you like, than it was in the latter half of the 19th century. And we're worried about this one point five. And this one point five is bandied around as sort of the point of no return. Well, we're looking at some of that being hit. Well, some of it was being hit this year. And so we'll see how it goes. But we're still well on course for a two to three centigrade rise by. Well, this is the interesting question when some that the analyst here here between 2015 and 2080. So that's not very help. No. Yeah. It's challenging all these these figures and things and people not getting doing things. That's the whole reason we're talking about all these things. Yeah. And there are some things that have been happening in regards to more financial pledges being made. But once again, they're pledges. They're not actually delivering them. You know, I know there was a deal with Australia and a small country. They decided to do a deal over not resettling, but over the sort of loss and sort of there's a deal. Yeah. We can't say much. And they were Australia with a house. Basically, people lost their habitat and basically resettled them. And it's one of those things where there are always lovely financial pledges and they say lots of money from rich countries to help poorer countries adapt and all these sort of things and going through. And the answer is yes, they're working. These money are being shared. Given. Yeah. OK. But the rich countries here look like they are going to meet their financial commitments to provide the sort of a hundred billion a year. Climate finance. The only problem is that they promise to do it in a particular year and they're running behind. I think there's something about five years behind where they thought. Yes. Something like that. It's something they said they were going to do by the stakes and they haven't managed to. I think that COP26 they sort of figgle the numbers and they managed to sort of ask it out by this state will be getting there. The goal was this one. So as I said, the goalposts keep moving. But there's no reason people can't keep the goalposts stable. Global pandemic. Oh, no, that's ruined our economy. We've got to keep our money and look after ourselves first. Yeah. Reset all the goals. That really did reset all the goals. And they said, yes, we've got to try and do something here. So our country, we promise we'll still pay the money, but we'll pay it a little bit. So speaking of those ideas about not breaking pledges, but failing to actually not commit to pledges, but sort of acting on the pledges that they've made, we can actually talk about sort of how many pledges have been broken or technically violated, if that makes sense. Yeah, go on then. Right. And so it's one of the things where we can look at the numbers. And I can tell you that the Netherlands, a very surprising country, is actually breached approximately 200 climate bridges already. And that's our snarkling. You say, what, what, the Netherlands? You think it looks pretty dope. Anyway, so that, you know, people behind. And sort of we can look in sort of other countries like Switzerland. What? Switzerland? You know, they're also breaking the same, nearly the same amount. They're actually breaking more sort of like 400 climate pressure. And these are the previous pledges from all the cops so far that they're behind on. And that's the number of pledges they made and they failed to actually achieve. They're not saying they're not working towards them. That's of course, they missed the deadline on this year. So that's sort of one violation. So you had them up and it's just every year say how many previous pledges you made. You've got a list. How many of them have you achieved and how many have failed? The answer is that's how they make up the violation there. So it's not necessarily they're not working towards them, but they said how many years did they make their goal? Did they actually reach their target? The answer was no. So going through the list, sort of introducing the bad people, sort of Germany's got 500 of these violations, which is surprising. Right. Yeah. As I said, these are all not surprising, but surprising in regards to what Germany's behind and its climate pledges. So, you know, but the interesting one, of course, is you see. Italy. Italy is huge behind their climate pledges. Almost over a thousand. How does that work? How can you be behind a thousand pledges? How many pledges were there to actually be behind, you know, to fail a thousand? It sort of makes the mind boggle here. Yes. Yeah. And of course, definitely sort of the good one, a sort of America is sort of huge because it doesn't seem to be able to actually make any of the pledges. It's made in any of the copies. It's one of the things where and so that's one of the things now. One of those odd things where you hear these numbers and sort of like how many pledges, but it's sort of the it's an ongoing tracker and sort of long list of pledges. So it's sort of you and some of these pledges they broken and haven't kept because of course, everybody's changed what they're doing. So of course, they know this is where statistics doesn't help. They broken their promise because they're now planning on doing something else in relation to that promise. Well, there's also the countries that didn't actually promise to do anything and have actually honored those pledges because they really haven't done anything. But there are a few countries that are actually now changing their tune a little bit. China, for instance, China was sort of not interested in doing things and they say they will reduce this. They're not necessarily going to give you a date, but they've actually said they are going to reduce their progress. And this is this is what cops basically about making these small slow changes year upon year. You don't sort of see much. If you look over the last 10 years, suddenly China is actually playing ball. That's a huge deal, which is, you know, you can't say that's the wrong or bad idea. So yes, there's climate finance is sort of not going so well. That's the alliance of how much money is being put in. As we said, they're only managing to achieve their target now, which is five years late. But it's one of those things where do we celebrate the fact that we've actually reached the target? You can know but that's the whole point of it. We've now made it and they said there is more opportunity, but because basically the plan is for was at the time five years ago to reach this number. And then obviously to keep investing, keep going, sort of thing where the goal now is sort of five years behind. So do we need to change that number so that next year because we're five years behind, these sort of minus five years from all the things and say right next year, our target is actually going to be 101. Or sort of as opposed to where it should have been, which was 105. Just to relate that time gap. It's up to people to design and work out what's happening and what's for and what's achievable. I'm their expert in all these things. I'm here to just read the news and hear things. I'm not in negotiation at all. But that's the whole point. And if you start moaning at people about these things and saying you commit to do this, where's the plan on that? They go, oh, I might do some stuff. Yeah, like not everybody, every country has to make a forest of Ireland a year or I think the whole world is making a forest of a size of Ireland a year. So what if we can divide that by the number of countries and sort of then target sort of that quantity, you know, make it more manageable. Yeah. And this is the whole plan around it. So this was what COP was designed for. So all these things are going on. However, while these things are going on, the temperature is still rising. Fires are still taking more fires are taking place, more floods are taking place. The temperature is still rising and it's still getting worse. And we've got to do something about it. COP makes pledges, but we've got to make sure the politicians see this through. And the only way that you and I can do that is by our vote and hopefully try to get someone in who's willing to actually do something about it. You've been listening to Going Green podcast, looking at how COP26 hasn't got on and hoping against hope that maybe COP28 might do better. Until next time, it's goodbye from me. And goodbye from me. Bye-bye. Take care. Bye.