Category: COP26 Live (Page 1 of 2)

Efter drama i slutskedet är nu de viktigaste besluten på klimatmötet i Glasgow fattade. Besluten innebär flera viktiga steg framåt i den internationella klimatpolitiken. Men de räcker inte för att nå klimatmålen.

For English click here

När det gäller utsläppsminskning så finns klara skrivningar om vikten av att begränsa uppvärmningen till 1,5 grader, vilket i praktiken innebär en skärpt tolkning av målen i Parisavtalet. Länderna ska framöver skärpa sina nationella planer oftare och koordinerat. En ny kvantifiering om behovet av att minska utsläppen av koldioxid med 45 procent mellan 2010 och 2030 är inskriven. Kolanvändning och subventioner till fossila bränslen ska minskas, ett konstaterande som tidigare saknats i klimatavtalen. Mötet enades också i frågan om hur utsläppshandel i linje med Parisavtalet ska genomföras.

Utöver själva överenskommelsen har grupper av länder enats om åtgärder som rör bland annat metanutsläpp, avskogning och kolkraft. Flera länder har också flyttat fram sina positioner, mest betydelsefullt är Indiens utfästelser. Överlag så fanns ofta en god vilja till förhandlingar och samverkan.

Dessa beslut och löften gör i bästa fall att den globala uppvärmningen på sikt stannar vid 1,8-1,9, enligt preliminära beräkningar. Det är en stor förbättring jämfört med hur det såg ut före mötet och särskilt jämfört med läget då Parisavtalet antogs.

Men framstegen räcker inte alls för att klara 1,5-gradersmålet. Utsläppen måste minska långt mer och avsevärt snabbare än vad som pekats ut. FN-besluten i Glasgow är också helt beroende av nationellt genomförande, men det är förstås alltid givet vid internationella överenskommelser. Alla länder måste nu göra långt mer.

Genomförandet i nationer och landgrupperingar behöver dessutom ske med högre ambitioner än vad som uttrycks i överenskommelsen. Exempelvis är skrivningarna om såväl kol och subventioner, som utsläppshandel klart svaga. Olika länder blockerade i olika frågor. Kol och subventioner till fossila bränslen behöver fasas ut helt. Det är något som alla länder kan göra även utan FN-beslut. Och regler för utsläppshandel går också att förbättra.

I frågan om finansiering till utsläppsminskningar och anpassningsåtgärder har mer resurser skjutits till inför och under mötet och nya utfästelser är gjorda, inte minst att dubblera finansieringen till klimatanpassning. Mötet tog också vissa steg framåt för att hantera frågan om ersättning för klimatskador i s.k. utvecklingsländer som uppstår även om klimatanpassning har skett.

Men också på dessa punkter är överenskommelsen långt ifrån tillräcklig. Målet om 100 miljarder dollar i årlig klimatfinansiering vid år 2020 är ännu inte uppfyllt. Den siffran är dessutom en hel storleksordning för låg. Någon effektiv process för att hantera frågan om skadeersättning blev heller inte av, än mindre någon finansiering att tala om. De länder som påverkar klimatet minst är värst drabbade, medan de som framförallt orsakar skadorna inte är beredda att betala de kostnader som uppstår. Det står klart att Glasgowmötet innebär framsteg. Men det är också tydligt att överenskommelsen blev ganska svag i flera frågor som låg på bordet. Och det är ännu tydligare att framstegen inte alls räcker. Det finns därför gott stöd för att vara kritisk och det är djupt oetiskt att de s.k. utvecklade länderna inte bjuder till mer. Men trots oenighet i flera frågor, och trots att vissa länder satte sig på tvären i enskilda frågor, så är världen faktiskt enig om vikten av att accelerera klimatarbetet.

It’s Saturday morning in Glasgow and the third edition of the COP26 cover decision is out. The latest amendments can be tracked here.

Loss and Damage

A previously proposed “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility” is absent from the latest draft. Facility appears to have been replaced with “dialogue”. Responses on social media from civil society shows a “deep concern“. First Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Doreen Stabinsky, considers these talks to have now essentially collapsed, with pushback reportedly coming from both EU and USA:

Changed Language on Fossil Fuels

Language on fossil fuels remains in this draft, but language surrounding them appears to be less ambitious (bold emphasis our own):

Calls upon Parties to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of
technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low emission energy systems,
including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy
efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards the phase-out of unabated coal
power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, recognizing the need for support towards a just
transition;

On top of the changes in the second draft that qualified coal phase out with ‘unabated,’ and fossil fuel subsidies with ‘inefficient’ subsidies, the third draft has changed ‘accelerating the phaseout’ to ‘including accelerating efforts towards the phase-out’.

Delegates, media and observers are now digesting the new texts, which hit the ground after a long night of over-time negotiations in Glasgow. Things have moved, but the crucial question is if they have moved enough. The US and EU still seem to resist clear finance to loss and damage, apart from technical assistance, making it a possible make or break issue at COP26.

The new texts, floated this morning, have moved on several key items: Finance for adaptation, loss and damage and article 6, on carbon markets.

On adaptation the cover texts now say that finance should at least double until 2025, compared to 2019. This is a step forward from the perspective of developing nations, but 2025 might be regarded as to late and the texts arguably still lacks clarity and a high-level mechanism to ratchet up finance to adaptation.

On loss and damage there is no decision on finance apart from technical assistance. Instead of establishing a new finance mechanism the cover texts suggest deciding to establish a dialogue. This is clearly weaker than what has been demanded by the block of small islands (AOSIS), LDCs and the larger group of developing nations (G77+China), making loss and damage the possible make or break issue in Glasgow.

On article 6 and carbon markets things have moved on some items, while not on others. Some heavily criticized loopholes, like having a two tier system with possible double counting, have been taken away, making cancellation of some carbon credits mandatory. The text also states that a new independent grievance mechanism should be established. On the other side old Kyoto credits can still be used, and critics still feel that the texts give too much room for cheating. A deal could be on it’s way, but it’s probably not there yet.

Finally, the calls to phase out ‘unabated’ coal power and ‘inefficient fossil fuel subsidies’ are still in the cover texts, but the texts now include ‘recognizing the need for support toward a just transition’, an inclusion which arguably is well motivated.

Parties will share their views at a stocktaking plenary scheduled for noon, with the UN hosts hoping to conclude the UN meeting in late afternoon. But it all depends on the reactions to the new drafts from key negotiation blocks…

UN climate negotiations in Glasgow are now running on overtime – as usual. COP26 was scheduled to end on Friday at 6 pm, but is now expected to last until Saturday afternoon. The day in Glasgow has exposed the differences on the new proposed texts for an agreement, centered on finance, in particular for adaptation and loss and damage, and rules for carbon markets.

As usual, the release of new text proposals on Friday morning was followed by a stocktaking in the afternoon, where countries and blocks of countries presented their views.

As for mitigation and the parts of the texts covering the need to ratcheting up pledges and climate action in the coming years, in order to keep the 1.5℃ target “alive”, there seem to be an emerging consensus. The new texts are defended by big players among the developed world – the EU, the US, Canada – vulnerable countries like small islands (AOSIS), the least developed countries (LDC) and the so called High Ambition Coalition.

European commissioner Frans Timmerman drew applause during the plenary by showing a picture of his one year old grandchild, emphasizing the need to pursue the 1.5℃ target and “avoiding a future which is unlivable”. He also admitted that rich nations have failed on delivering money to developing nations and claimed that the EU would step up on climate finance. 

US climate envoy John Kerry emphasized the need to reduce emissions by 45 percent during this decade and insisted that the texts on mitigation should not be watered down. He also admitted that the US was responsible for a large share of global emissions and called fossil subsidies “the definition of insanity”, needed to be phased out.

Other parties, like AOSIS and Norway, criticized that the unique mentioning of fossil fuels and call to phase out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies had been watered down and reframed to ‘unabated’ coal and ‘inefficient’ fossil fuel subsidies. The new words are probably demands from key fossil fuel dependent nations like Saudi Arabia.

Leaving mitigation as it is, the crucial remaining differences for an agreement in Glasgow are now on finance and on article 6, defining the rules for carbon markets and use of carbon credits.

African nations and the large block of developing countries and emerging economies, G77+China, underlined that the language on finance, and in particular on adaptation and loss and damage, is too weak and that increased ambitions on mitigation should be paired with increased ambition on finance and adaptation, in an equitable manner in line with the Paris Agreement, meaning that developed nations should take the lead. Frustration on missed promises by developed nations to deliver 100 billion dollars in climate finance by 2020 is still hovering over COP26.

LDC, AOSIS and representatives of small islands insisted on faster scale up of finance for adaptation, and AOSIS called finance for loss and damage a necessity for a deal in Glasgow. Many speakers also questioned why a recent proposal for a new financial mechanism for loss and damage, raised by G77+China, was absent in the text. As it stands, proposed finance for loss and damage only covers technical assistance, a fact which got Kenya’s representative to lash out: “We don’t need consultants flying around giving us advice. We need a real financial mechanism for loss and damage.”

So far, the EU and the US are holding back, both on demands to substantially raise finance on adaptation in the coming years and on the demands for a new financial mechanism for loss and damage. 

The demands for scaled up finance on adaptation and a financial mechanism for loss and damage from developing nations are both understandable and reasonable, Jens Ergon at CCL Uppsala University says. We are not talking about cash on the table in Glasgow, but trustable promises to deliver in the upcoming years. These issues, together with divergent views on carbon markets, are the key issues to solve in the hours to come.

Divergence on article 6 and carbon markets caused a stalemate at the last COP in Madrid two years ago, and could potentially do it again. AOSIS, G77+China and other groups demands that carbon markets should deliver “real emission reductions”, with mandatory cancelations of old carbon credits, while others, including Japan and the US, support a voluntary and less rigorous framework.

During Friday representatives of civil society criticized the new text for being too weak on many points, staging a walk-out of the COP26 and presenting a joint declaration with demands on the outcome. During a press conference in the afternoon the directors of Greenpeace, Oxfam and the umbrella organization Climate Action Network zoomed in on the same contested issues still under intense negotiations: Lack of finance for adaptation and loss and damage and the risk for skewed carbon markets.

New texts are supposed to be issued during the night and made available around 8 am in Saturday morning, followed by a new short stocktaking before 10 am and formal plenaries in Saturday afternoon. If they can resolve the differences, however, remains to be seen. If not, negotiations could potentially go on well into the weekend.

After a long night of intense negotiations new texts for a possible agreement in Glasgow appeared at 7.13 on Friday morning. Reactions are mixed, with the cover text strengthened in key areas like finance, but diluted in others. While many observers view it as a step forward, international NGO:s slams it as too weak, with various groups staging a walk-out of the negotiation center by midday. Crucially it remains to be seen how the new texts are received among parties. As it seems, a bunch of key issues remain to be solved, and participants are preparing for a long final day, with negotiations likely to slip over well into the weekend.

The ball is still in play, but despite strengthened language on various points, ambitions need to increase substantially, says Jens Ergon, at CCL Uppsala. Words on fossil fuels and to ratchet up ambitions has to remain undiluted, as a minimum. And in particular we would like to see enhanced ambitions on the key issue, in negotiations and reality, of financing. The coming hours will be crucial, he adds.

From a positive perspective, words on finance and adaptation have been strengthened, and the hope to ratchet up mitigation ambitions in the next few years, clinging onto hope for the 1.5 degree target, remains in the cover text, including a new UN work program to scale up emission cuts.

However, much of the wordings on finance and adaption are only possible landing zones, with intense negotiations going on about what they actually means. The mentioning of coal and fossil subsidies remains, but in a diluted form, now referring to ‘unabated’ coal and ‘inefficient’ fossil fuel subsidies – creative languages for allowing for coal power plants utilizing CCS and fossil fuel subsidies directed to keep prices of fuel low in many countries. As for loss & damage, frustrations remains, as clear words on finance, not just for technical assistance, is missing, and a proposal for a new finance mechanism by G77+China has been left out of the text. Also, deals on article 6 (carbon markets) and other unresolved issues are yet to be seen, with differing positions remaining, not the least on carbon markets. A first stocktaking plenary on the new texts are to begin early in the afternoon, giving a more clear view on how different parties view the development.