Use of biomass for energy purposes, such as fuel production, is widely and intensively debated in the European Union by forestry and agriculture representatives, researchers, decision-makers, NGOs and many others. Many claims are asserted with determination, but what is true and what is false?
This question was addressed in an open webinar on 10 December 2021, which is now accesible online.
Alla behöver vara med på tåget för att klimatmålen ska kunna nås i tid. Men fortfarande debatterar världens länder om hur ansvaret för klimatlösningarna bör fördelas. Forskare delaktiga i nätverket Uppsala University Sustainability Initiatives (UUSI), menar dock att det finns en nyckel till framgång: klimatledarskap, skriver Uppsala universitet i en nyhetsartikel.
After the dramatic final hours of negotiations, the most important issues at COP26 in Glasgow have now been decided. The decisions have led to key steps forward in international climate policy, but they are not enough to achieve the climate goals. (This is a translation of the original Swedish-language post that can be found here)
When it comes to emissions reductions there are clear statements about the importance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, which in practice means a stronger interpretation of the goal from the Paris Agreement. Parties will now sharpen their NDCs more often and in coordination with the pact. Global emissions reductions of 45% from 2010 to 2030 has been quantified, agreed upon and included in the text. The use of coal and fossil fuel subsidies will also be reduced, a first for international climate agreements. The agreements reached at Glasgow also included the implementation of emissions trading schemes in line with the Paris Agreement.
In addition to the Glasgow agreement itself, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, groups of countries have also agreed on measures relating to, among other things, methane emissions, deforestation and coal power. Several countries have also advanced their positions, the most significant being India’s commitments to Net Zero by 2070. Overall, there was a sense of cooperation and ambition in the negotiations.
These decisions and promises will, at best, mean that global warming will evidently reach at 1.8-1.9 degrees, according to preliminary calculations. This is a great improvement from what it looked like before the start of COP26 and even more so compared to when the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015.
But the progress is not nearly enough to meet the 1.5-degree goal. Emissions reductions must increase and at a significantly faster rate than currently anticipated. The UN decisions in Glasgow also rely completely on implementation at the national level, but this is of course always a given in international agreements. All countries must now do far more.
Implementation in nations and global regions also needs to occur with higher ambitions than that which is expressed in the agreement. For example, the language surrounding coal phase-downs and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and the agreement on emissions trading are clearly weak. Different countries have held up different issues. Coal and subsidies for fossil fuels need to be phased out completely. This is something that all countries can do without need of a UN decision. And rules for emissions trading can also be improved
On the issue of financing for both emission reductions and adaptation measures, more resources have been allocated before and during COP26. Most significantly new commitments have been made to double the financing for climate adaptation. The negotiations also led towards some steps forward to address Loss and Damage, the issue of compensation for climate damage in developing countries that arise even with climate adaptation measures in place.
But even on these points, the agreement is far from sufficient. The target of $100 billion in annual climate funding by 2020 has not been met. That figure is also a whole order of magnitude too little. There was also no effective process for dealing with the issue of Loss and Damage, let alone any financing to speak of. The countries that have the least impact on the climate are seriously affected, while those that primarily cause the damage are not prepared to pay the costs that arise.
It is clear that the Glasgow summit is a step forward. Yet it is also clear that the agreement was weakened on several key issues on the table. And it is even clearer that this progress is not nearly enough. There are plenty of reasons to be critical and, further, it is deeply unethical that developed countries do not offer more. That said, despite disagreements on several issues and despite some countries taking sides on individual issues, the world actually agrees on the importance of accelerating climate work.
This article was written by Angelica Johansson as a guest blog for Climate Change Leadership at Uppsala University. Previously a student in the Climate Change Leadership course, Angelica is now a PhD Candidate working on the ERC funded project: the Politics of Climate Change Loss and Damage with the University College of London’s Political Science Department.
***
If there was one thing clear at COP26, it was that without significant and immediate mitigation measures, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be continue to rise to dangerous levels. Moreover average temperature rise to the present day has already led to irreversible impacts, beyond what we can adapt to. People living in the global South, indigenous peoples and vulnerable communities are less able to adapt to (in essence – to bounce back from) the negative climate impacts. These impacts are often manifested as droughts, floods, storms and cyclones. In the UNFCCC terminology, such catastrophic climate changes impact that push the limit of what can be adapted to are referred to as ‘loss and damage.’ Loss and Damage is understood by some as a third pillar of climate action, together with mitigation and adaptation (Roberts and Huq, 2015).
Loss and Damage was institutionalised as a policy field in the UNFCCC in 2013 through the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (the WIM). Its institutionalisation was further strengthened in 2015 through the inclusion of Article 8 in the Paris Agreement, which called for averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change (UNFCCC, 2015, p. 12). The WIM guides the implementation of Article 8 and is mandated to enhance knowledge, strengthen dialogue, as well as action and support through finance, technology and capacity building (UNFCCC, 2021a). While the work of the Executive Committee of the WIM has focused on the two first parts of its mandate, (that is, the enhancement of knowledge and the strengthening of dialogue), the progress to address loss and damage has been criticised for being too slow. For example, the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition argues that the WIM has failed to address the losses and damages in vulnerable countries and that the WIM lacks the resources to fully deliver its mandate.
At COP26, the Loss and Damage agenda focused on the operationalisation of the Santiago Network; the institutional governance of the WIM (should the WIM be governed under the UNFCCC Convention, the Paris Agreement or both?); and finally (but definitely not the least) Loss and Damage finance.
The Santiago Network was established at COP25 in 2019 and can be described as the operational arm of the WIM. As the Santiago Network is a relatively new institutional addition to the WIM, the negotiating countries used COP26 to decide what the function of the network would be. Discussions on the Santiago Network’s functions started during COP’s first week – at the same time as the World Leaders Summit (UNFCCC, 2021b). As a result, observers were excluded from the negotiation space and were left to watch the negotiation on the COP26 platform – a tool designed for observers to follow the negotiations digitally. The negotiating parties managed to agree on the functions of the Santiago Network, but unsurprisingly with some difficulty. Before an agreement was reached, parties had different preferred options on how to operationalise the Santiago Network. The negotiating block containing mainly developing countries and emerging economies, G77+China, wanted to discuss the Santiago Network’s functions and form separately, based on a logic where one first decides to go from point A to point B (i.e. the function) and then decides how to arrive at point B (i.e. the institutional set-up). While the US and EU initially wanted to discuss form and function together, the outcome ultimately reveled that whilst the functions were finalised, the institutional form of the SN will only be discussed in June at the intersessional meeting.
For many countries, particularly within the Global South, there is a lot riding on Loss and Damage negotiations and, as with many aspects of the COP processes, a strong geopolitical charge underpins these talks. During informal consultations, the spokesperson for G77+China made a notable intervention with political undertones describing the functions as a means of transport. He said that one could go by walking, biking, by tuk-tuk or SUV, and highlighted that SUV’s are a very popular car in countries like the EU and the US. He finished his intervention by suggesting that one could also use a tank and that tanks have been imported in many of G77’s countries in the Middle East. There was an audible gasp in the room as this point was made.
The second Loss and Damage item on the agenda was that of the governance of the WIM. The WIM is currently governed under the UNFCCC Convention – the COP – as well as the Paris Agreement – the CMA. At COP25 in Madrid 2019, some countries proposed that the WIM should solely be governed under the CMA. This proposition was strongly opposed by developing countries and for COP26 they asked for the governance structure to remain jointly between the COP and the CMA (PowershiftAfrica, 2021). In Glasgow, we expected this issue to be further discussed (Calliari, 2021). However, during the World Leaders Summit and the first days of the negotiations, rumours started circulating inside the venue around how ministers had decided to postpone the governance issue until COP27. These rumours proved to be founded as the CMA decision text notes that the governance issue did not reach an outcome and will be further discussed next year.
The final Loss and Damage item discussed at COP26 was that of finance. Developing countries have called for Loss and Damage finance for years (Fielder Cook et al., 2019) and it also remained a priority at this COP (PowershiftAfrica, 2021). G77+China proposed the creation of a finance facility which would provide funds and help address the losses and damages incurred as a result of negative climate impacts (Farand, 2021). The Scottish Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon supported the G77+China’s call for Loss and Damage finance and pledged £2m for Loss and Damage specifically in the Scottish Climate Justice Fund and called for other rich countries to follow (ScotGOV, 2021). To build up pressure for Loss and Damage finance further, a group of philanthropists committed $3m to kick-start the finance facility if the negotiating parties agreed to set it up (CIFF, 2021), and Wallonia decided to earmark €1m for Loss and Damage (TheBrusselsTimes, 2021).
Despite these efforts, the proposal did not gain traction in the plenary. Instead, the call for a ‘Glasgow Finance Facility’ faced strong opposition from the US and the EU (Weise and Mathiesen, 2021), and in the final text, the ‘Glasgow Finance Facility’ became a ‘Glasgow Dialogue’ in which negotiating parties and other stakeholders will discuss the arrangement for funding of activities to avert, minimise and address Loss and Damage. Small Island Developing States, such as the Maldives expressed fear over the dialogue being a delaying tactic (Weise and Mathiesen, 2021), where practical and financial assistance to those impacted by climate change will take even longer before it reaches those on the ground.
To conclude, while COP26 progressed the WIM through the agreement of the SN functions, its third mandate -to address loss and damage – remains under prioritised, and important funding decisions have been kicked down the line again. The Glasgow Climate Pact recognises the science and the urgency for action, yet leaves the countries responsible for causing climate change and its attributable impacts free from taking responsibility for their emissions.
References
CALLIARI, E. 2021. What is at stake for Loss and Damage at COP 26? Available from: http://www.climate-loss-damage.eu/international-negotiations/what-is-at-stake-for-loss-and-damage-at-cop-26/ [Accessed 16 November 2021].
CIFF. 2021. Philantropies Offer Kick-start Funds for Prospective Glasgow Loss & Damage Facility to Support Vulnerbale Countries Suffering From Climate Change [Online]. Online: Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. Available: https://ciff.org/news/philanthropies-offer-kick-start-funds-for-prospective-glasgow-loss-damage-facility-to-support-vulnerable-countries-suffering-from-climate-change/ [Accessed 12 November 2021].
FARAND, C. 2021. Climate reparations become a crunch issue as Cop26 goes into overtime [Online]. Online: Climate Home News. Available: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/11/12/climate-reparations-crunch-issue-cop26-goes-overtime/ [Accessed 12 November 2021].
FIELDER COOK, L., MENKE, I., JOHANSSON, A. & ALEKSANDROVA, M. 2019. RINGO report of the 10th meeting of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanisms for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (‘ExCom 10’) [Online]. Online: RINGO. Available: https://ringosnet.wordpress.com/wim-excomm/ [Accessed 16 November 2021].
POWERSHIFTAFRICA 2021. COP 26: Delivering the Paris Agreement – A five-point pland for solidarity, fairness and prosperity. Online: Powershift Africa.
ROBERTS, E. & HUQ, S. 2015. Coming full circle: the history of loss and damage under the UNFCCC. International Journal of Global Warming, 8, 141-157.
SCOTGOV. 2021. Scotland to boost climate funding [Online]. Online: Scottish Government. Available: https://www.gov.scot/news/scotland-to-boost-climate-funding/ [Accessed 11 November 2021].
THEBRUSSELSTIMES. 2021. COP26: Wallonia earmarks one million euros for loss and damages [Online]. Online: The Brussels Times. Available: https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/193568/cop26-wallonia-earmarks-one-million-euros-for-loss-and-damages/ [Accessed 14 November 2021].
UKGOV. 2021. PM address at COP26 World Leaders Summit Opening Ceremony [Online]. Online: UK Government. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-at-cop26-world-leaders-summit-opening-ceremony [Accessed 08 November 2021].
UNFCCC. 2015. Paris Agreement [Online]. Online: UNFCCC. Available: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf [Accessed 08 November 2021].
UNFCCC. 2021a. Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) [Online]. Online: UNFCCC. Available: https://cop23.unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/workstreams/loss-and-damage-ld/warsaw-international-mechanism-for-loss-and-damage-associated-with-climate-change-impacts-wim [Accessed 05 January 2021].
UNFCCC. 2021b. The World Leaders Summit at COP 26 [Online]. Online: UNFCCC. Available: https://unfccc.int/cop26/world-leaders-summit [Accessed 15 November 2021].
WEISE, Z. & MATHIESEN, K. 2021. EU, US block effort for climate disaster funding at COP26 [Online]. Online: Politico. Available: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-us-block-financial-support-climate-change-cop26/ [Accessed 13 November 2021].
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.
As we near the close of COP26 let’s take stock of the core changes this afternoon:
Alok Sharma asserts that the conclusion is imminent and COP26 will be closed this afternoon. Ongoing discussions on the floor, colloquially known as “huddles”, continue however, so delays may continue.
Follow us live on twitter for direct updates throughout the afternoon.
Chair of COP26 Alok Sharma continues to press that later this afternoon a draft will be agreed upon and COP26 closed. Civil society giants such as Climate Action Network International, however, sees ongoing deliberation around several of their core concerns.
LOSS AND DAMAGE
Loss and Damage is headlining as a clear division, with activists and many policy advisers and environmental lawyers calling for unity in face of strong pressure. British environmental lawyer and climate policy expert at the UNFCCC, Farhana Yamin calls for leadership from LDC countries on this issue to “save COP26” . With so much evidently on the line where Loss and Damage is concerned, and given the appeals from the likes of Tuvalu and Kenya in the Stocktaking plenary yesterday, it is hard to see that consensus will be reached any time soon.
Mohamed Adow, climate policy expert and director of Nairobi-based climate change thinktank “Power Shift Africa”, took a harder line towards these negotiations, accusing wealthier countries of avoiding responsibility.
COAL PHASE OUT AND FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES
India has raised concern over the language surrounding coal phase outs, with support from other parties. Ongoing discussions on this issue continue.
The biggest huddle taking place was on Article 6 with two key issues emerging. Firstly, reinserting the REDD+ language into the text, something the Rainforest nations want, but the US and others appear to oppose. Secondly, how to handle ‘Share of Proceeds’ under 6.2. Kerry reportedly told AGN and G77 negotiators to drop this as as sticking point, for fear it would collapse the deal. In return, he offered to double adaptation finance. The G77 is apparently now meeting to discuss what is on the table.
No agreement yet reached.
Much action on social media as speculation mounts and concerns hit peak levels. Civil society and observers sit in the overflow plenary watching screens to follow debates and negotiations live and in parallel. The speculation and ongoing frustration at accessibility has questions rising over the nature of these negotiations and inclusivity. Policy adviser and climate justice strategist, Alex Rafalowicz, summarises his views:
Follow the twitter thread from CCL coordinator, Isabel Baudish, for commentary and live updates.
It’s Saturday morning in Glasgow and the third edition of the COP26 cover decision is out. The latest amendments can be tracked here.
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:
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.
Over the past decade alone, extreme weather and climate-related disasters have resulted in the deaths of more than 410 000 people. The UNFCCC defines as the harms that stem from a combination of these sudden-onset events and slow-onset processes (like sea level rise) as ‘Loss and Damage’ (L & D). Sudden onset process include the lkes of flooding and wildfires, whilst slow-onset include the likes of sea level rise. Consequences of the both can include loss of land, life and large scale migration. However, it’s crucial to recognise that a fundamental part of Loss & Damage is also the loss of identity and culture.
There were a number of expectations for the Glasgow summit to unlock the political stagnation that has mired Loss and Damage talks in previous years, to meet the needs of the climate vulnerable, in the form of specific finance and compensation, technical support capacity building; and averting or at least minimising, further loss and damage. Loss and Damage has been a sticking point when framed in the context of climate debt, climate justice and moral responsibility – vulnerable countries argue that much like the context of war reparations, financial compensation is due them, due to the historical responsibility of the Global North in contributing to climate change. Many nations in the Global North however, have been resistant to making such financial contributions, fearing it will open them up to unlimited claims for damages. One important consideration for many Loss and Damage advocates here is that these contributions are not framed as charity handouts, but moreover, the paying of a debt.
The critical elements that were tabled for Loss and Damage talks during Glasgow included operationalising the Santiago Network on Loss & Damage (SNLD), a process led by G77 and China. Established in COP25 as a mode of offering technical support to non-Annex 1 countries, going into SNLD required definition and substance, in the form of a clear structure, mode of governance, financial feed, clear set of activities and communication. Another focus was to decide where to legally ‘store’ the COP19 Warsaw Implementation Mechanism (WIM) for Loss & Damage which has legal and practice ramifications for accountability and transparency. The call to label L & D as a permanent agenda idea since COP23 will continue, in quest to provide greater discussion space for L & D. Advocation has also been made to include L&D as a core element in every country’s climate plan, in the same ways as NDCs are.
And then the million (s) dollar question included sourcing adequate and secure financing arrangements for Loss and Damage, through avenues including but not limited to Green Climate Fund. It is estimated that by 2030 the costs of L & D will be conservatively in the realm of 580 billion per year. L & D has typically received far far less financial support compared with adaptation finance, which in terms still receives vastly less than mitigation finance. The push from developing a call to establish a compensation fund for Loss & Damage has long been called for by vulnerable countries and civil society where, for example, high emitters (state and non state actors) would pay into a compensation fund. The campaign #PayUp4LossandDamage has been one of the strongest campaigns and focus points in Glasgow, something that many in corridors have reflected as quite the turn around in recent years,
So, heading into the final hours of COP26, or so we hope, where are we on Loss and Damage and what is the crux of the deals that need to be struck in the coming day? Here are the key takeaways.
When it comes to form and function of the SNLD, the functions are agreed, but the form has been deferred to June intersessional. WIM governance questions remain contentious, with a tension over whether the WIM should be ‘stored’ under the COP (the preference of the G77 and ) or CPA (Paris Agreement, the preference of many in the Global North). Where the WIM is stored holds repercussions for accountability mechanisms. These decisions have been deferred to COP27.
When it comes to finance, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon headlined COP26 early on with a 1 million pound fund pledge exclusively for Loss and Damage, only to double that figure on Thursday evening. However despite the vastly popular reception from SIDs, LDCs and civil society, she cuts a lonely figure with this pledge – no other countries have followed suit.
The G77 and China have tabled what is being referred to as ‘Glasgow Loss and Damage facility,’ a financial facility that would money would flow into. This would act as a delivery vehicle for funds raised now and into the future. There has been support from 130 nations, who in turn represent 85% of the global population. However, there has been significant push back behind closed doors from the likes of the EU and US. The initial draft of the so called COP26 cover decision text, which tables the key conference outcomes of this COP, initially explicitly referred to this facility. However, in the second iteration this reference was removed, to the dismay of many.
Discussions around how to separate financial flows between a. funding the coordinating body for L & D finance b. funding the actual L & D reparations themselves have been a source of debate and delay.
In a tale of good news, Philanthropists have offered funds to initiate any prospective Loss and Damage Facility, taking the responsibility for reparations beyond that of solely state actors. This sum is just the tip of the iceberg, and should by no means assuage the responsibility of state actors in financing Loss and Damage, nor structural mechanisms that see it built into long term agreements and commitments.
One thing is clear going into the weekend. As the negotiations run further and further overtime, this becomes more and more of an inclusivity concern, a concern that has plagued COP26. For those with pre-booked travel, high rebooking costs and visa extentions blocking many wiht most at stake from staying longer.
With both sides of the able strongly drawing lines, when the final ball lands remains to be seen.
More to come…
You can read more about Loss & Damage at COP26 here and here.
COP26 has been flooded by joint group frontrunner initiatives, trying to move beyond the painstakingly slow process of raising ambitions by consensus, from new alliances to tackle methane emissions and deforestation to a number of initiatives to phase out coal and the launch today of a new alliance to phase out oil and gas. From one perspective most of these initiatives only make a small dent to the emission gap to meet the Paris goals. From another perspective group frontrunner initiatives are key to accelerate climate action and push overall ambitions.
The first perspective was highlighted today when scientists and experts in the Climate Action Tracker collaboration presented an assessment on how much the new frontrunner initiatives at COP26 would effect the emission gap until 2030. According to the calculations the new initiatives would close the 2030 emission gap for the 1.5°C target by around 9%. This could be compared to the updated NDC:s themselves, which according to Climate Action Tracker close the gap by 15-17%, arriving at a total number around 24-25%.
These 9% might feel small and unimportant. However, as the scientists behind the new assessment emphasized, the effect of these initiatives are not restricted to the short term impacts on emissions among the current signatories. The broader potential of frontrunner alliances is both to accelerate techno-economical change and to put political pressure on other countries to join in.
“It is not surprising that the effect of the COP26 sectoral initiatives beyond national climate targets is initially small. These initiatives are designed for those that do NOT sign immediately. The pressure of being put on the spot will help to grow the membership of the initiatives and enhance the effect beyond national climate targets in the long run”, professor Niklas Höhne of NewClimate Institute stated in a press release on the assessment.
One example on this are the new and enlarged alliances to phase out coal, finance to new coal power plants, and to support a just transition away from coal. At face value the promises made by the countries only give a small dent to the emission curve up until 2030. However, all in all the countries involved represent a total coal capacity of 267 GW, more than that of US or India, and also include coal dependent countries like Indonesia. Adding promises to dry up international public funding for new coal plants – including from China – the initiatives underline a clear and definite trend: coal is dying. This is the reason why the official language in the cover text of COP26 can – and probably will – include wordings to phase out coal.
From a deeper perspective the death spiral for coal is a prime example on how frontline initiatives in a relatively small number of key countries can initiate an unstoppable global trend. Coal has been the first fossil fuel to take the hit by ever cheaper renewable energy. And the breakthrough for renewable energy, in turn, was pushed by public support for industrial scale up in countries like Germany, Denmark and China. Globally, coal consumption actually reached its maximum already in 2014. And today the death spiral for coal is enhanced by both decreasing costs for renewable energy and sharpened climate policy.
Indeed, as the scientists in the Climate Action Tracker collaboration emphasize, this is not enough. The transition away from coal needs to be speeded up significantly. In order to hold on to the 1.5°C target, coal would need to be phased out around 2040 globally, and probably around 2030 in the developed world. This is a tall order, not the least for countries like China, with a huge fleet of relatively new coal plants. The techno-economical development itself will push the process. But it will not be enough. And this is where frontrunners and new alliances are important. If the EU and US for example could lead by showing that a just transition away from coal is possible in 10-15 years, and financial support for a just transition could be expanded, the chances to close the gap would enhance significantly.
Climate change and the need for just societal transitions to low carbon economies are not a new topic for us here at Climate Change Leadership. We hear all the time about the importance of societal transition to mitigate severe climate change, but transition has not grasped the more transformative nature of rapid reductions in emissions and lifestyle changes needed to reach this goal. How, though, might we transform into something which has already been decided? We look to nature for inspiration: Metamorphosis.
Perhaps this transformation could be considered in terms of societal metamorphosis. We know the quantified end goals and limitations that we need to follow in our transformations, whether they are mainly guided by the science of planetary boundaries, of carbon budgets or science-based climate laws. Here in Sweden the present end goal of our societal transformation means reaching Net Zero 2045. But the act of transformation into this fossil free future has yet to be decided and described. Contributing pathways have been proposed by industry in Fossil Free Sweden, and midway targets have been committed to by the Swedish Government and parliament. But the collective gathering of roadmaps and pathways in order to frame and name this transformative process, itself, leaves something to be desired. Transformation infers an openness that does not quite fit in this context.
When it comes down to it, the inevitably important but still nitty-gritty debates over priorities and rates of mitigation are fiery, particularly when justice and equity principles are centred. Electric cars are an important solution, but the mining of cobalt for batteries have dangerous consequences for human rights (read more on nature.com). Nature-based solutions are an option, but access and property rights within the broader implications of off-setting can be problematic. The responsibilities of wealthier countries, with higher cumulative emissions, to reduce emissions rates faster is likewise an issue for climate justice debates. For example in Sweden, whose Net Zero goal in 2045 is 25 years ahead of the goal recently declared for India, there is now pressure on the government to act faster. In essence, the process of societal transformation, like the metamorphosis of the butterfly, is a turbulent, bloody and challenging time guided by core principles and ends.
To stretch the metaphor further, metamorphosis is also the aspect which separates juvenile and mature specimens. They occupy different habitats and engage in radically different activities. Rejecting the categorisations of countries in as mature and juvenile, which is highly problematic in terms of climate justice and the historical responsibility of climate change, it is the separation that interests me. In the international climate politics sphere, the concept demonstrates how wealthier countries who may afford a quick metamorphosis have a responsibility to support developing countries with their transition or risk broadening a divide, continue to rely on fossil fuels and risk exclusion from the full potentials that new, green, technologies and 1.5 degree living might have to offer.
The open-ended term of “transforming the future” does not suggest an unknown future in the landscape of Net Zero, Fossil Free Sweden’s road-maps, and planetary boundaries. A metamorphosis, which describes a process of transforming into something already known, may offer a better description of the process ahead of us.
This reflection is written ahead the event Climate Change Leadership is organising at the COP26 Nordic Pavilion. Here we ask how societies may transform in order to fit within carbon budgets? The seminar describes Paris Agreement-based carbon budgets as a foundation for discussing the merits and shortcomings of various governance strategies, including potential COP26 outcomes, with a focus on social fairness and effectiveness in meeting climate targets. Key speakers include our own senior lecturer, Mikael Karlsson, and previous Zennström professors Doreen Stabinsky and Kevin Anderson. The event is facilitated by Jens Ergon and Isabel Baudish. Join us in CEMUS Friday 10.00 – 11.30 (CET) to watch the livestream or watch online here: https://www.norden.org/en/event/glasgow-fair-climate-transformation-governance
Wednesday evening saw one of the most surprising developments during COP26, when giant emitters and political contenders US and China announced a joint agreement to enhance climate action. The deal breaks the trenches in Glasgow and could boost the odds for a positive outcome at COP26, and potentially also for climate action in the years to come.
The US-China deal was presented with short notice during two consecutive press conferences by US climate envoy and former secretary of state John Kerry and China’s climate envoy and former climate minister Xie Zhenhua.
According to Kerry and Zhenhua, US and China have worked on the agreement for ten months, during some 30 virtual meetings since the beginning of the year. The 16-point agreement covers a number of areas where the two global top emitters and major economies will cooperate in order to enhance ambitions and accelerate climate action, from deployment of renewables and electrification to CCS and slashing methane emissions.
The deal underlines the importance of rapidly closing the ambition gap in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement and keep the 1.5-degree target alive. The text reiterates the ambition of the Biden administration to make US electricity “100% carbon pollution-free” by 2035, while China promises to “phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work.” The 15th Five Year Plan means the period from 2026-2030, indicating that China seems to count on peaking coal emissions by 2025 and reduce them thereafter. The two countries also say that they intend to establish a “Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s.”
Views on the deal are split between observers, with some underlying it’s importance as a potential game changer, while others view it as a negotiating spectacle. Many of the items in the joint declaration were present already in a statement made by China and the US when Kerry and Zhenhua met in Beijing in April, while other parts, as the plan to slash methane emissions, are new and more elaborated. The deal was first handed out as a simple Google-document after the press conferences, giving the impression of an event not planned for a long time.
The deal includes several statements about the COP26 negotiations, such as to “pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C” and “taking ambitious action during this critical decade to keep the above temperature limit within reach, including as necessary communicating or updating 2030 NDCs and long-term strategies”. The two countries also state that they will “work cooperatively to complete at COP 26 the implementing arrangements (“rulebook”) for Articles 6 and 13 of the Paris Agreement, as well as common time frames for NDCs.” Both countries say that they “intend to communicate 2035 NDCs in 2025”. Nothing concrete, however, is mentioned on crucial issues such as ramping up finance for developing countries.
While the ‘Glasgow Declaration’ to some extent is similar to previous statements issued by the two countries, it is important to not underestimate the potential impact on the negotiations this new statement may have in the coming days, says Jens Ergon, PhD student at CCL, Uppsala University. A strong US-China collaboration could boost the climate negotiations and bring further emissions reductions in the two giant economies during the coming years. That is crucial for achieving the Paris goals and keep the 1.5 degree target alive, he adds.
The first key test for the renewed cooperation between the two countries will be the final days in Glasgow. So far, the two countries have belonged to coalitions with opposing views on many make-or-break items. If the collaboration between US and China is grounded, the chances for a successful outcome increase substantially.
Some observers also hope that the deal might soften the hardened diplomatic relations between the two major powers. Zhenhua does not belong to the hardline camp around Xi Jinping, and is generally considered a progressive force in the countries’ climate efforts. Kerry and Zhenhua were heavily involved in striking the deal between the US and China in the uprunning towards the Paris Agreement. The deal turned out to be pivotal then, and could very well have large impacts this time around as well.
© 2025 Climate Change Leadership
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑
