Of course, measuring success can become subjective, but a reasonable starting point from which to evaluate the conference outcomes would be to ask the following questions:
1. Secure global net zero carbon emissions by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach by:
2. Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats; and specifically, the countries affected by climate change to:
3. To make good on the promise to mobilise at least $100bn in climate finance per year by 2020. For developed countries to "urgently scale up" financial support for developing countries, and to respond to their need to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
On a general level advocates can point to the following.
More specifically:
The main concern was the abandonment of the aim to phase out coal by 2030. Instead, at the behest of a number of fossil fuel exporting countries this was watered down to the phrase phase down which means very little. Given that fossil fuels are the major contributor to global warming the fact that countries like India, Australia and Saudi Arabia were able to put their short term political and economic interests first was disappointing.
Secondly, governments from the richer nations have reneged on their promises (made at the Paris conference in 2015) to provide an annual budget of $100 billion to help vulnerable low income countries cope with the impacts of climate change: including sea level rise, extreme climatic events, and impacts on agriculture. Disappointingly, there were no commitments, no plans, or deadlines to provide the money owed to help developing countries and no promise of action, just vague rhetoric.
Instead of providing much needed funding to vulnerable countries, the richer countries are focussing investment on the development of electric vehicles which may well excite the consumer in the UK or Germany but do little for the poorer countries around the Indian and Pacific basin, many low lying and under imminent threat from inundation in the next 30 years.
There were criticisms that the language used in the initial drafts was watered down for the final report. Aubrey Webson, the chair of the Alliance of Small Island States cited the use of words like ‘Urging’, ‘calling’, ‘encouraging’ and ‘inviting’ as “not the decisive language that this moment calls for.” Others interpret such language along the lines of “do it if you want to”.
So, did COP26 meet its aims? The answer to that is, yes, in part.
But hard commitments to remove completely reliance on fossil fuels are conspicuously absent as is any roadmap to achieve net zero by 2050. In that sense Greta Thunberg was right: all talk little action!
Focussing on green technologies such as the development of electric cars will, of course, help to reduce the output of greenhouse gases in wealthier countries. No doubt it will also help to stimulate economic growth and employment for those countries involved in the new technologies. However, it is of little relevance to those vulnerable countries in the poorer “south” who need urgent financial assistance now.
Global temperature rise, at least in part, is a legacy of the rapid industrialisation that occurred across the northern hemisphere during the 19th and 20th centuries. The issue is that those countries reaped huge rewards from industrialisation yet it is the rest of the world that continues to pay the price. In terms of global warming, rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
The argument that the wealthier countries should be compensating the poorer countries for the damage they have caused to global climate is undeniable but continues to go unheard.
Ultimately the problem is that the solutions lie with politicians not scientists. And politicians rarely seem to take the long view or even a global view. Short term national considerations nearly always outweigh the broader needs of the planet.
So, was it enough? Again, the answer would seem to be no, not enough to avert a climate crisis and not even a start in terms of meeting obligations to those countries at greatest risk from the impact of global warming.
The final word is with Christiana Figueras writing in the Guardian, “the success of COP 26 lies in the eyes of the beholder. Many will say that we continue to irresponsibly spin the political wheels, and from some vantage points that is true.
Christiana Figueres was head of the UN climate change convention that achieved the Paris agreement in 2015, and is the author of The Future We Choose.
By Phil Brighty
Former Geography Teacher