News from a Changing Planet — #19
Just when you thought you had read your last analysis of COP26, here I am!
Much has been said and written about COP26: the various pledges (“nationally determined contributions” or NDCs); how close they get us (or don’t) to keeping the average global temperature increase to below 1.5ºC; the structural unfairness of the proceedings, which guarantee the most power to the countries that are or have been the largest emitters of greenhouse gases and downplay, exclude, or ignore the voices from the countries that are already suffering the effects and have contributed least to the problem, most of which are in the Global South. That dynamic was made worse this year because many of those countries also don’t have as many vaccines as wealthy countries in the Global North, and weren’t able to send as many delegates as they otherwise would have, or as many as the fossil fuel industry -- more than 500 fossil fuel lobbyists attended COP26, according to Global Witness, some as part of national delegations from 27 countries. More than 100 companies were represented, along with 30 trade associations or membership organizations. If taken as a whole, these lobbyists represent the largest delegation in attendance, and outnumbered Indigenous attendees by 2 to 1.
I hope I won’t repeat analyses that you’ve heard or read many times over at this point, and what follows are a few “takeaways” from COP26 and the coverage of it:
Media Attention:
The attention that COP generated for climate issues and the need to take dramatic action now is really important! But the drop-off is steep. Where are all of the climate stories now?!
What COP26/UNFCCC Can Actually Achieve:
Many of the expectations - including those set by all of that media attention - are not really in line with what the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UN body that organizes COP, which itself stands for “conference of the parties” to that framework convention) can actually do.
Mainly, the UNFCCC doesn’t have the ability to enforce anything, or any kind of mechanism to hold anyone to what they promise. Moreover, every declaration from a COP meeting requires unanimous consent by the ~200 countries involved, and there are very divergent views on the urgency, what the goals should be and how to achieve them, and what countries are prepared to actually do to reach those goals.
The nature of big bureaucracies and international agreements is that they move slowly, and the things that are disappointing to a rational person are a big deal within the context of these bureaucracies and international organizations. Which is frustrating on the one hand, and it’s fair to be disappointed (or more!) about that. But it doesn’t negate the promises or progress made, and that better is not perfect, but better is good.
For example, lots was written about the “overtime” demand by India and China that countries agree to a “phase down” rather than a “phase out” of coal, as the original declaration stated, and to phase out “inefficient subsidies” for fossil fuels, rather than all subsidies. (The International Energy Agency has defined an “inefficient subsidy” as one that encourages wasteful consumption.)
Given that current pledges would only limit temperature increase to 2.1ºC, and most countries are not anywhere close to actually meeting their pledges (we’re currently on a path to 2.7ºC-3.1ºC of warming, which is better than we were before the Paris Agreement at COP21, but still...), this seems completely pathetic. But it’s also the first time fossil fuels have ever been mentioned in a COP declaration. So it is a big deal within this context, but given that COPs have been taking place since 1992, it’s hard to get too excited about it.
Some of the pledges were actually meaningful (if achieved):
More than 100 countries agreed to a global methane treaty in which they would limit methane emissions by 30 percent compared with 2020 levels. This is important because methane has a significantly greater global warming potential (it traps more heat) than carbon dioxide, but doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere. It matters how quickly we reduce emissions because of physics: regardless of how much we lower emissions right now, a certain amount of warming (and the accompanying consequences) is inevitable. That principle persists the longer there are more excessive greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, so reducing emissions quickly is very important.
And, more than 100 countries signed a pledge to “stop deforestation” by 2030. I’m not sure of the specifics on this one and since so much logging and deforestation is done illegally, I’m not sure how this will be achieved, but if it happens, that would be great. However, and as always, I would have liked to see more about oceans, which sequester more carbon and heat than trees and it is, theoretically, the UN’s “decade of ocean science.”
The US and China, the two biggest economies and emitters in the world, agreed to work together to reduce emissions over the next decade. Again, nothing enforceable or overly specific here, but given that the two countries had been insulting each other over the course of the convention, this was a surprise! And a good one.
Elsewhere, they fell really short:
There are other places where pledges, outside of the NDCs, fell short: climate finance for developing countries is a big one, as was the refusal by most major economies to make any specific promises (other than to begin a dialogue) to help pay for “loss and damage” specifically (the irreversible destruction, including loss of life, already caused by climate change). Making good on existing climate finance promises (in 2009, President Obama pledged $100 billion for these countries by 2020, which has been left unfulfilled) will likely become more difficult, as richer countries in the Global North increasingly see expensive damage from disasters made more intense and frequent by climate change.
Denying aid to developing countries which are suffering first and worst from climate change and have contributed the least to this problem is not what any rich country should be doing, for reasons of basic humanity and fairness. But it’s also not smart! Countries in the Global North can’t isolate themselves from disaster elsewhere.
What the focus on COP26 and negotiations misses:
Overall, I think COP 26 attracts as much attention and expectation as it does (or did this year) because things feel increasingly desperate and levers for change seem nonexistent or ineffective. The media coverage (not all, but a lot of it), even of something like COP, feels like a horserace, and leaves readers uninformed about what exactly the point and possibilities of a gathering like this one is.
The same is true for the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better Act. It’s really hard to find out what is actually in them. And really easy (practically unavoidable!) to learn what Joe Manchin is saying at any moment, and who the “winners and losers” are of negotiations and votes. What is often harder to find is a breakdown of where the money is going, why, who it will help, and what people in those communities might reasonably see change in the next few years.
That’s a massive media failure, but it actually fits with this larger issue around COP. COP matters because it is a bright light on what different countries are already doing, promising, and asking for. It gives us, as citizens, something specific(-ish) to hold them accountable to. But the domestic policy agenda and what is promised by politicians is much more important, especially here in the US and other high-emitting nations. It matters much more that the Senate could pass the BBB Act, which would be the largest climate bill ever, because that determines whether COP and what Biden pledged there mean anything at all. There are also other important factors -- the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments about the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act, and if they gut that agency’s enforcement power, achieving the promised emissions reductions (let alone what is actually required to reduce emissions by half in the next decade) will become much more difficult.
This is all a reminder that all politics is local, and that regulations matter! If you want to see climate action on a global scale, you have to start at home. Not everyone has to go into politics, or become a diplomat responsible for international negotiations, or be Greta Thunberg or Vanessa Nakate, but each of us has a specific skill or ability that only we have. So figure out what it is and use it!
While you are pondering your ability to save the planet, here is an article I wrote about how coffee is affected by climate change, and what some growers, scientists and entrepreneurs are doing to ensure its future and limit the emissions that come from production. And also an interview with Dr. Diva Amon, a very inspiring and cool marine biologist, about her work in deep ocean science, ocean preservation, and the need for representation in marine science and other sciences for people from historically underrepresented com.
Happy Thanksgiving! Don’t forget about the cranberries!
And as always, I would love to hear from you about this newsletter, or what you might like to read here in the future.
Tatiana