Reflections on Glasgow and COP26

Reflections on Glasgow and COP26

JeremyM. Martin, Vice President, Energy & Sustainability

Long before the opening gavel, expectations for the meeting in Glasgow had become outsized. Heightened even more once the Biden administration took office in January and placed climate action at the center of its agenda. As the meeting neared, it dominated news and headlines. Would the world come together and reach a landmark deal to turn back the climate threat? Many stories breathlessly described the emergency. The publication of the latest IPCC assessment report in August furthered

the dramatic narrative. This is our last chance to save the planet, many intoned.

In a world barely out of the throes of a horrific pandemic, with all the well-known economic impacts, many of which have yet to be fully managed, there was still forward progress. It is too easy to argue that we needed a major deal and did not get one. We did get a deal, perhaps a moderate one, but a deal that keeps the world moving forward and attentive to possible solutions for myriad issues including financing adaptation, managing fossil fuel subsidies and phasing-down coal. Most notably, over 100 countries joined the EU-US global methane pledge and agreed to measures that should bring critical emission reduction results by the end of the decade for that potent gas. How to manage fossil fuel-dependent economies and growth in an international climate pact has and will always be extremely thorny and contentious. There is an unavoidable friction between major economies that have been longtime emitters and large developing economies concerned with providing equitable economic development and energy access for all citizens. Which emphasizes the importance of the global methane pledge given the breadth of participation from across the globe and economic status. In sum, the world did not chamber a silver climate bullet in Glasgow. But that was never the goal. Glasgow did move the world forward, continuing to build feasible pathways and compromises toward meaningful emissions reduction across the impossibly diverse roster of nations that make up our globe. Nelson Narciso, Non-Resident Fellow The outcomes from COP-26 can be summed as below what was needed, yet above expectations. Amongst a turbulent backdrop that includes the Covid-19 pandemic, a global energy crisis and rising geopolitical tensions, it required a massive diplomatic effort to reconcile the different interests from 197 nations. Nonetheless, there were significant advances made in Glasgow in comparison to the Paris Agreement signed in 2015. For the very first time the talks mentioned fossil fuels, albeit with reservations. The pressure for a gradual reduction in coal use is another positive outcome, as it signals a real collective effort to limit the use of this energy source. Another relevant highlight was that 100 countries pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas dozens of times more harmful than CO². Most importantly, there was the historic agreement between the USA and China to reduce emissions. The two most polluting countries in the world, jointly accounting for around 40% of global GDP, briefly halted their geopolitical tensions and hegemonic claims to establish a diplomatic commitment with the international community. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that promises are not enough. In face of the climate urgency, it is necessary to honor the promises. The asymmetry between developed, emerging and developing countries present conflicts that sometimes might be irreconcilable. Additionally, there is still a lack of financial support to make the energy transition viable. Therefore, at COP-27 to be held in 2022 in Egypt, we shall see whether we will have made actual progress to fulfill the next conference.