COP26: The Last Best Hope?

COP/26 comes in the wake of the latest (6th) Assessment Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which focused the attention of the world on the portentous ominosity of the continued anthropocentric interference with the ecosystem without limitation that would spell doom for the planet and the welfare of generations to come.

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne in Montreal

“We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” Abraham Lincoln

Although President Lincoln’s famous saying pertained to the abolition of slavery, the phrase “last best hope” resonates with the global climate crisis which The Secretary General of the United Nations calls a “climate catastrophe” and the three words were used by Alok Sharma, President of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP/26) now being held.  COP was  set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - the multilateral international treaty adopted by  154 States at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, informally known as the Earth Summit.  The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system”.

President Sharma said in his opening address at COP/26 which opened on Monday 1 November 2021 in Glasgow: “COP/26 is the last, best hope to keep 1.5 in reach”.  1.5 refers to the Paris Agreement of 2015 at which 196 countries among which were developed States (including the United States, which later withdrew from the Agreement) agreed during COP 21 in Paris to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016.

That COP/26 may be the last best hope to achieve the Paris target of 1.5 is  a platitude. The issue however on everyone’s mind is “would the last best hope be realized or would this also turn out to be what Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg said: “30 years of climate action had amounted to "blah, blah, blah."?

COP/26 comes in the wake of the latest (6th) Assessment Report - released in August this year -  of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) comprised of   a panel of expert climate scientists -  which focused the attention of the world on the portentous ominosity of the continued anthropocentric interference with the ecosystem without limitation that would spell doom for the planet and the welfare of generations to come.  According to the IPCC Greenhouse gas concentrations are at their highest levels in 2 million years and continue to rise. As a result, the earth is about 1.1°C warmer than it was in the 1800s. The last decade was the warmest on record. Because the Earth is a system, where everything is connected, changes in one area can influence changes in all others. The consequences of climate change now include, among others, intense droughts, water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms, and declining biodiversity. People are experiencing climate change in diverse ways. It affects our health, ability to grow food, housing, safety, and work.

The IPCC Report categorically states that human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (about 40% in September and about 10% in March) components of human influence, including emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors; land-use changes (land-use reflectance and irrigation); and aviation contrails. The Report also says that in 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. Since 1750, increases in CO2 (47%) and CH4 (156%) concentrations far exceed, and increases in N2O (23%) are similar to, the natural multi-millennial changes between glacial and interglacial periods over at least the past 800,000 years.

Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years (said by IPCC with high confidence). Temperatures during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6500 years ago13 [0.2°C to 1°C relative to 1850–1900). Prior to that, the next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago when the multi-century temperature [0.5°C to 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900] overlaps the observations of the most recent decade (said with medium confidence).

It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver14 of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006.

At COP/26 therefore, our most charitable thought of the genuine intent of the delegates of COP/26 could be expressed in what Prime minister Boris Johnson said: to  “get on with the job” (although he meant it in a different context). The question is, can COP/26 get on with the job amidst a plethora of failed promises in the past? What about the 100 billion US dollars per annum promised to the developing countries to assist them with tackling climate change? What about stopping the use of coal – the worst polluter – when new coal mines are opening? What about the global framework agreed to be developed at COP/24? What about the fact that the world remains on track for a dangerous global temperature rise of at least 2.7°C this century even if Paris goals are met?

Will the leaders succeed in finalizing the ‘Paris Rulebook’, or the rules needed to implement the Agreement? Timelines will be crucial that are  agreed upon on common timeframes for the frequency of revision and monitoring of climate commitments of States. In this regard, The United Nations opines that the world needs to halve greenhouse gas emissions in the next eight years. Would there be a globally agreed and enforceable agreement to this effect? Although there are “net zero” pledges by the European Union and some others, these are supposed to attain fruition only by 2030? Why? And does this comport with the IPCCs forecast that the world will reach 1.5 Celsius by 2030 when COP/26 believes that to have a chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°C – and avoiding the most disastrous consequences – emissions need to halve by 2030 and reach ‘net zero’ by 2050  ?

Mark Leonard, in his article Why COP/26 Will Fail says: “The world is missing target after target. This should not be surprising: while a growing number of countries have set net-zero targets, for example, very few have credible plans to meet them. And even if we did meet existing targets, that would not be enough to achieve the 2015 Paris climate agreement’s main goal: limiting global warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels”. Then there is the private sector on whose support the world depends for net zero emissions.  The Economist says: “Of more that 4200 firms in the G20 club of big economies that have disclosed their climate ambitions, only a fifth have committed to so called science-based targets that would keep the world on track to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal”.  The Economist  goes on to say that one credible way forward  is to impose a carbon tax but only one fifth of global emissions is covered by carbon taxes, keeping the global price of carbon at US$3 per ton whereas, according to the International Monetary Fund the price should at least be $75 per ton to make sense.  Reaching this target  is effectively precluded by rising nationalism, disparity in individual regulations in each country and an overall lack of political commitment.

A positive outcome in Glasgow would require National Domestic Commitments (NDCs) to attain  enhancements that are large enough to ensure that the 1.5°C target can be achieved. Governments that have not yet submitted 2030 targets need to do so, while those that have submitted unambitious NDCs should revisit their pledge. Strong action from the G20 countries, which account for around 80 per cent of global emissions, is key. Should the level of NDC ambition by COP26 be insufficient to align with a 1.5°C pathway, governments will need to present a strategy for closing the gap in the early 2020s, which should include revisiting NDCs earlier than the Paris timetable dictates and accelerating decarbonization through initiatives in high-emitting sectors.

The view of many experts is that developed countries must deliver on their 2009 pledge to mobilize $100 billion per year for climate action in developing countries. This is important for raising ambition and crucial for avoiding a breakdown in trust. The implementation of many developing country NDCs is also – at least partly – conditional upon the receipt of enhanced levels of finance. An ambitious outcome in Glasgow will require enhanced support for and increased attention to the key issues of climate change adaptation and ‘loss and damage’.

All we have to do is hope and be optimistic. At the end of the day, it is all about the responsibility of the present generation to meet its needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. One of the considerations in handling the problem would be, as the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change -  released for the Government of the United Kingdom on 30 October 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern – stated, to use comparisons of the current level and future trajectories of the ‘social cost of carbon’ (the cost of impacts associated with an additional unit of greenhouse gas emissions) with the marginal abatement cost (the costs associated with incremental reductions in units of emissions – and  go on the basis that the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.  Stern called for one percent of the World’s GDP to be allocated to tackle the problem of climate change.

Meanwhile, “what about us”? our youngsters cry.  The Convention on the Rights of the Child , adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 states that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity; and that State Parties should take, to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation, legal and administrative measures to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights of the child are preserved. At the Apex of the Treaty lies Article 6 which emphasizes that States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life and that they will ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

At least we owe that to them without going “blah…blah…blah”.

Dr Abeyratne is the author of Aviation and the Carbon Trade; (Nova): and Aviation and Climate Change: In Search of a Global Market Based Measure (Springer).