{"id":31809,"date":"2021-11-19T17:10:08","date_gmt":"2021-11-19T17:10:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsblogsnew.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=31809"},"modified":"2021-11-19T17:10:08","modified_gmt":"2021-11-19T17:10:08","slug":"ihbccop26-update-from-the-conversation-experts-react-to-the-un-climate-summit-and-glasgow-pact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=31809","title":{"rendered":"IHBC@COP26 update from The Conversation: \u2018Experts react to the UN climate summit and Glasgow Pact\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Noting that all 197 countries represented at COP26 signed the \u2018Glasgow Pact\u2019, The Conversation<\/em> offers its experts\u2019 take on the outcomes in an\u00a0 article re-published here by permission under Creative Commons licence.<\/h3>\n
image for illustration purposes only – NASA<\/em><\/h6>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2026There are now 136 countries that have included buildings as part of their climate action plans\u2026<\/span><\/em><\/h2>\n

The Conversation <\/em>writes:<\/p>\n

We asked experts from around the world for their reaction to the outcomes of this year\u2019s UN climate summit, COP26, including the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed by all 197 countries attending the talks. Here\u2019s what they had to say about the deals that were made. (This page will be updated as reactions come in.)<\/p>\n

Deals and targets<\/h2>\n

A starting point for future action.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Glasgow Climate Pact is not perfect, but still strengthens the Paris agreement in several ways. Acknowledging that there is no safe limit for global warming, the Pact resolves to limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C, instead of the Paris text of \u201cwell below 2\u00b0C\u201d. Crucially it also delivers a strong framework for tracking commitments against real-world progress.<\/p>\n

The summit was pitched as the last chance to \u201ckeep 1.5\u00b0C alive\u201d \u2013 holding temperatures to less than 1.5\u00b0C above their pre-industrial levels. 2020 was also supposed be the year when developed countries would provide at least US$100 billion a year of financial aid to help developing countries adapt to mounting storms and droughts \u2013 a pledge that still has not been met \u2013 and the transition to clean energy was supposed to start being rolled out.<\/p>\n

Perhaps concerned that national targets collectively were nowhere near good enough to keep 1.5\u00b0C alive \u2013 we were heading for\u00a0more like 2.4\u00b0C at best<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 the UK government used its presidency programme to supplement these targets with a series of\u00a0press-friendly announcements<\/a>\u00a0of non-binding pledges to cut methane emissions, end deforestation and phase out coal.<\/p>\n

These were further supplemented by the \u201crace to zero\u201d initiatives, a series of announcements by states, cities and businesses on a range of decarbonisation approaches.<\/p>\n

While these are genuine attempts at climate action, success hinges on whether these developments can swiftly make into raised national commitments within the next year. The pact now explicitly \u201crequests parties to revisit and strengthen\u201d their 2030 goals, meaning 1.5\u00b0C is down but not out.<\/p>\n

Piers Forster, Professor of Physical Climate Change & Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate University of Leeds<\/em><\/p>\n

Greenhouse gas emissions<\/h2>\n

Progress on cutting emissions, but nowhere near enough.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Glasgow Climate Pact is incremental progress and not the breakthrough moment needed to curb the worst impacts of climate change. The UK government as host and therefore president of COP26 wanted to \u201ckeep 1.5\u00b0C alive<\/a>\u201d, the stronger goal of the Paris Agreement. But at best we can say the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5\u00b0C is on life support \u2013 it has a pulse but it\u2019s nearly dead.<\/p>\n

Before COP26, the world was\u00a0on track for 2.7\u00b0C of warming<\/a>, based on commitments by countries, and expectation of the changes in technology. Announcements at COP26, including new pledges to cut emissions this decade, by some key countries, have reduced this to a\u00a0best estimate of 2.4\u00b0C<\/a>.<\/p>\n

More countries also announced long-term net zero goals. One of the most important was\u00a0India\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0pledge to reach net zero emissions by 2070. Critically, the country said it would get off to a quick start with a massive expansion of renewable energy in the next ten years so that it accounts for 50% of its total usage, reducing its emissions in 2030 by 1 billion tonnes (from a current total of around 2.5 billion).<\/p>\n

A world warming by 2.4\u00b0C is still clearly\u00a0very far from 1.5\u00b0C<\/a>. What remains is a near-term emissions gap, as global emissions look likely to flatline this decade rather than showing the sharp cuts necessary to be on the 1.5\u00b0C trajectory the pact calls for. There is a gulf between long-term net zero goals and plans to deliver emissions cuts this decade.<\/p>\n

Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Science at University College London and University of Leeds, and Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, University College London.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Read more:\u00a0Five things you need to know about the Glasgow Climate Pact<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Fossil fuel finance<\/h2>\n

Some progress on ending subsidies, but the final deal fell short.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The most important outcomes from COP26 will be directly related to two \u201cF-words\u201d: finance and fossil fuels. Close attention should be paid to pledges for new finance for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. But we must remember the other side of the equation \u2014 the urgent need to cut off funding for fossil fuel projects. As the\u00a0International Energy Agency made clear earlier this year<\/a>, there is no room in the 1.5? carbon budget for any new investments in fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

The commitment<\/a>\u00a0from more than 25 countries to shut off new international finance for fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022 is one of the biggest successes to come out of Glasgow. This could shift more than\u00a0US$24 billion a year<\/a>\u00a0of public funds out of fossil fuels and into clean energy.<\/p>\n

There was also short-lived hope that the COP decision would call on parties to \u201caccelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels<\/a>.\u201d According to the\u00a0United Nations<\/a>, eliminating all fossil fuel subsidies would reduce global carbon emissions up to 10% by 2030. Sadly before the pact was agreed, the text on coal was\u00a0watered down<\/a>, the phrase \u201cphasing out\u201d was replaced with \u201cphasing down\u201d, and the weasel word \u201cinefficient<\/a>\u201d was inserted before \u201csubsidies for fossil fuels.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fact that not even a weak reference to fossil fuels can survive in the decision text speaks volumes about how divorced the COP process is from the realities of the climate crisis. And this is unlikely to change as long as\u00a0fossil fuel lobbyists<\/a>\u00a0are permitted to attend.<\/p>\n

Kyla Tienhaara, Canada Research Chair in Economy and Environment, Queen\u2019s University, Ontario<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Read more:\u00a0COP26 leaves too many loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. Here are 5 of them<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Nature<\/h2>\n

A declaration on deforestation, but it isn\u2019t binding.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nature was a big theme at COP26, and the importance of Indigenous peoples\u2019 rights and tackling commodity supply chains that drive deforestation were widely recognised across the conference.<\/p>\n

Over 135 countries\u00a0signed a declaration<\/a>\u00a0agreeing to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, although\u00a0Indonesia subsequently backed away from the commitment<\/a>, underscoring the importance of binding decisions rather than voluntary declarations for important outcomes.\u00a0Donors pledged US$1.7 billion<\/a>\u00a0to support Indigenous peoples and local communities\u2019 forest stewardship. Twenty-eight of the largest consumer and producer countries of beef, soy, cocoa and palm oil discussed a\u00a0roadmap<\/a>\u00a0identifying areas of work to tackle deforestation in commodity supply chains.<\/p>\n

However, declarations can distract from the negotiated outcomes of the UN process. For nature, an important outcome included in the final\u00a0Glasgow Climate Pact<\/a>\u00a0is that it \u201cemphasizes the importance of protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through forests and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems\u201d.<\/p>\n

Such recognition of the role of nature is critical to enhance the inclusion of ecosystem restoration in countries\u2019 climate commitments. Yet,\u00a0nature alone cannot deliver the 1.5\u00b0C goal<\/a>\u00a0without other efforts, including phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies, providing adequate finance to developing countries, and protecting human rights.<\/p>\n

Kate Dooley, research fellow in ecosystem-based pathways and climate change, University of Melbourne<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Read more:\u00a0Forests can’t handle all the net-zero emissions plans \u2013 companies and countries expect nature to offset too much carbon<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Transportation<\/h2>\n

Big pledges to boost electric vehicles.<\/strong><\/p>\n

COP26 gave more attention than ever to transportation, with mixed results thanks to the mess of global aspirations and national politics. Transport is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in\u00a0many countries<\/a>\u00a0and, after renewable electricity, the second most important strategy for reaching net zero emissions.<\/p>\n

More than 30 countries and six automakers\u00a0pledged to end sales of internal combustion vehicles<\/a>\u00a0by 2040. The list had some notable no-shows \u2013 including the US, Germany, Japan and China, and the two largest automotive companies, Volkswagen and Toyota \u2013 but was still impressive. The shift to electric vehicles was already unequivocal. Electric vehicles (EVs) reached\u00a020% of sales in Europe<\/a>\u00a0and China<\/a>\u00a0in recent months, and both are\u00a0headed for full electrification of new cars<\/a>\u00a0by 2035 or so.<\/p>\n

The transition to electric and hydrogen trucks is about to follow a similar path. Fifteen countries agreed to work toward transitioning\u00a0all new trucks and buses to zero emissions<\/a>\u00a0by 2040. California already requires 70% of sales in most truck categories to be\u00a0zero emissions by 2035<\/a>. China is on a\u00a0similar trajectory<\/a>. These are non-binding agreements, but they are made easier by the\u00a0roughly 50% drop<\/a>\u00a0in battery costs since the Paris accord.<\/p>\n

Aviation is tougher because electrification is currently only possible for short flights and smaller planes. The US, UK and others\u00a0agreed to promote sustainable aviation fuels<\/a>. It\u2019s a start.<\/p>\n

Some\u00a0lament the focus on EVs<\/a>\u00a0further locking in car-centric living. But to reduce greenhouse gases, vehicle electrification (including hydrogen) is the\u00a0most effective and economic approach<\/a>\u00a0to decarbonize transportation \u2013 by far.<\/p>\n

Daniel Sperling, Founding Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California-Davis<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Read more:\u00a0Seven reasons global transport is so hard to decarbonise<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Cities and buildings<\/h2>\n

Now firmly on the agenda in national plans and global deal.<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the very least COP26 has put the built environment more firmly on the agenda with a full day devoted to it \u2013 it only rated half a day at Paris in 2015 and before that had little formal acknowledgement. Given buildings are responsible for\u00a040% of global carbon emissions<\/a>\u00a0many argue they should receive even more attention, with the World Green Building Council stating they should be \u201celevated to a critical climate solution<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n

There are now\u00a0136 countries<\/a>\u00a0that have included buildings as part of their climate action plans (known as NDCs), up from 88 at the last major COP. As NDCs are the legal mechanism COP relies on, that matters.<\/p>\n

Local governments are, in general, more engaged with the built environment than national governments. This is where planning and building regulations are approved and development strategies established, which dictate how we build our houses, offices and community facilities. The fact cities create\u00a0over 70% of energy-related emissions<\/a>\u00a0reinforces their importance. So expect local authorities to take a more active role in future.<\/p>\n

It is clear that \u201cembodied carbon<\/a>\u201d and \u201cScope 3 emissions<\/a>\u201d will become everyday language for construction pretty quickly, so make sure you learn what they mean.<\/p>\n

Away from the formal agenda, the biggest tension was the debate between technology and consumption. Lots of industry groups at COP26 were talking about decarbonising steel and concrete production with new, and as yet unproven, technologies. We do need that, but more importantly\u00a0we need to change the way we design buildings<\/a>\u00a0so they use materials that are intrinsically low-carbon, such as timber, and to consume less resources in general.<\/p>\n

But without doubt, the biggest win is the specific reference to energy efficiency in the adopted text of the\u00a0Glasgow Climate Pact<\/a>. This is the first time energy efficiency has been explicitly referenced in the COP process, and energy efficiency is the key action where buildings have a disproportionate role in mitigating climate change.<\/p>\n

Article 36 calls on governments to \u201caccelerate the development, deployment and dissemination\u201d of actions including \u201crapidly scaling up\u201d energy efficiency measures. Note the urgency of the language. There is now a legal imperative for all countries to align their building regulations with a low carbon future.<\/p>\n

Ran Boydell, Visiting Lecturer in Sustainable Development, Heriot-Watt University<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Read more:\u00a0Embodied carbon: why truly net zero buildings could still be decades away<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Energy transitions<\/h2>\n

Discussions relied on unproven technologies.<\/strong><\/p>\n

COP26 featured hundreds of commitments to power past coal and natural gas and offer just transitions to workers and communities, mostly with a focus on renewable energy transitions.<\/p>\n

However, one concern I have coming out of COP26 is that discussions are often promoting technologies that are not currently market ready or scalable, especially nuclear small modular reactors, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.<\/p>\n

According to the International Energy Agency,\u00a038 technologies are ready for deployment right now<\/a>, including solar photovoltaic, geothermal and wind power. Yet none has been deployed at the scale we need to achieve 1.5?. Renewable energy, currently 13% of the global energy system, needs to\u00a0reach 80% or more<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Globally, a transition to renewable energy will cost between\u00a0US$22.5 trillion<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0US$139 trillion<\/a>. What\u2019s needed are policies that\u00a0support a mix of innovations<\/a>, accelerate the scale-up of renewable energy and modernize power grids \u2014 including the right for consumers and citizens to\u00a0generate power to sell to their neighbours and the grid<\/a>. They also need to support business models that offer\u00a0revenue to communities and jobs for those in industries in transition<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Christina E. Hoicka, Associate Professor of Geography and Civil Engineering, University of Victoria<\/em><\/p>\n

Science and innovation<\/h2>\n

Low-carbon steel, concrete and next generation biofuels received a boost.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Science and Innovation Day at COP26 saw interesting new schemes announced, and three were particularly important.<\/p>\n

First, the UK, Germany, Canada, India and the United Arab Emirates\u00a0formed an initiative<\/a>\u00a0for developing low carbon steel and concrete, to decarbonise construction. Their stated goal is net-zero steel and concrete for public projects by 2050, with an earlier 2030 target yet to be announced. That is an exciting project, as construction materials like these contribute\u00a0about 10%<\/a>\u00a0of greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n

Second, a goal of creating\u00a0low-carbon health care systems<\/a>\u00a0was also announced, with 47 countries joining that initiative. While the goal of net zero healthcare by 2050 is welcome, it is hardly an additional commitment. If a nation achieves net zero, its health system will have met that criterion anyway.<\/p>\n

Third,\u00a0Mission Innovation<\/a>\u00a0is a collaboration between governments aimed at accelerating technologies that will reduce emissions. The Netherlands and India are leading a welcome bio-refinery program, aiming to make bio-based alternative fuels and chemicals economically attractive.<\/p>\n

Less useful is the \u201ccarbon dioxide removal\u201d project, led by Saudi Arabia, US and Canada. Its goal is a net annual reduction of 100 million tonnes of CO? by 2030. As global emissions are now 35 billion tonnes a year, this project aims to prolong fossil fuel use by capturing only a token, tiny fraction.<\/p>\n

Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith University<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Gender<\/h2>\n

The slow progress on gender-sensitive climate policies doesn\u2019t match the urgency of the situation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The relationship between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it\u2019s supreme decision-making body \u2013 the Conference of the Parties (COP) \u2013 and gender equality is one that started late, but there has been some (slow) progress.<\/p>\n

Looking back to 2001 -\u2013 when the\u00a0sole concern<\/a>\u00a0COP had in terms of gender equality was with women\u2019s representation and participation in the Convention itself -\u2013 it is clear that some progress has been made. The establishment of the Women and Gender Constituency in 2009, the Lima Work Program on Gender of 2014, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in 2015 (which emphasised that climate actions must be gender-responsive) are proof of this progress.<\/p>\n

COP26 has also seen important pledges by different countries to expedite work on gender and climate change. For example, the UK announced the allocation of \u00a3165 million to foster gender equality in climate change action, Bolivia pledged to reflect gender data in its Nationally Determined Contributions and Canada pledged that 80% of its climate investments over the next five years will target gender equality outcomes.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yet, progress on the advancement of gender equality in climate change action does not match the urgency of the situation. Considering that, in many contexts, women are disproportionally more adversely affected by the effects of climate change and considering that climate change is threatening to widen social inequality, it is imperative to expedite action on gender equality.<\/p>\n

This is particularly important in sectors such as agriculture and natural resource management, which are heavily susceptible to changes in climate and which constitute the foundation for rural women\u2019s livelihoods across the globe. In a\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0we published last year, we show how the integration of gender remains generally weak in Nationally Determined Contributions and how these plans tend to not tackle the structural causes of gender inequality. The latter is of paramount importance. If climate actions do not identify, address, and confront the discriminatory social norms and structural causes that are creating gender inequalities in the first place, the gender equality initiatives and policies will likely neither be sustainable nor reach their maximum potential.<\/p>\n

Mariola Acosta, is a research fellow at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the University of Wageningen…..<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

This story is part of The Conversation\u2019s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.<\/p>\n

Read more….<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

The Conversation writes:<\/p>\n

Republish this article: We believe in the free flow of information<\/p>\n

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.<\/p>\n

\n

Disclosure statement<\/strong><\/h3>\n