Front Burner - What happened — and didn’t — at the COP26 climate summit

Episode Date: November 15, 2021

COP26, the UN’s annual climate summit in Glasgow, was touted by many as the “last best chance” for the world to come together and make a plan to stave off the worst of climate change. Today, Time magazine senior correspondent Justin Worland delves into what the summit did and didn’t achieve.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Angela Starrett. May I just say to all delegates, I apologize for the way this process has unfolded. As COP26, the UN's annual climate summit, finally closed in Glasgow on Saturday,

COP President Alex Sharma told delegates he was sorry for how things ended up. And then, as he continued, he had to fight back tears. But I think as you have noted, it's also vital that we protect this package. Obviously the president of the world's most important climate conference trying not to cry is not an encouraging sign. Today I'm speaking with Justin Warland, a senior correspondent at Time magazine covering climate change and policy about what happened and what didn't at COP26. Hi, Justin. Hi, thanks for having me on. Thank you so much for being here. And I want to get

into, you know, what was in the final Glasgow Climate Pact in a bit. But first, I want to briefly address what we heard in the intro. I mean, why was COP President Alec Sharma fighting back tears? Yeah, it was a really, really interesting moment. In the very last seconds of or last minutes of discussion around the decision text, you know, the Glasgow Climate Pact, India requested from the floor to amend the language regarding coal. And so instead of saying, you know, that they agreed to phase out fossil, excuse me, coal. They requested that it would say that they phase down coal. In Glasgow, India pushed for the continued use of a fossil fuel that makes climates change. Campaigner Vishwaja was at COP26 and arrived home this morning. So immediately after landing, when I got to see about the term change from phase out to phase down, it was a total disappointment.

It seems like for world leaders, any world leaders, people or humanity or other life forms, nothing matters for them. It's corporates, it's business, it's money. And it includes India also. And that ultimately the cop president allowed that to happen. And, you know, the rest of the parties were pretty upset that he had allowed that to happen. They called the process untransparent. They sort of vocally decried his leadership on that front. And, you know, for somebody who had spent the year focused on ending coal, clearly this isn't something he wanted to do. And I think he in that moment felt really hit by the weight of it all. I mean, why would, I mean, it seems obvious, but just tell me, why would that language change from going phase out to phase down be such a big deal?

Yeah, I mean, if you are a small island developing country, you know, the difference between quickly phasing out and phasing down coal is the difference between,, because coal is such a contributor, such a large contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Really, coal needs to disappear effectively as soon as possible. And so just sort of trickling down with a sort of winding down phase out is, excuse me, a phase down is not as strong as a phase out. And the other thing I think is just noting the process, right? So a lot of countries had lots of issues with this, and they were upset that the COP president allowed this one change to happen at the very end and didn't allow any of the other changes that countries wanted to be considered. Okay, so before we, I guess, dive into the fine details of what happened at COP26, I want to just cover a couple basics so everyone's on the same page.

I mean, firstly, the UN holds a COP summit basically every year, but they're not all as important as COP26. Why was this one seen as particularly important? Yeah, so COP, basically every five years, you get sort of a big momentous COP where, you know, something is supposed to happen. So you think of like Copenhagen, Paris, where something is supposed to happen. So you think of like Copenhagen, Paris, and now Glasgow. And at this COP, countries were meant to bring new commitments to reduce emissions, to say they committed to something in Paris

and then to say they're going to ratchet up this year. And the hope was that those commitments collectively would put the world on a pathway to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is this marker that scientists use as a shorthand for saying, like the top limit of how much warming we can take before things get really out of control. And so this was meant to be the time when countries brought those commitments that would keep that warming in check. And it sounds like the mood during the first week of COP26 was fairly optimistic. We must work together to ensure it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in the world.

That means establishing a shared minimum standard for pricing pollution. We can keep the goal of limiting global warming to just 1.5 degrees Celsius within our reach if we come together. We can get real on coal, cars, cash and trees. And at the summit, a bunch of countries agreed to end deforestation by 2030. Many also agreed to make big cuts in methane emissions. Several countries also promised to phase out coal-fired power.

So it seems like a lot of leaders were probably, you know, high-fiving and patting themselves on the back in that first week. But then on Tuesday of week two, there was some pretty bad news in the form of two reports. What did those reports say? Yeah, so these two reports basically did a stock take of all of the commitments that had come, you know, pre-cop, during cop, and said, look, this is where we are. And the numbers were alarming, right? So basically, if countries continue to implement current policies,

so things that they've committed to but also really laid out in policy, the world would warm about 2.7 degrees. So this is nearly double that 1.5 marker we were talking about earlier. If they did what they committed to with their 2030 targets, which are basically the more credible targets because 2030 is so close, if countries did what they committed to do by 2030, we'd be on track for about 2.4 degrees of warming, still way ahead of that 1.5 mark. And so this was a wake-up call, I think, for the negotiators who came in with a lot of, as you said, a lot of energy around the sort of announcements that had come in the first few days of COP and the presence of the

world leaders who were saying the right things. And then this wake-up call said, you know, we're really not on track. And I know that the group behind one of those reports, Climate Action Tracker, said that, quote, Glasgow has a massive credibility, action and commitment gap. What did they mean by that? Yeah, so what the Climate Action Report points out is there's a big difference between saying that, you know, a country say, like Saudi Arabia is going to have a, eliminate its carbon footprint by 2060, and actually doing anything about it. So the credibility gap is the gap between the sort of bold declarations that don't have any sort of substance underpinning it.

Okay, so all of that obviously sounds pretty concerning. So let's talk about what these COP delegates did about it. COP26 was supposed to wrap on Friday, but it ended up dragging on until late on Saturday. And obviously, lots of big compromises were made. But for starters, what was accomplished or agreed to in the Glasgow Climate Pact? Yeah, so some really remarkable things. I mean, it's kind of crazy to say this, but, you know, the COP text languages that have come out in the past have never explicitly mentioned fossil fuels. And so at this COP, they agreed to, as we were talking about earlier, to phase down coal, explicitly referencing and naming coal as the problem, as well as phasing out, quote, inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Again, naming and calling out the problem.

So that was a big accomplishment. There is a commitment around spending more on adaptation. So countries in the developed world helping their developing counterparts with spending more money on things that help them adapt to climate change. That was a big accomplishment. And then there's this thing called the rule book, which is this setting up rules of the road for a lot of different elements of actually implementing the Paris Agreement, which really had dragged on for years and years of discussion. And that was finally agreed to, which, you know, will help create a framework which allows for a lot of these sort of really nitty gritty things to actually happen in the real world and not just be sort of abstract. Okay. And I know that China, the US and India, you know, accounting for nearly half of global emissions are now aiming to stop contributing to climate change completely in the coming decades. Can you touch on that a bit? Yeah. So one big thing, and I should have mentioned this

earlier, is this commitment to come back next year, right? So basically looking at the commitments as they are, and what they had at the beginning of COP and into COP and seeing that they don't add up to 1.5, all countries have committed to come back next year with something more significant and including, you know, China and India and as well as, you know, the U.S. and, you know, all the parties, which is really, you know, the idea is that they're going to come back with something, a 2030 commitment that will keep the world on track to 1.5 degrees. And so it's a big ask, but, you know, it would be pretty significant if they follow through. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections.

Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo.

50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Obviously, there's been lots of criticism online about things that were not settled in this agreement. What are some of the major things that were not settled in the agreement?

Yeah, so the big thing, you know, I mentioned adaptation finance earlier, but there was a big call, A, for more adaptation finance and to really name a number, which, you know, for a lot of developing countries, the number would be in the trillions of dollars. The deal brought yet more disappointment for vulnerable nations as rich countries, including the EU and the U.S., blocked concrete action on compensating them for climate-related loss and damages. Greenpeace called the COP26's agreement meek and weak. The funding mechanism is weak. The support for adaptation is weak. There's no funding numbers on the table. So I think it will be hard. There's also no agreement on loss and damage. And loss and damage is this concept which acknowledges that

historic emitters, developed countries, have caused damage, loss and damage to the sort of developing vulnerable counterparts. And so those countries, those vulnerable countries, wanted a mechanism that would allow them to receive funding as a result of the losses that they're experiencing now that are going to balloon and scale in the coming years and decades. And that there was a mention in the text of sort of setting up a dialogue that will think about the ways in which they could work on loss and damage, which is in some ways a step forward, but it's certainly not anywhere near what these vulnerable countries wanted. And I think, you know, I think even many developed country counterparts would say, like, what they deserve. So it was, I think, a disappointment for a lot of people.

I want to read you now a part of a statement from Ariel Duranger. She's a Dene activist from northern Alberta, the executive director of Indigenous Climate Action. And she's been in Glasgow during COP26. She said, quote, the final text left me sad, angry, empowered and scared. me sad, angry, empowered, and scared. While we've succeeded in getting references to human rights and rights of Indigenous people, it has fallen flat. These references mean little if they're also creating loopholes for dirty corporations and high-polluting nations to offset their emissions by buying and trading the air and our lands and territories without our consent or participation. I mean, you touched on this a bit already, but I'm wondering if you can speak to what she's saying there about polluters being given loopholes in this agreement. What's the criticism there?

Yeah, so this is part of the rulebook. It's called Article 6. And it's this, it's basically a framework for carbon offsetting for a country, say, that is having trouble reducing its emissions, can go to another country and purchase credits for preserving the forest or something like that. And they finally reached an agreement about the rules of the road for that. They finally reached an agreement about the rules of the road for that. In a sort of very obvious way, there's so many things that you can think of that might be wrong with that, right? How do you monitor and verify that? Is paying somebody not to destroy something really an effective way of saying that you've reduced your emissions? that you've reduced your emissions. And then there are, you know, of course, is sort of a bigger meta-criticism about these offsets to begin with, which come from a lot of different, you know, indigenous communities and some environmentalists as well who say, you know, we shouldn't be commodifying forests, we shouldn't be commodifying, you know, natural land to begin with, and that

this isn't really an effective way of combating climate change. And so it's a totally complicated game. And this Article 6 agreement tries to set up some rules for that game. And I think, you know, a lot of environmental activists would say this is better than nothing, because right now, you know, pre this agreement, we were sort of operating in this wild, wild west where, you know, a country would go and buy those same offsets and then a company would go and buy the same ones and they would get double counted and it would be a whole mess. But that criticism that this is really not the right way to go about things is still very strong. And I think that's what you're hearing from a lot of environmental and indigenous activists. Once again we are faced with another COP event.

How many more of these should they hold until they realize that their inactions are destroying the planet? We are here today because we know that COP26 won't do anything. They want to continue the massacre that they have been responsible for for hundreds of years already. Your wealth is built on the blood of our people. And we want change. I'm wondering what kinds of other criticisms are we seeing of this final agreement? Well, I think, you know, there's many, right? So I think the big thing is the vulnerable countries that did not get what they wanted regarding loss and damage and regarding adaptation finance. there's an argument that this agreement is actually really strong on keeping a pathway to 1.5 alive, or at least as strong as it could be given all the circumstances,

but that a whole bunch of countries are really just being left behind. And that they, you know, while we might be able to spare, you know, some of the developed countries, some of the worst effects of climate change, that there's no sparing developing countries right now. And they're not being offered support. Failure to provide the critical finance and that of loss and damage is measured, my friends, in lives and livelihoods in our communities.

This is immoral and it is unjust. So I ask to you, what must we say to our people living on the front line in the Caribbean, in Africa, in Latin America, in the Pacific, when both ambition and regrettably some of the needed faces at Glasgow are not present? What excuse should we give for the failure? So I think that's probably the biggest criticism. And then there are other points around the way in which the language around coal went from phase out to phase down.

There's criticisms about particular elements of Article 6, as we touched on, there's many, many criticisms. But I think the vulnerable country criticism is the thing that is sticking for most people. Right. And so, I mean, Justin, from what experts are saying, is this idea of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius even possible at this point? 1.5 degrees Celsius even possible at this point? Yeah, I mean, to quote the UN Secretary General, you know, 1.5 degrees is still on rich methane life support. And I think that's really the right way to put it. It's, you know, is it technically possible? Yes. Is it politically feasible? Given everything we've seen in the last year

and given the commitments that countries came to COP with, it doesn't really seem like it. And so, you know, I think the attitude of a lot of people in the climate space is very understandably that we need to be optimistic and we need to say, yes, it's technically feasible and we need to make it politically feasible. I guess I would just say, yes, it's technically feasible and we need to make it politically feasible. I guess I would just say I look at the numbers and I'm skeptical, but I will watch and see if there is a political path that opens.

And we know that throughout this conference, tens of thousands of activists, maybe up to 100,000, have also been demonstrating outside the conference. And we've heard many of them say COP26 is just a big PR exercise in the first place, that it's just a lot of empty promises with no actual action plan. Build back better, blah, blah, blah. Green economy, blah, blah, blah. Net zero by 2050, blah, blah, blah. And I'm wondering, you know, especially as a climate reporter who's already covered a few cops before, whether you're walking away feeling like there was any actual concrete progress here.

Yeah, I think that there absolutely was progress. And I think any real sort of analysis would say, getting nearly 200 countries to say we need to phase out an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy, saying that we need to phase down coal, is a pretty remarkable accomplishment given where things are and where things have been. The problem, of course, is that it's incremental. To get to 1.5, to stave off the worst effects of warming, we need really, really dramatic action. And so incremental progress here and there just isn't going to cut it. But it would be wrong to say it's nothing. And then the one other thing I would just say on that, too, is sometimes it's hard to see how things will trickle down. And so you look at

Paris and you look at 1.5. Going into Paris, I was reporting on climate, two degrees was the number everyone talked about. People said, we need to hold the warming to two degrees. And then there was this move from a lot of vulnerable countries to say, actually, it's really 1.5, we're being hit right now. And the Paris Agreement included this reference to 1.5 that wouldn't have been there otherwise. And that changed the direction of conversation. It changed the way in which we thought about what's ambitious around climate policy. And so it might be hard to see now, but I think the signals coming out around coal, around fossil fuel subsidies, are things that might have trickle effects for years to come that might actually be more game-changing than we think.

Justin, thank you so much for your time today. Thank you so much for having me. It's been good to discuss. And that's all for today. I'm Angela Starrett in for Jamie Boisson. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.