Cop26: a commitment to the "weak pulse"

• Cop26 An "imperfect" agreement saves the Climate Summit: "Everyone has given in"

The

has left more questions open than concrete answers to the climate crisis.

Even the architects of

downplay the achievements and acknowledge that there is still a long way to go to drastically reduce emissions and align with the goal of a maximum temperature rise of 1.5 degrees.

Has Cop26 achieved its objectives?

Hardly.

The two big goals were initially to "keep alive" the maximum increase in temperatures of 1.5 degrees and reach the ceiling of $ 100,000 per year in international financing of climate action.

The second goal was missed even before the summit, with the announcement of 2023 as the new date on the horizon.

Regarding the first goal, the president of the

Alok Sharma

responded personally

: "We can say with credibility that we have managed to keep alive the goal of 1.5 degrees, but its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep the promises and translate the commitments into actions. ".

Are the commitments presented in Glasgow in line with the goal of 1.5 degrees?

According to a report released by

(CAT), the plans presented for 2030 put the world in a 2.4 degree scenario by the end of the century.

If the long-term plans of the United States (carbon neutral in 2050) and China (before 2060) are included, the outlook improves to 2.1 degrees.

If the "zero emissions" goal, which 140 countries have joined, were met, it could reach 1.8 degrees.

However, the CAT emphasizes the "pothole" between the commitments and the climate action.

2021 can set the second highest emissions record in history, when the goal should be a 45% reduction by 2030 to prevent temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees.

Will the targets be reviewed again in 2022?

That has been one of the main points of

at

: to urge countries to review their plans on an annual basis, starting in 2022 at

in Egypt, which will once again be of the highest ministerial rank.

Initially, as a result of

, the review was done every five years (although the pandemic forced it to be delayed for a whole year).

Several countries, such as China, asked for time and space to update their plans.

There was pressure to delete this point in the final text.

And also critical, considering that in the end it has been like "kicking the can" and an excuse not to go further in Glasgow.

What is the reference to fossil fuels in the Glasgow Climate Pact?

Why did it spark such controversy?

The

of the summit directly proposed a commitment to "eliminate coal and fossil fuel subsidies." The

softened the reference by specifying "uncontrolled" coal-fired power plants (that is, without CO2 capture plans) and "inefficient" subsidies for fossil fuels. At the last minute, when the text was practically closed, India and China managed to soften the content even more and change "phasing out" to "phasing out". The changes considerably weakened the clause, but according to Jennifer Morgan, CEO of Greenpeace International, this is "a clear sign that the age of coal is coming to an end."

What is the final controversy around "damages"?

It is an old workhorse of vulnerable countries, which is already suffering severe impacts in the form of hurricanes, floods or droughts. For them it is very important that part of the international aid is dedicated to covering the "damages and losses" of climate change, but the developed countries refuse to open the spigot of the "compensations" and commit themselves at most to open a "dialogue " about the topic. "We are extremely disappointed by what happened on this point and will express our grievance in due course," stated Lia Nicholson, delegate for Antigua and Barbuda. In return, however, there has been an important advance in aid "adaptation" to climate change,with a commitment to double current contributions by 2025 (in a negotiation facilitated directly in Glasgow by the Vice President of the Government

).

Who have been the "bad guys" of Cop26?

The "Colossal Fossil" award, from the Climate Action Network organization, went to Australia, the world's leading coal exporter and last in the list of

, for its low commitments (a reduction of emissions from 26% to 28% in 2030).

Prime Minister Scott Morrison tried to wash the image of his country with the commitment to "zero emissions" in 2050, but it disappeared as soon as possible and left the best coffee of the summit as the only vestige.

Saudi Arabia, which was the "bad guy" from Paris, also went to great lengths to sabotage references to fossil fuels, as did Russia and Brazil (with the absence of Vladimir Putin and Jair Bolsonaro as a clear indication).

Is the agreement between the United States and China really important?

It was the most unexpected surprise and the biggest boost the summit received, after the rudeness of President Xi Jinping, who did not even send a video to cover his absence.

Chinese negotiator

long relationship

with US climate special envoy John Kerry was vital to the announcement.

Kerry needed such an announcement to demonstrate the

commitment

.

The two largest CO2 emitters will begin to "work together" on climate change with a first meeting next week.

What has been the role of the UK as host?

The United Kingdom assumed the presidency of the

at a critical moment, consuming its break with the European Union and seeking its new place in the world.

For "premier" Boris Johnson, the Glasgow summit was a way of showing the world the image of "global Britain".

However, Johnson's behavior has been erratic at the summit: he arrived and left by private plane, returned by train in the final stretch and once again left Alok Sharma alone in danger, whose negotiating spirit at the head of Cop26 has been in the end praised by locals and strangers.

So, can we speak of a success or a failure?

One thing or another.

Perhaps halfway through, for concrete achievements such as agreements against deforestation or to reduce methane emissions.

But with the counterpoint of having been one of the most exclusive summits, due to the low representation of civil society and indigenous communities.

, who led the two-day demonstrations that spanned Glasgow, declared beforehand that the summit had "failed".

Most environmental groups consider the summit to have been more of a fiasco.

UN Secretary General Antòni Guterres acknowledged that progress has not been enough: "Our fragile planet is hanging by a thread and we are still knocking on the door of a climate catastrophe."

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

• science

• Environment

COP26Biden arrives in Glasgow with his agenda against climate change blocked in Washington

COP26 A world 1.5 or 2.7 degrees warmer?

This will be the Earth in 2100 according to what is decided in Glasgow

COP26 A weak G-20 agreement in Rome gives oxygen to the political start of the Glasgow Summit

See links of interest

• The Palm

• Last News

• What

• 2022 business calendar

• Christmas Lottery 2021

• Search Christmas lottery number

• Holidays 2021

• Loteria del Niño 2022

• Cadmium algae

• Joventut de Badalona - Casademont Zaragoza

• MoraBanc Andorra - UCAM Murcia

• Unicaja - Hereda San Pablo Burgos

• Gran Canaria - Bitci Baskonia

• Urbas Fuenlabrada - Real Madrid