In mid-November, all eyes were on Glasgow which was hosting the global climate summit COP26. As the politicians, business leaders and protestors alike were heading to Scotland, the conference was being billed as the follow-up to the Paris Agreement and even heralded as “humanity’s last chance to save the environment”. A few days later, it ended with the summit’s president Alok Sharma on the verge of tears and a distinctly anti-climactic feeling to the whole thing.
COP26 World Leaders Summit Day 2. Credit: Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street via Flickr
COP26 World Leaders Summit Day 2. Credit: Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street via Flickr. Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Shortly after, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres released a statement that seemed to sum up the general underwhelmed sentiment, describing the approved texts as a “compromise that reflects the interests, the conditions, the contradictions and the state of political will in the world today.”
It was a pragmatist’s assessment. Remove the diplomatic gloss and what he really meant was “it was the best we could manage right now”.
Read more: COP26 – Key takeaways for manufacturers
A couple of weeks later, IE caught up with Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) chief Lord Adair Turner to try to make sense of it all. Was Guterres correct in his tentatively worded appraisal of COP26?
“If I had to give it a score, it would be about six out of ten. It was not a failure, but it was not a complete success. I think it was a reasonable step forward.”
Adair Turner
Lord Adair Turner has held several high profile roles in public policy, including Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry (1995-2000); Chairman of the UK Low Pay Commission (2002-2006); Chairman of the Pensions Commission (2003- 2006); and he was the first chairman of the Climate Change Committee (2008-2012) an independent body to advise the UK Government on tackling climate change. He has been Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission since January 2019. Credit: ETC
About a month before the summit began, the ETC produced a report, setting out the gap which still needed closing to keep global warming beneath the 1.5°C target agreed in Paris. On top of the 3.5 gigatonnes of emissions reductions of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) agreed on in 2015, the report found that a further 15 to 16 gigatonnes would be needed in commitments. How was one summit ever going to come up with those kind of pledges?
“The strategy from the UK COP presidency was twofold," Turner explained, "Firstly, they tried to get a coalition of the willing with statements, separate from the formal negotiation process, that would create momentum in particular categories or sectors like deforestation, coal, road transport, electrification.
“Then secondly, in the negotiations, they pushed to build a consensus that further, significant tightening was both necessary and possible. They then tried to find a way to get those involved to agree to come back with that further tightening.”
With this strategy in mind, Turner explained, these coalitions of the willing were in themselves a useful step forward, potentially providing six or seven gigatonnes of the 16 or so outlined in the ETC report.
“Within that, the deforestation agreement, if it is actually delivered, is a big one, with about three gigatonnes,” he said.
Read more: "Global forests need global governance", Tropical Timber Accord launches at COP26
Moving on to the cause of Sharma’s public tears of frustration, Turner adds: “The one on coal was, frankly, disappointing. If you have a coal declaration not signed by China or India, you're not getting a huge step forward.”
“The road transport ones: what matters there is not so much the countries, but the companies. And I think the truth on road transport electrification is that it's going to occur faster than the NDCs currently assume. So, there’s good news in terms of the inevitable technological progress there. Put all those together, as well as various other ones like shipping, and it was a step forward.”
Lord Turner also argues that the outcome of the negotiations at the summit was better than it was being credited with. He points to the mitigation section of the cover text, the overall summary of the Glasgow Declaration. Here, there is a clear agreement by all signatories of what needs to be done “for the first time in the 2020s”.
The clause states that in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C “rapid, deep and sustained reductions in emissions” are needed of 45% by 2030 when compared with 2010 levels, as well as deep reductions in other greenhouse gases.
Currently, global emissions are 13% above 2010 levels, meaning they need to be reduced by around 60%, and he points out that there was “a clear commitment” that countries should bring their NDCs forward to be in line with that pathway.
Read more: Making net-zero possible
“The art form of COP negotiations,” says Lord Turner, “is to wrap people into commitments that then constrain their future action and constrain the ratchet. And I think that was honestly as good as we were going to get in a negotiated outcome and quite a significant step forward.”
The final day of the summit was left somewhat marred by the last-minute intervention by China and India to water down the text of the draft agreement on coal. Initially, the agreement used the words “phase out” in relation to coal. This line was changed to “phase down” following lobbying from the two nations.
The development prompted a visibly upset COP26 President Alok Sharma to apologise to the delegates for the sudden change, saying he was “deeply sorry” for how the summit had panned out.
Despite New Delhi and Beijing's unusual display of cooperation, Turner is keen to point out that there is a “fundamental distinction” to be made between the two countries.
While India is indeed a major polluter, if the data is measured using emissions per capita, then the picture changes. According to Worldometers, each person in India produces around 1.91 tonnes of CO2 per year. To put the number into context, Germany produces around 9.44 tonnes per capita, the UK emits 5.55, South Korea is 11.85 and the US is 15.5.
“These numbers reflect the fact that India is a much poorer country. They also don't have winter heating needs in the same way. With India, there is a reasonable argument to say that they need to increase emissions for a period of time before bringing them down.”
Read more: GMIS2021: John Kerry calls on India, China and Russia to help "keep 1.5°C alive"
China, says Turner, is further along its road to net-zero, and currently has emissions comparable with the major economies of Europe. Given the trends of the moment, it is easy to see that the country will have significantly higher per capita emissions by 2025 or 2030.
“Let's be clear, China is now a middle-income country. China says that by 2035, it will be an upper-middle-income country, and that by 2049, it will be a fully developed rich economy. This means that China needs to start owning the fact that they are not in the same category as India, let alone remotely the same category as most African nations.”
Despite this blow to COP26's outcome, Lord Turner retains a level of optimism. “It’s still a significant step forward when you look at the US-China declaration which states that there will be a phasing down of coal within the 15th five-year plan, which is between 2025 and 2030.”
“To get the temperature rise back down to 1.5°C, there is still a lot to do, but we have made progress. And that’s why I’d give COP26 a six out of ten.”
Back to Homepage
Back to Politics & Economics