Good COP / Bad COP: Credibility or capitulation on the climate crisis?

This was hailed as the first big win of the conference - more than 100 world leaders, from countries containing 85% of the world’s forests, signed up to ending and reversing deforestation by 2030.

The significance of this agreement, as opposed to those reached in the past, was that it included countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and China for the first time - and it included some $19bn of financial assistance.

But just two days later, Indonesia appeared to pull back, stating the UK government had misrepresented its position.

“Forcing Indonesia to zero deforestation in 2030 is clearly inappropriate and unfair, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, the country’s environment minister said last week.

She added that development was the priority, saying: “The massive development of President Jokowi’s [Joko Widodo] era must not stop in the name of carbon emissions or in the name of deforestation.”

On Wednesday, UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that he wants the country’s financial sector to become the world’s first “Net Zero-aligned financial centre”.

Under the plans, set to come into force in 2023, UK companies will have to submit plans detailing how they plan to bring their emissions down to net zero.

Crucially, however, the proposal contains no actual obligation - or even forceful guidance - for companies to enact these plans. 

Instead, the policy document reveals the government is relying on market forces - ie, it’s hoped that investors will decide to align themselves with greener-focused companies, pushing businesses to cut emissions in order to attract investment. It contains no plan on what might happen if, as is conceivable, investors simply opt for whatever earns them the biggest gains; green or not.

Perhaps this is best illustrated by talk of green pensions.

Friends of the Earth held a number of protests across the country outside local authorities, calling for them to divest their pension funds from highly-polluting industries.

Responding to a query relating to the protest in Bradford, Cllr Andrew Thornton, chair of The West Yorkshire Pension Fund, said: “The primary obligation of the Fund is to meet current and future member benefit requirements. To achieve this, various categories of investments are used to meet the required return, spread over a large and diversified portfolio to mitigate risks. There is a responsibility on the Fund to achieve the best return, to take proper advice, act prudently and reasonably."

He went on to say that the Fund "recognises the risks of climate change to its investments", and had committed to a net zero portfolio by 2050. But the caveat embedded in his opening paragraph does expose the underlying weakness in relying on market pressure: if returns for green projects turn out to be smaller, slower, or less reliable than high-emission ones, where will investors turn?

Meanwhile, we have heard a lot about the $100bn a year promised by richer nations to poorer nations to help them prepare for, and adapt to, the climate crisis. This was originally promised in 2009, with the full amount due to be reached by 2020... but it never quite got there. The new deadline is 2023.

And on Monday, the UK announced £290m of funding towards adaptation projects - though this is not new money.

And Prof Keith Hyams, from Warwick University, questioned whether the money would go towards those who need it most.

"Communities on the frontline of the climate crisis are already feeling its effects – island states inundated by sea water, communities destroyed by hurricanes, food insecurity, droughts, deadly heatwaves," he said.

"Existing finance is woefully inadequate compared to what is needed, and since much of it takes the form of loans, will further indebt already struggling economies.

"And it’s not just the numbers that are a problem – even what’s available is very much geared towards technical solutions that fail to reach the most vulnerable. Successful adaptation requires the involvement of grassroots organisations who understand local contexts and needs, but for the most part they are unable to access bureaucratic climate finance.

"Until climate justice is put at the core of a global approach to adaptation and loss and damage, we should remain very sceptical of what it will achieve."

Ah - a big one, this.

Twenty-three countries have promised to stop all new coal power schemes, and to wind down those which still exist.

Promisingly, this included South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Poland and Ukraine - five of the top-20 coal-using countries.

On the downside, it doesn’t include the three biggest - the USA, China and India.

The timing may also come later than is ideal. Richer countries have until the 2030s, while poorer nations have until some time in the 2040s.

Meanwhile, Poland has classed itself in the low-income category, despite being in the top 25 largest world economies. 

As for other fossil fuels, 20 countries - including the UK as well as Canada and the USA- have also agreed to stop financing coal, oil and gas projects in foreign countries by the end of 2022, which in theory will make it easier for those other nations to reduce their emissions.

They will still be able to do so within their own borders, but it’s a start.

The draft Glasgow Agreement did make a huge step forward in this regard. Put simply, it actually mentioned fossil fuels - specifically, calling "upon Parties to accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”.

This, as Ed King at the European Climate Foundation in the Netherlands tweeted, was a "moment", with analysts declaring it the “first time fossil fuels have been called out in a draft UN climate decision text”.

That's important because to date, many countries have simply failed to formally acknowledge the role fossil fuels have played in the climate crisis. If that line does survive negotiations to make it into the final agreement, it will be the first time world leaders have come together to put this into writing.

But, much to the chagrin of activists, the draft agreement only urges governments to make plans to phase out fossil fuels - it doesn't compel them to do so.

And after it emerged that more than 500 delegates at the conference were linked directly to the fossil fuel industry - bigger than any country’s own representation - their involvement has prompted questions.

Murray Worthy, campaign leader at Global Witness, said: “The science is clear – we must start phasing out all fossil fuels, starting now, if we’re to have a hope of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

“Yet this agreement falls spectacularly short – only calling for an accelerated phase out of coal, and an end to taxpayers bankrolling the fossil fuel industry through subsidies. Emissions from coal are less than half the problem – if the final declaration is to have any credibility it must call for a phase out of all fossil fuels.”

But then, another twist. Just two days before the end of the conference, a surprise announcement from the US and China - not only the two biggest economies involved at COP26, but the two biggest CO2 emitters.

Together, they said, they would work together to make the cuts to emissions needed to keep the world within that 1.5C target.

It came not only as a surprise because it was unexpected, but because the two nations had spent the first part of the conference making barbed comments on the others’ performance - the US criticising China for not attending in person; China criticising America for pulling out of the Paris Agreement under the previous presidency headed by Donald Trump.

But it’s a major step forward, and has been broadly welcomed, though many with a note of caution.

University of Oxford associate professor in global public policy, Dr Tom Hale, said the "very existence" of the announcement was a good sign.

"It creates an opening for future ratcheting and cooperation, including on methane and forests," he said.

"It strengthens the likelihood of getting a broader political commitment from all countries at Glasgow to ramp up action and ambition in the near term."

Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan said a reset on the relationship between the two countries was “overdue” - and said cooperation between the two countries was critical for making global ambitions to tackle climate change a reality.

The only problem, she said, was whether they had the commitment to turn that cooperation into tangible action.

This was the big aim of the conference, of course - limiting global heating to within 1.5C of pre-industrial levels, as per the Paris Agreement.

So far, it’s not looked promising. 

Part way through the conference, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - those behind COP26 - released an updated assessment of future emissions.

In essence, we need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 45% by 2030 if we’re going to keep within 1.5C.

But based on current levels and current policies, the UNFCCC says they’re actually due to increase by 14%. That would put the temperature rise at 2.7C, which scientific consensus tells us would be - to put it bluntly - catastrophic.

The International Energy Agency was a little more optimistic, on Thursday releasing its calculations of the estimated impact of the promises made by world leaders to that point.

They suggested that temperature rise could be limited to 1.8C, which is still above the target - and that’s only if everybody keeps the promises. 

And as Katie White from conservation charity WWF told me, environmental politics is “a graveyard of broken promises”, with targets repeatedly missed, moved, or extended beyond all meaningful impact.