United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, 31.10 - 12.11.2021

[Lisbeth]

COP26: it’s half-time at the crucial Glasgow climate change summit – and here’s the score

November 5, 2021 | Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute and Climate Council researcher, Griffith University

The first week of the United Nations climate talks in Glasgow are drawing to a close. While there’s still a way to go, progress so far gives some hope the Paris climate agreement struck six years ago is working.

Major powers brought significant commitments to cut emissions this decade and pledged to shift toward net-zero emissions. New coalitions were also announced for decarbonising sectors of the global economy. These include phasing out coal-fired power, pledges to cut global methane emissions, ending deforestation and plans for net-zero emissions shipping.

The two-week summit, known as COP26, is a critical test of global cooperation to tackle the climate crisis. Under the Paris Agreement, countries are required, every five years, to produce more ambitious national plans to reduce emissions. Delayed one year by the COVID pandemic, this year is when new plans are due.

Pledges made at the summit so far could start to bend the global emissions curve downwards. Credible projections from an expert team, including Professor Malte Meinshausen at the University of Melbourne, suggest if new pledges are fully funded and met, global warming could be limited to to 1.9℃ this century. The International Energy Agency came to a similar conclusion.

This is real progress. But the Earth system reacts to what we put in the atmosphere, not promises made at summits. So pledges need to be backed by finance, and the necessary policies and actions across energy and land use.

A significant ambition gap on emissions reduction also remains, and more climate action is needed this decade to avoid catastrophic warming. Achieving necessary emissions reductions by 2030 will be a key focus of the second week of the Glasgow talks, especially as global emissions are projected to rebound strongly in 2021 (after the drop induced last year by COVID-19).

For its part, Australia contributed virtually nothing to global efforts in Glasgow. Alone among advanced economies, Australia set no new target to cut emissions this decade. If anything, this week added to Australia’s reputation as a member of a small and isolated group of countries - with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Russia - resisting climate action.


Two graphs showing progress towards global temperature goals, based on national pledges before the COP26 summit, left, and on November 3.

Global momentum: What did major powers bring to Glasgow?

Since the last UN climate summit we’ve seen a worldwide surge in momentum toward climate action. More than 100 countries - accounting for more than two-thirds of the global economy - have set firm dates for achieving net-zero emissions.

Perhaps more importantly, in the lead up to the Glasgow summit the world’s advanced economies - including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Canada, South Korea and New Zealand - all strengthened their 2030 targets. The G7 group of countries pledged to halve their collective emissions by 2030.

Major economies in the developing world also brought new commitments to COP26. China pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060 and strengthened its 2030 targets. It now plans to peak emissions by the end of the decade.

This week India also pledged to achieve net-zero by 2070 and ramp up installation of renewable energy. By 2030, half of India’s electricity will come from renewable sources.

The opening days of COP26 also saw a suite of new announcements for decarbonising sectors of the global economy. The UK declared the end of coal was in sight, as it launched a new global coalition to phase out coal-fired power.

More than 100 countries signed on to a new pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. More than 120 countries also promised to end deforestation by 2030.

The US also joined a coalition of countries that plans to achieve net-zero emissions in global shipping.

But this week the developed world fell short of fulfilling a decade-old promise - to deliver US$100 billion each year to help poorer nations deal with climate impacts.

Fulfilling commitments on climate finance will be critically important for building trust in the talks. For its part, Australia pledged an additional A$500 million in climate finance to countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific – a figure well short of Australia’s fair share of global efforts. Australia also refused to rejoin the Green Climate Fund.


British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Congo President Felix Tshisekedi and US President Joe Biden stand at a COP26 session on deforestation. More than 120 countries signed a pledge to end deforestation. AP

Missing the moment: The Australian Way

While the rest of the world is getting on with the race to a net-zero emissions economy, Australia is barely out of the starting blocks. Australia brought to Glasgow the same 2030 emissions target that it took to Paris six years ago - even as key allies pledged much stronger targets.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison arrived with scant plans to accompany his last-minute announcement on net-zero by 2050. The strategy titled The Australian Way, which comprised little more than a brochure, failed to provide a credible pathway to that target. It was met with derision across the world.

On the way to Glasgow, at the G20 leaders meeting in Rome, Australia blocked global momentum to reduce emissions by resisting calls for a phase out of coal power. Australia also refused to sign on to the global pledge on methane.

Worse still, Australia is using COP26 to actively promote fossil fuels. Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor says the summit is a chance to promote investment in Australian gas projects, and Australian fossil fuel company Santos was prominently branded at the venue’s Australia Pavilion.

The federal government is promoting carbon capture and storage as a climate solution, despite it being widely regarded as a licence to prolong the use of fossil fuels. The technology is also eye-wateringly expensive and not yet proven at scale.


Climate Council

The closing stretch

Week one in Glasgow has delivered more climate action than the world promised in Paris six years ago. However, the summit outcomes still fall well short of what is required to limit warming to 1.5℃. Attention will now turn to negotiating an outcome to further increase climate ambition this decade.

Vulnerable countries have proposed countries yet to deliver enhanced 2030 targets be required to come back in 2022, well before COP27, with stronger targets to cut emissions.

This week, the United States rejoined the High Ambition Coalition, a group of countries from across traditional negotiating blocs in the UN climate talks. Led by the Marshall Islands, the group was crucial in securing the 2015 Paris Agreement.

In Glasgow, this coalition is pressing for an outcome that will keep the world on track to limiting warming to 1.5℃.

But significant differences persist between the US and China. Many developing countries want to see more commitment to climate finance from wealthy nations before they will pledge new targets. Can consensus be reached in Glasgow? We’ll be watching the negotiations closely next week to find out.

[Lisbeth]

SA will not sign COP26 parallel pledge to move away from coal, says Environment Minister Creecy

By Onke Ngcuka at COP26, Glasgow | 09 Nov 2021

In an effort to ensure the success of the COP26 climate crisis negotiations and achieve the goal of shifting away from coal, 40 countries and institutions signed a pledge to end coal financing – but South Africa was missing from the commitment.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

South Africa will not be signing the pledge to move away from coal that was established on the sidelines of the COP26 climate crisis negotiations under way in Glasgow, Scotland, the Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister, Barbara Creecy said.

The minister told Daily Maverick in Glasgow that the country had not taken part in the pledge signed by 40 nations and institutions to end coal financing by the 2030s for major economies, and the 2040s for poorer nations.

“South Africa has not signed the move away from coal pledge. Our position in negotiations is that any decisions need to be made in the process of formal negotiations through the convention.

“And I think that we would be worried about situations where there’s an increase in tendency to set up platforms and pledges that are outside of the negotiation process. We think that it disadvantages developing countries,” Creecy said.

COP26 has been peppered with ambitious announcements that have been concluded outside of the formal negotiations where countries discuss the necessary and binding measures to reduce global emissions to tackle the climate crisis. The announcements, which are only pledges, have been labelled as “greenwashing” by some.

The minister said if there were a rush to disinvest from coal, this was likely to result in stranded assets – infrastructure no longer able to earn an economic return.

“What will happen is that the country will end up with stranded assets. And we know that in any transition there are winners and losers. The losers are seldom owners, it’s normally the workers and the communities,” said Creecy.

She added that there was an emphasis on a just transition and accessing the necessary financing to ensure that marginalised communities aren’t further disadvantaged in the move away from coal, as guided in SA by the Eskom Just Energy Transition Plan.

Creecy said the argument of gas as an “important transitional fuel” in the shift away from coal was accepted by the department as gas has half the carbon footprint of coal. She added that the concern is how investors will back gas with the aspiration for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

COP26 President Alok Sharma said in a press conference last week that the goal of his presidency was to shift countries away from coal but not other fossil fuels such as oil and gas.

Transitioning away from coal has been seen as a key move to achieving the 2050 net-zero goal. Gas has been mooted as a leading alternative for developing and developed countries alike.

South Africa’s National Development Plan targets reaching net-zero by 2050; however, no concrete plan has been put in place to achieve this goal. South Africa’s recently updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) set a lowered carbon dioxide emissions target, which is in line with achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

Alongside the announcements that shadowed the negotiations in the first week of COP26 was the launch of a partnership between the European Union, US, UK, Germany and France. They pledged R131-billion to South Africa to assist the 80% coal-dependent country with transitioning away from coal and to “cleaner” energy sources.

Creecy said the partnership, which includes a mix of concessional loans and grants, can assist South Africa in de-risking private financing and thus unlocking access to loans with lower than commercial rates.

“The issue when you look at private financing is always the question of, ‘What is the revenue stream to repay?’ One of the programmes we have put in the basket is electric vehicles. So I think that in that situation you could be using grants and concessional financing to be doing your feasibility and preparatory work – a revenue stream through the sale of vehicles is clear,” said Creecy.

To achieve the Paris Agreement goal, South Africa is, in these negotiations, seeking to secure a balanced outcome that will achieve three key aspects of the Paris Agreement: progress on mitigation, adaptation and financing, the minister said.

“We are also interested in the question of adaptation, and not because we have given up the fight against greenhouse gases,” Creecy said.

“But because we understand that it’s important that developing countries are able to make their countries more climate resistant. And climate resilience related to agriculture, which obviously in the face of floods, droughts, fires… countries need to develop new ways of developing crops.”

She said that climate justice was a crucial part of the agreement, as developed countries had to acknowledge their historical responsibility for the climate crisis. Developed countries should therefore bear the financial responsibility of assisting developing countries with climate financing.

Developed countries have repeatedly failed to meet their climate finance obligations of $100-billion per year between 2009 and 2020. The amount was near $80-billion in 2019, with Africa receiving about $5.5-billion per year towards adaptation.

The scale of Africa’s climate crisis issues does not match the funding available to meet its climate goals, especially as the continent is warming at twice the global average temperature rate.

At the opening of COP26, the continent asked to be recognised as a special needs and circumstances region in order to receive funding specially tailored to its needs. The request was rejected.

The vulnerability of the continent has seen African countries experience droughts, locust swarms, fires and floods. The Covid-19 pandemic further exacerbated the crisis and countries were stripped of their meagre resources to fight the crisis.

“I don’t really see African countries changing their minds on [the three aspects of the Paris Agreement] because the circumstances on the ground are not going to change,” Creecy said.

[Lisbeth]

Young South African climate activist gives the Global South a voice in Glasgow


The 19-year-old climate activist Ayakha Melithafa. (Photo: Ayakha Melithafa)

By Julia Evans | 13 Nov 2021

Ayakha Melithafa’s journey to get to COP26 started when the Cape Town drought affected her community in Eerste River in 2017 and she started to ask questions about the climate crisis.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

‘If there’s a possibility for a person from the Global South to be able to partake in these activities, we should grab it [with] both hands, and make sure that we hold the Global North accountable for all of the decisions and greenwashing they are doing here.

“And we have to make sure that we partake in these strikes, to make sure that we disable the white saviourism narrative that’s getting pushed – that it’s only white people or white youth who care about climate change – because we care as well. We are on the ground; we are on the forefront,” says Ayakha Melithafa.


Melithafa, a 19-year-old climate activist, is in Glasgow, Scotland, for the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) on behalf of the Presidential Climate Commission representing civil society and youth.

However, her journey to get there started in the Global South, where many who experience the worst impacts of the climate crisis reside. When the Cape Town drought affected her community in Eerste River in 2017, Melithafa started to ask questions about the climate crisis.

“I saw how it was affecting my family, my community, especially my mom, because my mom was a farmer at the time,” says Melithafa. “And if there’s no rain, that takes a major hit [to] the livestock, the crops and everything. And I just saw how much my mom was trying to make ends meet and how much the drought was affecting her.

“That pushed me to actually do some research on what could be causing the drought. And that’s when I came across climate change [and] global warming, confirming our biggest fears. And that just prompted me to start my activism journey.”

Melithafa then joined Project 90 by 2030 and the African Climate Alliance, and has since been a prominent voice in the SA climate activism space. Melithafa, with other young SA activists, is attending COP26, where she hopes to get her voice heard by leaders at the conference.

“I think it’s important for South Africans like me and others to be present at COP[26] because if we don’t make them uncomfortable and if we don’t ask these difficult questions about finance and investing in the Global South, then who will?”

Melithafa says she is proud of the SA team for their achievements at COP26 – from how the youth policy team (Tyler Booth and Sibusiso Mazomba) negotiated to how activists like herself and Raeesah Noor-Mahomed have protested on the streets. But voices from the Global South are still being drowned out.


Ayakha Melithafa at a climate rally at COP26. (Photo: Ayakha Melithafa)

“It’s been quite great to see how many young people have been invited to COP26 [this] year and how many young people are actively fighting. But the thing is, it’s still not enough. We are speaking, but they’re not really listening to what we are saying.

“What’s happening at this COP[26] is the same as what happened at COP last year. It’s the same as what happened in previous COPs. We are always getting these speeches from the people that we call leaders, greenwashing and saying they’re going to make a change, and they’re going to invest in the Global South.

“It’s all talk, but very little to no action is being made. And we are so tired of trying to tell them to take their responsibility and really deliver on the promises and pledges that are being made.”

Melithafa says negotiations have also been quite disappointing. The R131-billion deal from developed nations will be a tangible outcome to help South Africa transition away from coal towards cleaner energy.

Melithafa says the deal still needs to be analysed by South Africa before it’s signed and made official. It is a fraction of what is required to move away from coal successfully, she says.

When asked if she is sceptical about where those funds will go, Melithafa says: “How can I not be with our history of corruption in SA?” She says she’s also sick of the media only giving coverage to white activists and society thinking that people from the Global South are not fighting the climate crisis.

“That’s the narrative that we have to break – that the Global South is aware, the Global South has skills. And that we are brilliant.

“That’s something they need to expose to the world because I’m sure a lot of the people in the world don’t know how much the Global South is actually doing to mitigate and adapt to climate change. They think we are inactive because our stories aren’t being covered, and our voices aren’t being heard in these negotiation rooms.”

Melithafa is often considered one of the most prominent voices in the climate movement in SA. She has spoken at conferences globally, educated her peers and held the government accountable. But she is frustrated.

“I shouldn’t be doing this. I should be caring about my studies; I should be hanging out with my friends, I should be able to trust the leaders in our country that they will take care of us and put our best interests at heart.

“But it’s very clear that we can’t trust our own leaders and countries, and we have to hold them accountable because they have their own vested interests, and they have no problem betraying the youth and selling our futures to benefit them,” she says. DM168

[Lisbeth]

Five things you need to know about the Glasgow Climate Pact

November 13, 2021 9.05pm GMT

The COP26 UN climate talks in Glasgow have finished and the gavel has come down on the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed by all 197 countries.

If the 2015 Paris Agreement provided the framework for countries to tackle climate change then Glasgow, six years on, was the first major test of this high-water mark of global diplomacy.

So what have we learnt from two weeks of leaders’ statements, massive protests and side deals on coal, stopping fossil fuel finance and deforestation, plus the final signed Glasgow Climate Pact?

From phasing out coal to carbon market loopholes, here is what you need to know:

1. Progress on cutting emissions, but nowhere near enough

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 “keep 1.5°C alive”, the stronger goal of the Paris Agreement. But at best we can say the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is on life support – it has a pulse but it’s nearly dead.

The Paris Agreement says temperatures should be limited to “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and countries should “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5°C. Before COP26, the world was on track for 2.7°C of warming, 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 best estimate of 2.4°C.

More countries also announced long-term net zero goals. One of the most important was India’s pledge 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).

Fast-growing Nigeria also pledged net zero emissions by 2060. Countries accounting for 90% of the world’s GDP have now pledged to go net zero by the middle of this century.


Yellow minibuses on a busy street
Nigeria’s population is expected to overtake China’s this century. Santos Akhilele Aburime / shutterstock

A world warming by 2.4°C is still clearly very far from 1.5°C. 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°C trajectory the pact calls for. There is a gulf between long-term net zero goals and plans to deliver emissions cuts this decade.

2. The door is ajar for further cuts in the near future

The final text of the Glasgow Pact notes that the current national climate plans, nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in the jargon, are far from what is needed for 1.5°C. It also requests that countries come back next year with new updated plans.

Under the Paris Agreement, new climate plans are needed every five years, which is why Glasgow, five years after Paris (with a delay due to COVID), was such an important meeting. New climate plans next year, instead of waiting another five years, can keep 1.5°C on life support for another 12 months, and gives campaigners another year to shift government climate policy. It also opens the door to requesting further NDC updates from 2022 onwards to help ratchet up ambition this decade.

The Glasgow Climate Pact also states that the use of unabated coal should be phased down, as should subsidies for fossil fuels. The wording is weaker than the initial proposals, with the final text calling for only a “phase down” and not a “phase out” of coal, due to a last-second intervention by India, and of “inefficient” subsidies. But this is the first time fossil fuels have been mentioned in a UN climate talks declaration.

In the past, Saudi Arabia and others have stripped out this language. This an important shift, finally acknowledging that use of coal and other fossil fuels need to be rapidly reduced to tackle the climate emergency. The taboo of talking about the end of fossil fuels has been finally broken.

3. Rich countries continued to ignore their historical responsibility

Developing countries have been calling for funding to pay for “loss and damage”, such as the costs of the impacts of cyclones and sea level rise. Small island states and climate-vulnerable countries say the historical emissions of the major polluters have caused these impacts and therefore funding is needed.

Developed countries, led by the US and EU, have resisted taking any liability for these loss and damages, and vetoed the creation of a new “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility”, a way of supporting vulnerable nations, despite it being called for by most countries.


Chart of cumulative historical emissions
The UK has one twentieth the population of India, yet has emitted more carbon from fossil fuels. CarbonBrief, CC BY-NC-SA

4. Loopholes in carbon market rules could undermine progress

Carbon markets could throw a potential lifeline to the fossil fuel industry, allowing them to claim “carbon offsets” and carry on business as (nearly) usual. A tortuous series of negotiations over article 6 of the Paris Agreement on market and non-market approaches to trading carbon was finally agreed, six years on. The worst and biggest loopholes were closed, but there is still scope for countries and companies to game the system.

Outside the COP process, we will need much clearer and stricter rules for company carbon offsets. Otherwise expect a series of exposé from non-governmental organisatios and the media into carbon offsetting under this new regime, when new attempts will emerge to try and close these remaining loopholes.

5. Thank climate activists for the progress – their next moves will be decisive

It is clear that powerful countries are moving too slowly and they have made a political decision to not support a step change in both greenhouse gas emissions and funding to help income-poor countries to adapt to climate change and leapfrog the fossil fuel age.

But they are being pushed hard by their populations and particularly climate campaigners. Indeed in Glasgow, we saw huge protests with both the youth Fridays for Future march and the Saturday Global Day of Action massively exceeding expected numbers.

This means that next steps of the campaigners and the climate movement matter. In the UK this will be trying to stop the government granting a licence to exploit the new Cambo oil field off the north coast of Scotland.

Expect more action on the financing of fossil fuel projects, as activists try to cut emissions by starving the industry of capital. Without these movements pushing countries and companies, including at COP27 in Egypt, we won’t curb climate change and protect our precious planet.

[Richprins]

I hope it works!

[Lisbeth]

I doubt it very much.

[Lisbeth]

The Glasgow Climate Pact: A global compromise that barely keeps the goal of 1.5°C alive


From left: South African Minister of Forestry,Fisheries and Environmental Affairs Barbara Creecy. (Photo: Gallo Images / Sowetan / Thulani Mbele) | US President Joe Biden. (Photo: Ian Forsyth / Getty Images) | Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. (Photo: Phil Noble / Pool / Getty Images) | UN Secretary-General António Guterres. (Photo: Jeff J Mitchell / Getty Images)

By Ethan van Diemen | 15 Nov 2021

The latest climate agreement is not a step-change or species-level civilisational transformation, but rather a pact that promises to do better next year. Though the climate crisis has not definitively been averted, some significant moves were made.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

After all the intrigue that two weeks of diplomatic back and forth could muster, the result is what has come to be referred to as the Glasgow Climate Pact.

The halls of the Scottish Event Campus in Glasgow, filled only a fortnight ago with diplomats, heads of state, business people and celebrities, are now virtually empty. The world now has the Glasgow Climate Pact, described as a “global compromise that reflects a delicate balance between the interests and aspirations of nearly 200 parties”.

The pact is not a step-change or species-level civilisational transformation, but rather a pact that promises to do better next year. Though the climate crisis has not definitively been averted, there were some significant moves made, as reflected in the final text.

A press release by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) explains that “the wide-ranging set of decisions, resolutions and statements that constitute the outcome of COP26 is the fruit of intense negotiations over the past two weeks, strenuous formal and informal work over many months, and constant engagement both in-person and virtually for nearly two years”.

It reads: “The package adopted today is a global compromise that reflects a delicate balance between the interests and aspirations of nearly 200 parties to the core instruments of the international regime that governs global efforts against climate change.”



The statement continues that “finance was extensively discussed throughout the session and there was consensus on the need to continue increasing support to developing countries. The call to at least double finance for adaptation was welcomed by the parties.

“The duty to fulfil the pledge of providing 100 billion dollars annually from developed to developing countries was also reaffirmed. And a process to define the new global goal on finance was launched.”

On finance, the text “stresses the urgency of enhancing ambition and action in relation to mitigation adaptation and finance in this critical decade to address gaps between current efforts and pathways in pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention and its long-term global goal”, and “notes with concern that the current provision of climate finance for adaptation remains insufficient to respond to worsening climate change impacts in developing country parties”.

Daily Maverick has previously reported that only three of the world’s developed countries are meeting their climate finance obligations, according to a study by the independent think tank, Overseas Development Institute.

South Africa, however, was the beneficiary of what has been described as a “watershed” climate finance deal. Daily Maverick reported that the European Union, Germany, France, the UK and the US have partnered to support South Africa’s climate action goals by helping finance the move from its heavy reliance on coal to cleaner and renewable energy sources.

The countries pledged R131-billion to SA over the next three to five years in the form of grants, concessional loans and investment and risk-sharing instruments, including mobilising private sector funding.

Just prior to the adoption of the outcome text, what was going to be a momentous moment in global climate negotiations was watered down somewhat, with the Indian delegation announcing a last-minute change, replacing the words “phasing out coal” with “phasing down coal”. COP26 president, Britain’s Alok Sharma, apologised and conceded that the revision was “vital to protect the package” of decisions.



The final text reads that the Glasgow Climate Pact “calls upon parties to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances and recognizing the need for support towards a just transition”.

Notably in agreement with the revision was Iran, Nigeria and the most coal-reliant country in the G20 — South Africa.

Despite this, the pact was adopted by 197 countries. Sharma would go on to tell delegates that although they could say “with credibility” that they have kept 1.5 degrees within reach, “its pulse is weak.  And it will only survive if we keep our promises.”



Progress on other fronts, however, was lukewarm. More than 100 countries agreed to cut their methane emissions. Methane also made its first appearance in the pact. Though nonbinding, it is a step in the right direction to throttling the impacts of a greenhouse gas many orders of magnitude worse than carbon dioxide.

One of the side deals of the conference was a pact on deforestation. The outlook, however, is bleak as the pact is essentially a rehash of a similar pact made in 2014 to end deforestation, that yielded little in the way of results.

Also new was the adoption of rules that allow for greater scrutiny of emissions reporting. On the geopolitical front, the world’s largest two emitters — China and the United States — agreed to work together to tackle climate change and reduce emissions this decade despite the two countries being involved in a broader diplomatic and geostrategic standoff.

In his closing speech, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said of the Glasgow Climate Pact that “the approved texts are a compromise. They reflect the interests, the conditions, the contradictions and the state of political will in the world today. They take important steps, but unfortunately, the collective political will was not enough to overcome some deep contradictions”.

He said “we must accelerate action to keep the 1.5 degree goal alive. Our fragile planet is hanging by a thread. We are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe. It is time to go into emergency mode — or our chance of reaching net zero will itself be zero.

“I reaffirm my conviction that we must end fossil fuel subsidies. Phase out coal. Put a price on carbon. Build resilience of vulnerable communities against the here-and-now impacts of climate change. And make good on the $100-billion climate finance commitment to support developing countries.

“We did not achieve these goals at this conference. But we have some building blocks for progress.”

Detailing these building blocks, the UN chief noted the commitments to end deforestation, drastically reduce methane emissions and mobilise private finance around net zero.



Of the texts, he said “… for the first time, they encourage international financial institutions to consider climate vulnerabilities in concessional financial and other forms of support, including Special Drawing Rights. And finally, close the Paris rule book with agreement on carbon markets and transparency.”

Guterres said coalitions of nations are essential to tackling the climate crisis.

“To help lower emissions in many other emerging economies, we need to build coalitions of support, including developed countries, financial institutions, those with the technical know-how. This is crucial to help each of those emerging countries speed the transition from coal and accelerate the greening of their economies.

“The partnership with South Africa announced a few days ago is a model for doing just that,” he said.

Sunny Morgan, a social entrepreneur and environmental activist, told Daily Maverick that “COP26 had two clear winners… the fossil fuel industry and the global petrol-state countries.

“The final deal agreed favoured the fossil fuel companies who have been given a licence to continue with business as usual. The final text reveals the power that that industry wields. They have successfully lobbied governments and politicians so that the text was watered down so much that, for all intents and purposes, it is useless.”

Morgan argued that “the most affected peoples and areas have been left to their devices and any hope of 1.5 degrees have gone the way of the dodo.

“Island nations and indigenous peoples’ pleas have been ignored and will now lead to untold hardships for tens of millions of people. If the final deal was an equitable deal, why would the president of COP26 have to apologise for how the negotiations turned out? The SG of the UN has acknowledged that the COP did not achieve its objectives.

“Africa,” Morgan said, is “one of the areas least responsible for the crisis that will suffer some of the most extreme impacts, yet our own government is dead set on perpetuating the status quo when alternatives exist.

“The Karpowership deal and Gwede Mantashe’s comments about rejecting the recently announced energy transition fund are just two cases in point. The impacts of the transition are real and there are solutions to lessen its impact, but as with the COP, our government and politicians are tied at the hip to the fossil fuel industry and its dirty and polluting value chain.

“What is now needed is the largest mobilisation ever assembled, with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of activists who are prepared to do the work that politicians are clearly not able to do.

“The future is already looking bleak and if we are to have any hope of surviving the new normal, we must get on with the transition, isolating and breaking the chokehold of the fossil fuel companies.

“We have to accept that pain and hardship is coming our way, so we must teach our people how to be resilient with regard to work, food, water, energy and health… these are a few of the main areas that will be impacted.

“To say nothing of sea levels rising, ocean acidification and mass migrations that will lead to climate refugees. The Covid-19 pandemic, the climate crisis and the COP negotiations have revealed that health apartheid and climate apartheid exists, and our response needs to be the same as it was in fighting the evil of political apartheid.”

phpBB [video]

Thandile Chinyavanhu, an environmental and social activist who works as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, told Daily Maverick that “while the Glasgow Climate Pact has made significant inroads with the inclusion of the text suggesting a ‘fossil fuel phase-down plan’, the efforts by decision-makers to weaken this text is concerning and represents an intention to prolong the lifespan of the fossil fuel industry.

“Our leaders need to recognise the urgency of this situation… we no longer have the luxury of gradualism when it comes to climate action.”

Asked what she felt was missing and what needed to be done, Chinyavanhu said “the signatories have been implored to present stronger commitments at the upcoming COP27 to be held in Egypt. To be considered robust, the Glasgow Climate Pact requires text that features a decisive “phase-out” of fossil fuels — without this, the 1.5°C goal remains tenuous”.

She had a message for South Africans, saying that “not only is a just transition necessary to safeguard our labourers and communities in regional economies built around extractive industries, but it is necessary to avoid massive socio-economic disruptions to the lives of South Africans.

“Without the necessary intervention, extreme weather events such as droughts, wildfires and floods will become the norm, bringing devastation to our families, our livelihoods and economic prospects. Our odds improve significantly under a 1.5°C scenario.” OBP/DM

[Lisbeth]

When a talking dinosaur addressed the UN on the climate crisis


Screenshot from the #Dontchooseextinction campaign (2021)

By Téa Bell | 15 Nov 2021

On 26 October 2021, a velociraptor by the name of ‘Frankie’ burst into the rotunda of the UN General Assembly Hall in New York and took the podium with a simple but pressing message for the international diplomats: ‘Don’t choose extinction.’
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

as unusual and confounding a talking dinosaur named Frankie rocking into the UN headquarters in Manhattan might appear (dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago, “after living on Earth for about 165 million years”), its message – delivered in a fatherly-reprimanding sort of tone – forms part of a larger campaign that the UN Development Programme (UNDP) has rolled out to highlight the immediacy of the Climate Change Issue; while it also encourages political leaders and global citizens alike to take decisive action against it.

phpBB [video]

Despite its eerily lifelike appearance, the dinosaur is, of course, not a feature of reality but a computer-generated image voiced by American actor Jack Black. In an effort to ensure accessibility and global engagement with the campaign, Frankie’s speech has been translated into several different languages including French, Danish, Spanish and Swahili.

To supplement the prehistoric creature’s two-minute, 30-second film debut, the UNDP has designed a visually stimulating and interactive website which positions audiences in a virtual mesosphere and allows them to “fly” around and land on meteors, each of which posits a commonly proclaimed excuse for not taking action against climate change and offers up an accompanying, actionable solution. Each solution provides useful links to digital tools and online resources so that users can further their knowledge of whatever climate change-related area they are interested in.

One such tool is a “Thesaurus Rex” plug-in which can be added to your Google Chrome browser, allowing you to “decode complicated climate terms” while scrolling the internet.

The Don’t Choose Extinction campaign homes in on the specific issue of fossil fuel use and its adverse impact on the environment. It also explains the gist of the situation in quashing one of the 19 excuses addressed on their website, that “Climate Change is too complicated for me to understand”.

“Here’s the short of it,” the website reads. “Since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 1760s, we’ve been burning fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil which have released ‘greenhouse gases’. These greenhouse gases are named so because they trap heat and warm up our atmosphere. This increase in temperature has led to glaciers melting, longer droughts, stronger hurricanes, and extended bushfire seasons.”

The problem with fossil fuel – and many other threats to our ecosystem – must be addressed with haste, the UNDP explains, lest we eradicate the entire human race and many animal species.

In fact, extinction is not some fictitious urban myth; it is a very real prospect – as many have pointed out at the recent COP26 – and it will happen much sooner than many expect. Since 1970, Earth’s surface temperature has been rising faster than in any other five-decade period over the past 2,000 years; this drastic change cannot simply be attributed to nature “running its course”, but to our unsustainable systems of production and humans’ consumption habits, with a specific focus on one ubiquitous culprit: fossil fuel.

“Every year, governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds on fossil fuel subsidies. Imagine we had spent hundreds of billions of dollars subsidising giant meteors – that’s what you’re doing right now!” Frankie the Dinosaur exclaims.

According to research conducted by the UNDP, the exact amount spent on fossil fuels adds up to $423-billion annually. That’s about R6,5-trillion. To put this into perspective, it’s three times the amount needed to end extreme poverty globally and enough to subsidise a Covid-19 vaccination for every person in the world.

“Think of all the other things that you could do with that money,” says Frankie to a hall full of furrow-browed politicians who appear extremely concerned and captivated by the dinosaur’s speech. “Around the world people are living in poverty. Don’t you think that helping them would make more sense than, I don’t know, paying for the demise of your entire species?”


Screenshot from the #Dontchooseextinction campaign (2021)

Despite the dinosaur’s passionate plea, not everyone is as taken by his words as the UN diplomats pictured in the campaign’s short film.

Frankie’s oration, which was penned by David Litt (one of former US president Barack Obama’s go-to speechwriters), makes an appeal to governments to up their climate change game – but the video is marketed to the general public; meanwhile, the UNDP campaign’s website, with all its tools and calls for action, seems to be directed at citizens, unpacking how the everyday person can play their part in the fight against fossil fuel use. The video – which has been shared on different channels – has already had more than a million views since it was uploaded.

Yet, many have pointed out the irony of a UNDP mascot standing before a hall full of politicians and experts, citing quite bluntly deficiencies in governments’ efforts to combat climate change, in an address to the very people who we, the people, have trusted to be able to solve such crises. The energetic standing ovation the audience gives at the end of the video, in response to an entire speech aimed at pointing out their very own inadequacies, is perplexing to say the least.

Why would the UNDP put so much effort into holding the public accountable while highlighting its failure to make good on its own commitments?

“The crazy thing is, this is marketed towards ‘common folk’ when the reality is the changes that are needed are at the top. People in the elite systems need to be willing to alter their perspectives and ultimately their wallets if anything is to truly change,” commented one person on the “Don’t Choose Extinction” video on the UN’s YouTube channel.

In addition, a study commissioned by Oxfam and published on 5 November 2021, notes that the richest 1% of the global population has a carbon footprint 30 times greater than the level compatible with the Paris Agreement’s goal of 1.50C goal in 2030. It is projected that this same group of income earners will account for 16% of global emissions by 2030. Seemingly, the onus is then on the upper echelons of income earners to change their production and consumption habits if any efforts to alter our current climate change trajectory are to be significant.

Nevertheless, the “Don’t Choose Extinction” campaign has also rallied support – and hopefully created some traction: @frankiethedino’s’ Twitter account has garnered more than 7,000 followers since it was created in late October.

“My kids adored @frankiethedino (and so did we). Thank you!” tweeted one user, Karma Ekmekji.


Global climate change strike protest demonstration – No Planet B. Image: Markus Spiske / Unsplash

American celebrity Cody Simpson reshared the video of Frankie’s speech with the caption: “He’s got a point. #DontChooseExtinction.”

A survey by the UNDP found that 64% of the world’s population feel that climate change is an emergency and calls for immediate action. Furthermore, only 10% believe world leaders are taking sufficient action against climate change.

The most impactful changes to our environment’s trajectory may lie with the top 1% of income earners but that does not render the rest of us completely powerless. It is our job to hold our leaders accountable and to play whatever role we can in the fight against climate change.

The “Don’t Choose Extinction” campaign does provide concise tips and valuable resources to achieve the latter, which can be found on its website.

“At least we had an asteroid,” Frankie warns, asking the audience gathered at the UN what our excuse would be – better we never find out the answer. DM/ML

[Lisbeth]

The ocean is essential to tackling climate change – so why has it been neglected in global climate talks?


One day the ocean could reverse its role as a carbon sink and release CO₂ back into the atmosphere, as its absorption ability declines. (Photo: EPA-EFE/Nic Bothma)

By Dr Sali Bache | 21 Nov 2021

Climate change is commonly discussed as though it’s a uniquely atmospheric phenomena. But the crisis is deeply entwined with the ocean, and this has largely been neglected in international climate talks.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

The latest international climate negotiations made some progress by, for the first time, anchoring oceans permanently into the multilateral climate-change regime. But the Glasgow Climate Pact is still leagues from where it needs to be to adequately reflect the importance of oceans to our climate system.

Most countries have targets for land-based emissions – but there are no such targets for oceans. Yet the ocean plays a vital role in helping balance the conditions humans and most other species need to survive, while also offering a substantial part of the solution to stop the planet warming over the crucial limit of 1.5℃ this century.

So how can oceans help us tackle the climate crisis? And what progress has been made in international negotiations?

The ocean’s incredible potential

Since industrialisation, the ocean has absorbed 93% of human-generated heat and one-third of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂). The consequences of this are profound, including the thermal expansion of water (the key cause of sea level rise), ocean acidification, deoxygenation (oxygen loss), and forcing marine life to redistribute to other places.

Alarmingly, this may one day lead the ocean to reverse its role as a carbon sink and release CO₂ back into the atmosphere, as its absorption ability declines.

Equally important is ocean-based climate mitigation, which could provide more than 20% of the emissions reductions needed for the 1.5℃ goal.

Crucially, we must see changes to maritime industries. The shipping industry alone has a similar carbon footprint to Germany – if shipping were a country it would be the world’s sixth-largest emitter. Although high on the International Maritime Organisation’s agenda, the decarbonisation of shipping still lacks adequate targets or processes.

Oceans can also provide climate-safe, sustainable food choices. Current food systems, such as emissions-intensive agriculture, fishing and processed foods are responsible for one-third of global emissions. Considerable environmental (and health) benefits can be gained by shifting our diets to sustainable “blue foods”.

These include seafoods sourced from fisheries with sustainable management practices, such as avoiding overfishing and reducing carbon emissions. Markets and technologies should also be geared towards the large-scale production and consumption of aquatic plants such as seagrasses.

There’s also a wealth of opportunity in “blue carbon” – capturing CO₂ in the atmosphere by conserving and restoring marine ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrasses and salt marshes. However, the success of nature-based solutions depends on a healthy ocean ecosystem. For example, there are emerging concerns around the impact of plastic pollution on plankton’s ability to absorb CO₂.

But perhaps the greatest impact would come from adopting offshore renewable energy. This has the potential to offer one-10th of the emissions reductions we need to reach the 1.5℃ goal. The International Energy Agency has estimated offshore wind could power the world 18 times over its current consumption rate.

Climate talks are making slow progress

For more than a decade, the inclusion of oceans in climate talks has been piecemeal and inconsistent. Where they have been part of negotiations, including at COP26, talk has focused on the potential for coastal areas to adapt to climate change impacts such as sea level rise, as first raised in international forums in 1989 by small island states.

The final COP26 agreement, known as the Glasgow Climate Pact, made slight progress.

The pact recognised the importance of ensuring the ocean ecosystem’s integrity. It established the “the Ocean and Climate Change Dialogue” as an annual process to strengthen ocean-based action. And it invited UNFCCC bodies to consider how to “integrate and strengthen ocean-based action into existing mandates and work plans” and report back.

While these are positive measures, at this stage they don’t require action by parties. Therefore, they’re only a theoretical inclusion, not action-oriented.

We still lack national targets and clear, mandatory international requirements for countries to consider sinks, sources and activities beyond the shoreline in their climate planning and reporting.

Where COP26 did progress was its focus on whether ocean impacts and mitigation will finally be brought into the mainstream climate agenda. For the first time in five years, a new “Because the Ocean” declaration was released, which calls for the systematic inclusion of the oceans in the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement process.

What do we do now?

What’s needed now is a list of mandated requirements that ensure countries report on and take responsibility for climate impacts within their maritime territories.

But as COP26 president Alok Sharma said of the summit as a whole, it was a “fragile win”. We still lack any reference to consistency with existing mechanisms, such as the law of the sea convention or how funding will be allocated specifically to oceans.

As such, the actual impact of COP26 on the inclusion of oceans in climate action remains uncertain. It will depend on how the UNFCCC bodies respond to these directives, and their success in extending obligations to state parties.

Responding to the climate crisis means we need to stop pretending the ocean and atmosphere are separate. We must start including ocean action as a routine part of climate action. DM/OBP

First published in The Conversation.

Dr Sali Bache is a strategic adviser in international policy and oceans at ClimateWorks Australia.

Disclosure statement: Dr Sali Bache does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.