Five things to know about the Glasgow Climate Agreement

The agreement signed in Glasgow was weak. And still companies and countries can cheat in the carbon market. However, there is a chance for some improvements next year in Egypt, and public pressure is needed to prevent investments from fossil energy companies

By: Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Sciences at the University of Leeds and UCL and Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Sciences, UCL

The United Nations COP26 climate talks in Glasgow ended with the signing of the Glasgow Climate Agreement with the approval of all 197 countries.

If the 2015 Paris Agreement provided the framework for countries to tackle climate change, then Glasgow, six years later, was the first major test of the unprecedented effort of global diplomacy. What have we learned from two weeks of leaders' statements, massive protests and corridor deals on coal, halting fossil fuel funding and deforestation, plus the final Glasgow climate agreement being signed?

From reducing coal use to loopholes in the carbon market, here's what you need to know:

1. Progress in reducing emissions, but not enough

The Glasgow Climate Agreement is a culmination of incremental progress rather than the breakthrough moment needed to curb the worst effects of climate change. The British government as the host and therefore president of COP26 wanted to "keep the 1.5°C warming stop alive". As we know, this was the stronger goal of the Paris Agreement. But at best we can say that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is in the ICU in critical condition.

The Paris Agreement says temperatures should be limited "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and countries should "continue efforts" to limit them to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Before COP26, the world was on track for a warming of 2.7 degrees Celsius, based on the commitments of countries and the expectation of changes in technology. Announcements at COP26, including new pledges to cut emissions this decade by several key countries, reduced this by at best 2.4 degrees Celsius.

Other countries have also announced long-term net zero goals. One of the most important was India's commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. Critically, the country said it would get off to a fast start with a massive expansion of renewable energy over the next 50 years, so that it accounts for 2030% of its energy. The total use, reducing emissions by a billion tons in 2.5 (current figure of about XNUMX billion).

Fast-growing Nigeria has also committed to net zero emissions by 2060. Countries accounting for 90% of global GDP have now pledged to reach net zero by the middle of this century.

 Global warming at 2.4 degrees Celsius is still very far from 1.5 degrees Celsius. What remains is a near-term emissions gap, as global emissions appear likely to level off this decade rather than making the sharp cuts needed to be on track for the 1.5°C the agreement calls for. There is a gap between long-term net zero goals and plans to reduce emissions this decade.

The door is open to changes in the agreement in the coming year

The final text of the Glasgow Agreement indicates that the current National Climate Plans, (NDCs), are far from what is required for 1.5°C. The agreement also states that next year the representatives of all countries will return with updated plans.

According to the Paris Agreement, new climate plans are needed every five years, which is why Glasgow, five years after Paris (actually six due to the delay caused by the Corona epidemic), was such an important meeting. New climate plans next year, instead of waiting another five years, could keep the 1.5°C target on track for another 12 months, giving countries another year to change government climate policy. It also opens the door to requesting further NDC updates from 2022 onwards to help scale up targets for this decade.

The Glasgow climate agreement also states that the use of coal should be reduced, and subsidies for fossil fuels should be reduced. The wording is weaker than the initial proposals, with the final text calling only for a "reduction in stages" and not for a "stop" of coal, due to India's last-second intervention, and "ineffective" subsidies. But this is the first time that fossil fuels have been mentioned in the UN climate talks statement.

In the past, Saudi Arabia and others have curbed the use of this language. This is an important change, finally recognizing that the use of coal and other fossil fuels must be rapidly reduced to deal with the climate emergency. The taboo of talking about the end of fossil fuels is finally broken.

3. Rich countries continued to ignore their historical responsibilities

Developing countries have called on rich countries to pay for "loss and damage", such as the costs of the effects of cyclones and sea level rise. Small island nations and climate-vulnerable nations argue that the historical emissions of the major polluters have caused these impacts and therefore funding is needed.

Developed countries, led by the US and the European Union, have resisted taking responsibility for this loss and damage, and have vetoed the creation of a "Glasgow Loss and Damage Repair System" to support vulnerable countries, although most of them are required to do so.

4. Loopholes in carbon market laws could undermine progress

Carbon markets could throw a potential lifeline to the fossil fuel industry, allowing them to claim "carbon offsets" and continue business as usual (almost). A tortuous series of negotiations on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on Market and Non-Market Approaches to Carbon Trading was finally agreed six years later. The worst and biggest loopholes have been closed, but there is still room for countries and companies to play with the system.

Outside of the COP process, we will need much clearer and stricter rules for offsetting humanity's carbon. Otherwise expect a series of revelations from NGOs and the media about attempts to use loopholes in the carbon offset system under this new regime, and when new attempts emerge to try and close these remaining loopholes.

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

It is clear that powerful countries are moving too slowly and have made a political decision not to support a step change both in greenhouse gas emissions and in helping low-income countries adapt to climate change and jump out of the fossil fuel era.

But the governments in the rich countries are pushed hard by their populations. Indeed, in Glasgow, we saw huge demonstrations, starting with Friday's March for the Future and the global demonstration on Saturday in which the number of participants exceeded expectations.

This means that the next steps of the climate crisis explainers and the climate movement are important. One of these steps is to starve capital to polluting industries under public pressure. Without these movements pushing countries and companies including at COP27 in Egypt, we will not curb climate change and protect our precious planet.