The 26th UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, ended with misted reviews. The purpose of the meet-up was to set plans to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2050. This goal was agreed to in the Paris Agreement in 2015. The scientific community broadly agrees that warming beyond this level will have grave implications for people and ecosystems. As the world struggles from the crisis of COVID-19, governments will implement recovery packages to boost economic growth, including in the UK. These will significantly impact the UK’s future prosperity, including its potential to meet its legally mandated net-zero emissions obligation. Collectively, the packages will influence whether the global Paris Agreement targets are met (Dyke, 2021)
COP stands for the Conference of Parties and is the governing body of any international convention. As such, there are many COPs for many global traditions. This particular meeting relates to the United States Framework Convention on Climate Change, although the importance has made defining that redundant. To most people, COP means climate change. These meetings have a long history. One hundred fifty-four states originally signed the UNFCCC at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil in 1992, commonly known as the Rio Earth Summit. The first UNFCCC was established in Bonn, Germany, in 1995, and these meetings have started annually ever since. Some COPs have been important than others. The third COP took place in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, saw the adoption and negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, which set out legally binding commitments from its signatories to decrease their emissions of greenhouse gases throughout 2008-2012. It was amended at the COP of 2012in Doha, Qatar, to extend to 2020 (Rees, 2020).
COP21, help in Paris, France 2015, produced an agreement designed to take over from Kyoto Protocol when it expired in 2020, which intends to hold average global temperatures to no greater than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Their commitment from states to increase their targets for greenhouse gas emissions every five years. COP26 was delayed due to the Pandemic. It is the first conference since the Paris Agreement took effect and will indicate how far behind its aims we are falling (Rees, 2020)
Carbon dioxide is the archetypal greenhouse gases, whose release into the atmosphere results in raising global temperatures. As a raw material of photosynthesis, it puts plants and associated photosynthetic organisms at the center of any discussion of the causes of climate change. It is not unreasonable to regard the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning oil, gas, particularly coal over the last several hundred years as reversing the work done by plants during the carboniferous era to lock up carbon underground. The global average temperature dropped from 20 to 12 degrees Celsius during that period, and atmospheric carbon dioxide dropped approximately eightfold (Seibert, 2021).
A key aim of much climate activism is to enhance climate ambition and hold local and national governments and global governance forums like the United Nations to account for how they implement and monitor climate policy across society to reverse long-term climate change. In recent years, new local forms of climate activism have taken a more prominent role in this, particularly at the urban scale. Although place-based, such local conditions of climate activism are at the same time multi-scalar orientation and strategic focus. It is particularly true in the UK, where climate activism has prompted several local councils to declare climate emergencies. It provides a mechanism by which they can become locally accountable in delivering their climate action plans while holding national government to be prior and future commitments to global climate governance (Splash, 2016)
Scientists and climate activists are disappointed that the most significant carbon emission nations did not commit to deeper emissions cuts. Last-minute pressure from China and India changed coal use from “phasing out” to a weaker “phasing down.” Meanwhile, developing countries, particularly island nations, suffering the most from global warming were disappointed by the failure to negotiate substantial compensation for damaged caused by historical carbon emission from first-world nations (Robert, 2021).
The agreement to take strict measures to meet the ambitious goal of keeping global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius was accomplished. It is particularly true given the recent wave of populist nationalism around the world. Weary from two years of fighting the Pandemic, nations have moved closer toward cooperation to face common global threats.
Media coverage of COP26 concentrated on the debate over carbon and disagreements between developing and developed countries. Street demonstrations by climate activists designated to pressure negotiators received their fair share of attention.
The Republic of Korea received little to no attention. However, a BBC report stated, “South Korea was named a country due to giving up coal in 2030. However, the government in Seoul sheepishly pointed to a clause in the pledge saying ‘2030s or as soon as possible after that’ to say they would stop burning in the 2050s. Probably 2030 could be early, but 2050 is too late for a country like South Korea’s level of development. First-world countries, particularly around Europe, have more ambitious plans for eliminating coal. For example, Germany plans to eliminate all coal-fired power generation by 2038 but is aiming for 2035, only 14 years from now (Robert, 2021).
President Moon Jae-in attended the COP26, bringing a massive commitment with him. The president announced to reduce, by 2030, carbon emissions by 40 percent from current levels and to participate in that Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent. In order to achieve these goals, South Korea plans to reduce coal-generated power from 42 percent to 22 percent and use more renewables to 30 percent by 2030. These commitments create previously adopted policies to make South Korea carbon neutral by 2050. Earlier this year, the parliament adopted a carbon neutrality law, making South Korea the 14th nation. South Korea is serious about reducing carbon emissions, but speed is the main issue. The usage of electricity from coal in the United States has declined significantly in recent years. After holding steady around 50 percent for the past decades, a decrease started in the mid-2000s. In 2014, around 40 percent of electricity came from coal, dropping to 19 percent in 2020. Over the last 20 years, the reduction happened despite the pro-fossil fuel presidencies of George W. Bush and Donald Trump (Robert, 2021).
Most of the drop in the US came from an increase in natural gas use. Though natural gas emits more than half as much carbon dioxide as coal, it still contributes to primary emissions. Over the past years, renewable energy has risen rapidly, overtaking coal for the first time in 2020. As renewables continue to increase, natural gas use should sow and eventually decline along with coal. Natural gas is transitional energy between non-renewables and renewables. It is known for its speed in reacting to change. The Republic of Korea has the potential to decrease its dependence on coal rapidly. One way would be to swap to natural gas rapidly to provide renewables time to develop. The better way, of course, will be to concentrate directly on renewables, with natural gas playing a limited role (Spratt, 2021)
China, the US, India, and Japan, account for 76 percent of the world’s coal-generated electricity. South Korea ranks fifth, excluding several small nations. It ranks only behind Canada and the US in carbon dioxide emissions per capita. With a stronger push, South Korea should surpass its goals for 2030 and move up the date for phasing out coal. Aiming for the 2030s would help give other carbon-heavy countries the courage to set ambitious goals and implement them quickly (Richard, 2021)
One reason COP26 matters is that some of them do make a difference. Despite rules on consensus, indicating that the pace is set by the least willing, the agreement in Paris compromised to all parties, rich and poor, to maintain the increase in Earth’s temperature since the mid-19th century well below 2 degrees Celsius. Glasgow will bring fresh national pledges promising raised efforts towards the Paris temperature targets though they will not be ambitious enough to create meeting those goals likely (Seibert, 2021).
The UNFCCC and COP process matters because diplomacy, science, activism, and public opinion agree to make up the world’s best mechanism to help it come to terms with a fundamental truth. The dream of a planet of nearly 8 billion people living in material comfort will be unachievable if it is mainly on an economy provided by oil, coal, and natural gas. The harms from carbon dioxide emissions would eventually pile up so quickly that fossil-fuel-fired development would stall (Dyke, 2021).
About 1.5 billion Asians live near the tropics. Hundreds of millions of them live around the coasts. For their economies to grow, they will require even more energy. If it comes in the fossil-fuelled manner of past years, they will have to bear the mounting costs of creating to and living with storms, heatwaves, and droughts long before they develop. As the world temperature heats up, they will have to run rapidly to stay in the same place. Zero-emissions technology could free from this dismal bind. In principle, they can change into a supply of creating promoting energy that is, in effect, renewable (Richard, 2021).
In the long run, the only option to keep growing is to leave fossil fuels behind. That requires Asian developing countries, most of which emissions are still surging rapidly, to forgo much more by way of future emissions than first world countries, where emissions are already decreasing. India is vocal in arguing the unfairness of this, so far refusing to embrace carbon neutrality. Let others with more responsibility his historical emissions do more. It says (Dyke, 2021).
However, just that may be, the issue for India and everyone else is that the daunting cost of restricting emissions is declining on a few generations, the majority of whose members live in developing countries. A lot of them live in a fractious world where leadership is absent. The US government is not suddenly a reliable partner just because it has now rejoined the Paris agreement. Nor is China the world’s largest emitter. Though its capacity for action is excellent, its pledges thus far are more about posturing than substance. The multilateral institutions created to spread the coast between countries equitable are weak and hostage to procedures based on unanimity and consensus (GFN, 2021).
For all their disappointments, the UNFCCC and its repeated COPS are suitable to change. But until the arguments sink in, the brightest response is prompt, bold action from willing countries in Europe and the US that others cannot frustrate. As so often in global warming, the task is not choosing between options so much as finding now to press ahead with all of them at once. A commitment to significant, fast reductions in methane emissions is vital. More money for developing-country decarbonization, in which government investment can lower risks for the private sector, must flow alongside increased aid for adaptation. Innovation should be encouraged in various ways (Spratt, 2021).
Investment in fossil fuels has declined faster than replacements have come online, aggravating the dramatic recent price rises. In the long term, fossil fuels must become increasingly expensive. But peaks and volatility are destructive. Governments need to structure more buffers into the current system as well as hasten alternatives. When prices decrease, those still subsidizing fossil fuels will have an excellent chance to end. Anyone who dreams of eliminating fossil fuels needs to be disabused. It suits Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia, and Joe Manchin, a Senator from West Virginia, never mentioning an end to the fossil-fuels age. But for them to duck the responsibility of setting a transition is rank cowardice. Gas and oil cannot vanish overnight, but their day is closing. And coal’s day must be done (Seibert, 2021).
Then there are the many unanswered questions. Meeting Paris will require carbon dioxide to the withdrawn from the atmosphere: Many states may one day seek to ward off disaster with solar geoengineering, which decreases the amount of incoming sunlight. The climate crisis stems from change that is out of control. Yet by responding to it, an entire world can become a location where long-term prosperity for all becomes possible. It is a notable future that the fossil-fuel age, despite its illusory plenty, could never have created (Dyke, 2021).
Sustainable recovery policies offer some advantages in spurring growth during the economic downturn. Compared to traditional fiscal stimulus, which maintains business as usual GHG emissions, green projects can create more job opportunities, deliver higher short-run fiscal multipliers and lead to higher savings. During the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, expansionary policies were effective at restarting economic activity. Recent studies from International Monetary Fund show that fiscal multipliers associated with government spending can fluctuate from near zero when the economy is running from near zero when the economy is working close to capacity to about 2.5 during recessions. Green stimulus policies performed exceptionally well during the Global Financial Crisis. The US modeling during the Global Financial Crisis indicated that for every US$1billion invested in a set of potential green stimulus policies, 30100 jobs could be created over the project lifetime, representing a 20% greater return than traditional fiscal measures. This US$1billion could bring a $450Million reduction in annual energy costs (Richard, 2021).
A common argument is that urban areas are already taking action. As urban areas are already experiencing the impact of climate change, many Mayors have adopted adaptation programs. Municipalities are also depicted as innovative, adopting and implementing ambitious decarbonization targets and contributing to rising global ambitions. In UNFCCC negotiations, the LGMA mobilizes its argument to stress that including local government will enable progress in the worldwide agreement. Ahead of COP26, this plan is represented by the motto “Multilevel Action COP.” Multilevel governance, conceived initially as a concept that describes sharing authority across scales and sectors, is strategically deployed to advocate for the inclusion of municipal authorities in the UNFCCC process. While some cities have created far-reaching climate plans, the majority of targets created by cities in the EU seen as global leaders fail to reach the levels required by the Paris Agreement (Spratt, 2021)
Furthermore, many municipal climate plans have no credible strategy for implementation. Not all cities contribute higher global climate ambitions, but this agreement is a central part of a political strategy to leverage cities in domestic politics. The objective, in many cases, is for urban areas to maintain a more robust position concerning national governments, to advocate plans by governments that resist climate action, or to advance financial or political decentralization (Seibert, 2016)
Another similar argument is that action in cities is critical. Because it has a significant share of global GHG emissions is attributable in urban areas. The Local Governments and Municipal Authorities use this entry point to argue for local government to be included in the critical United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations, such as formulating Nationally Determined Contributions. The LGMA claims that Nationally Determined Contributions can be ramped up by including voices of progressive local authorities and by recognizing existing attention to carbon accounting. Organizations representing municipal interests in international climate politics devote much time to developing emission monitoring and reporting strategies. In the context of global climate change targets, what is not counted does not cover. But, this also means that resources are channeled towards carbon administration rather than efforts to deliver urban action. Actions that become labeled climate interventions were central to many municipal agendas long before carbon management was a concern. At the same time, carbon accounting may not necessarily decrease ongoing efforts. It is doubtful that the mere act of quantification may able or empower action at the local level (GFG, 2021).
Furthermore, the well-known argument is that cities are the appropriate arena for climate action, as decisions in urban areas are sensitive to citizens’ preferences and aligned with local needs. Its argument creates a tradition of thinking introduced through the document adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, which concentrated on the local as the correct arena for sustainable development. In terms of political strategy, the success of city networks and the Local Government and Municipal Constituency in framing the urban as a practical entry point for climate action is similar to multiple phenomena, such as the impacts of cities on the global environment and the consolidation of an urban international policy agenda. Yet, while it is clear that many climate-related decisions can be concentrated in cities, there is no single right level of action. For example, we could equally claim that provinces and communities are suitable arenas for protecting climate change. The UNFCCC negotiations are shaped profoundly by political maneuvering. Strategic positioning involves fault lines and coalitions between the parties of the convention and between non-state actors. Whether or not constituencies, such as the LGMA, can influence the negotiations depends on the effectiveness of these games. An optimistic interpretation is that the LGMA constituency so far has been relatively successful and that COP26 constitutes a new chance for cities to claim a seat at the negotiating table. A more significant perspective is that political strategy aims primarily at making access and recognition in political processes rather than realizing just and transformative action in cities (GFN, 2021).
Climate change is the most crucial health threat facing humanity. And while no one is safe from the health impacts of climate change, they are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Maintaining health from climate change requires transformational action in every sector, including energy, transport, nature, food system, and finance. The public health benefits from applying these ambitious climate actions far outweigh their costs. Health experts everywhere have been sounding the alarm on climate change and are increasingly alarm on climate change and are rising taking steps to look after their communities from worsening climate impacts while reducing their emissions (Spratt, 2021).
Reference
Andrew, K (2021), Re-evaluating the changing geographies of climate activism and the state in the post-climate emergency era in the build up to COP 26, Journal of the British Academy (s5), 69-93, Posted 15th September 2021.
Dyke, Watson (2021), Climate Scientists: Concept of net zero is a dangerous trap. The Conversation (Accessed 12th November 2021).
Global Financial Crisis (2021). Media Backgrounder: Earth Overshoot Day Global Footprint Network (Accessed 17th November, 2021)
Linda, W (2021). Cities as Climate Saviours? Political Strategy Ahead of COP 26, Buildings and Cities, (Accessed 25th October 2021)
Rees, W (2020), Ecological economics for humanity’s plague phase. Ecological Economics, 169 (Accessed 20th November 2021)
Selibert, W (2021) Through the eye of a needle, an eco-heterodox perspective on the renewable energy transition. Energies 14(15): 4508
Spash, C. (2016). This changes nothing: the Paris Agreement to ignore reality. Globalization, 13(6), 928-33
Spatt, D. (2021). “Net Zero 2050”, a dangerous illusion. Breakthough Briefing Note (Accessed 12th November, 2021)
Robert, F (2021). “South Korea and COP 26”, the Korea Herald, (Accessed 26th November 2021)
