Disclaimer text

Decline
Accept
Guest
https://www.aegonam.com/en/search/
>
Menu

Glasgow’s COP26 – not quite the ‘stoater’ we hoped for

Glasgow’s COP26 – not quite the ‘stoater’ we hoped for
Back
ARTICLE TYPE
Sustainability Soapbox
TOPIC
Responsible Investing
PUBLISHED
November 26,2021
READ TIME
4 mins
AUTHOR
Georgina Laird
SHARE
Back
ARTICLE TYPE Sustainability Soapbox
TOPIC Responsible Investing
PUBLISHED November 26,2021
READ TIME 4 mins read
AUTHOR Georgina Laird
SHARE

(Stoater: noun, Scottish. Something or someone that is / who is fantastic or excellent.)

 

The lead-up to COP26 was filled with stark warnings and shocking statistics, mostly telling the same story – that we were not on track to meet the goal agreed at COP21 in Paris, and in fact we are headed towards dangerous levels of climate change. Many of us therefore approached COP26 with an element of despair, sprinkled with just a little hope. 

 

Prior to the summit, we released a series of articles discussing the four main goals of COP26, and the outcomes we were hoping for in order to make firm progress in addressing climate change. But before we discuss COP26, let’s rewind 10 years. Reading the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2011 gives us an idea of just how much the landscape has changed in a decade:

 

“We cannot afford to delay further action to tackle climate change if the long-term target of limiting the global average temperature increase to 2°C, as analysed in the 450 Scenario, is to be achieved at reasonable cost. In the New Policies Scenario, the world is on a trajectory that results in a level of emissions consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of more than 3.5°C. Without these new policies, we are on an even more dangerous track, for a temperature increase of 6°C or more.”

 

A lot of what you read about climate from just a few years ago looks, quite frankly, to be collective madness (and some things you still read today…). This year, we have a projection for the first time from the IEA that (at the optimistic end of the range) takes us below 2 degrees, if countries stick to the deals negotiated at the Glasgow conference. It is not yet the 1.5 degrees we are striving for, but it is progress – a testament to the very different emissions trajectory the world has taken over the past decade.

 

Now the dust has settled from COP26, let’s look at the positives and the negatives of the final agreement.

 

We saw the focus move back to 2030. 2021 was definitely the year of ‘net zero.’ And while it’s a positive move, net zero is a very long-term goal. The problem with long-term goals is that they can provide a sense of comfort, which in turn reduces the apparent requirement (or urgency) for immediate action.

 

It anchored 1.5 degrees as the global climate target. The Paris Agreement goal was to limit warming to well below 2 degrees, preferably 1.5 degrees. But research over the past few years shows us that half a degree of warming matters – a lot. It’s encouraging to see 1.5 degrees take centre stage.

 

A COP agreement FINALLY mentioned fossil fuels. We’ve heard it numerous times over the past month, yet it never gets less surprising! However, the watered-down language in the final agreement was a disappointment.

 

The $100bn dollar /  year climate finance promise was broken. This was the pledge made in 2009 to help developing nations, who were already feeling the physical effects of global warming, to adapt to climate change and mitigate the impact of further rises in temperature. Developed countries renewed their pledge to provide this through to 2025.

 

India committed to Net Zero, by 2070.

 

The COP26 summit concluded with a resolution for governments to revise their targets ahead of COP27, albeit it remains voluntary.

 

New pledges to fight deforestation, reduce methane emissions, and scale-up Clean Tech by 2030 were announced, albeit they remain voluntary.

 

As many have expressed, we would like to have seen a stronger outcome from COP26. It's hard to appreciate any progress when there is still such a looming threat, and we know there remains a large gap between the rhetorical ambition of these pledges and the implementation of credible policies and actions.

 

Yes, the agreement could (and should) have gone further – but this is the first time they have been collectively assessed as sufficient to limit warming to 2° C – theoretically at least.

 

Let’s hope that Bill Gates is right: “…we always overestimate what we can achieve in one year, but we underestimate what we can achieve in 10.”

Comparing warming projections.jpg

Compilation of the latest 2100 median warming projections from UNEP, CAT, IEA and CR as of 9 November 2021, compared to the assessed warming values for the five shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenarios highlighted in the recent IPCC AR6 WG1 report. Both central estimates and uncertainty ranges are shown. Note that the IEA current policy scenario (STEPS) is in-between policies in place today and 2030 commitments. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

More about the authors

Georgina Laird Senior Responsible Investment Associate

Georgina Laird is a senior responsible investment associate responsible for analyzing and monitoring environmental, social and governance factors within the firm’s sustainability-themed equity and multi-asset mandates, and engaging with investee companies on a regular basis.

View Profile


Read next