Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
A second draft final text for the COP26 agreement
was released in the early hours of 12 November, taking a step back
from the prior draft on challenging the continued use of fossil
fuels, but still exhorting developed countries to increase their
climate finance commitments and speed up their emissions
reductions.
The new draft retains the emphasis on reducing global CO2
emissions by 45% relative to 2010 by 2030 and that this requires an
acceleration of deployment of clean energy technology and emissions
reductions.
A deletion from the earlier draft language
strengthens the commitment related to the ultimate goal of limiting
global warming. The new draft states in Paragraph 20 that it:
"Reaffirms the Paris Agreement temperature goal of holding the
increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit
the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial
levels."
The prior draft had the phrase "by 2100" at the end of that
paragraph—and so removing the date can strike any implication
that a higher temperature increase pre-2100 is acceptable.
However, the language related to coal and fossil fuels has been
watered down. In draft two, the relevant section is Paragraph 36,
which now: "Calls upon Parties to accelerate the development,
deployment, and dissemination of technologies and the adoption of
policies for the transition towards low-emission energy systems,
including by rapidly scaling up clean power generation and
accelerating the phaseout of unabated coal power and of inefficient
subsidies for fossil fuels."
This can be interpreted as allowing for coal usage combined with
carbon capture. The language referencing "inefficient subsidies for
fossil fuels" opens new flexibility for the continued use of oil
and, especially, natural gas.
One critic of the second draft, Jean Su, energy justice director
at the Center for Biological Diversity, focused on those
modifications. "The latest text out of Glasgow shows the oily
imprints of fossil fuel influence," she said in a prepared
statement. "The credibility of these talks is in question if
landmark language around fossil fuels gives them a lifeline through
carbon capture technologies and continued subsidies."
The second draft retains language from the earlier draft that
would require countries to update their nationally determined
contributions (NDCs) for reducing emissions by 2030 in time for
COP27, scheduled for next November in Egypt. In the past, NDC
updates were due every five years.
The US and China announced earlier
in the week their intent to update their NDCs for COP27 as part of
a framework to accelerate cooperation on methane and CO2 emissions
reductions.
The second draft repeatedly uses terms such as "urgency" about
the climate crisis and "serious concern" that impacts are getting
more severe. It "urges developed country parties to urgently and
significantly scale up their provision of climate finance,
technology transfer and capacity building" for developing
countries. The latter would include "significantly increasing"
climate finance beyond the $100 billion per year that was
promised under the Paris Agreement, but has yet to materialize.
Reaction
Reaction from nongovernmental organizations to draft two was
negative, due to the weaker fossil fuel language, though they
acknowledged it is the first time that a COP agreement would have
any mention of reducing fossil fuel use.
"It could be better, it should be better," said Jennifer Morgan
of Greenpeace International, in a tweet.
Speaking at a press conference at COP26 after the draft was
released, Helen Mountford, vice president of climate and economics
at the World Resources Institute, offered a mixed response. "The
fact that we've got the phaseout of fossil fuel subsidies and the
phaseout of coal in the text is really new and important," she
said. "The fact that they've added in 'unabated' in front of coal
and 'inefficient' in front of fossil fuel subsidies, compared to
the text a couple of days ago, is definitely going back to some
more comfortable negotiated language in other fora."
Arunabha Ghosh of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, an
organization of climate scientists based in New Delhi, India,
agreed in a statement that the draft "continues to fall
significantly short of the action needed to keep 1.5 degrees
alive." But he said it does underscore the need for developed
countries to both control their emissions and help the developing
world, with the inclusion of language about "common but
differentiated responsibilities" among nations.
That language about "differentiated responsibilities" is a
two-edged sword. China and India, for example, have used that term
in the past to argue that they will not be able to meet goals set
out by other large carbon-emitting countries of net-zero economies
by 2050, and will need one or two decades more to reach carbon
neutrality.
Think-tank E3G took a more generous tone about the draft text,
particularly the annual NDC updates. "The key paragraph on
accelerating mitigation ambition is strengthened … [the] text
requests parties to come back with more ambition by 2022,"
according to an analysis posted on its website.
The push for even more climate financing also comes through as a
strong positive, E3G said. "Paragraph 27 of the COP text 'urges'
developed countries to 'fully deliver' on the $100bn goal urgently
and through to 2025. We'll be closely tracking reactions to this
language," it said.
But E3G also suggested that the strong language about financing
indicates that COP26 talks could be prolonged, if negotiators for
individual countries need to ask their leaders to commit to more
capital. "Leaders really have to decide if they want to keep 1.5
degrees Celsius alive now.… It's countries that must decide how
much climate risk they will take," E3G said.
Next step
Most UN climate talks do not finish on time, and this event is
likely to be no exception.
While COP26 is scheduled to conclude at 6 pm 12 November
(Glasgow time), many observers expect the negotiations to last until
13 November at least. Countries still have yet to fully agree on
climate finance, carbon trading rules (known as Article 6), plus loss and
damage compensation for developing countries, among other
matters.
"A small number of key issues remain, which require our urgent,
urgent attention," COP26 President Alok Sharma admitted in an
afternoon plenary on 12 November. "We simply did not have clarity
[yet] on the way forward that would enjoy broad consensus."
Posted 12 November 2021 by Kevin Adler, Chief Editor and
Max Tingyao Lin, Principal Journalist, Climate and Sustainability