The heavy lifting on climate action must begin

Syllabus: General Studies Paper 3 

Context:

The annual climate change summit came to an end with the adoption of a weaker-than-expected agreement called the Glasgow Climate Pact. 

Background

• The Glasgow meeting was the 26th session of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or COP26. 
• Earlier, these meetings have also delivered two treaty-like international agreements, the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and the Paris Agreement in 2015.
• While the Kyoto Protocol expired last year, the Paris Agreement is now the active instrument to fight climate change.

• It requested countries to update and strengthen 2030 emission targets in their NDCs by the end of 2022.
• It created a benchmark of five-yearly cycles for updates, urged countries to prepare long-term emissions strategies, and strengthened mechanisms to scrutinise both.
• Success at Glasgow was explicitly defined around ‘keeping 1.5 degrees alive’ through such pledges. The 2015 Paris agreement aims to keep global warming below 2C Celsius and endeavour to reach 1.5C.
• It showed that limiting warming to 1.5º° is still technically feasible, but only just. 
• In the jargon of climate negotiations, Glasgow clarified the ‘ambition cycle’, and this appears to have had results in the form of enhanced pledges.

Review of Glasgow pact:

• There were two important ‘nuts and bolts elements of the ‘Paris Rulebook’ that were fixed in Glasgow. “Paris Rulebook” provides detailed guidance on how countries must carry out the vision for a zero-carbon future set out in the Paris Agreement.
  • First, the transparency framework was completed. It includes reporting rules and formats for emissions, progress on pledges and financial contributions. While India and some other countries pushed for separate rules for developed and developing countries, the Glasgow outcomes narrowed this gap. 
  • The second key was the completion of agreed rules for carbon markets. Credits generated from earlier periods, including through the Clean Development Mechanism were permitted, but only from 2013 onwards. Rules were put in place to limit the scope for ‘double-counting of credits by more than one country.
• The Paris, and Glasgow, approach focusing on target-setting gives insufficient importance to the challenge of implementing those targets. 
• Long-term aspirational targets to ‘keep 1.5 alive’ got the focus, but detailed shorter-term 2030 targets have received less attention. 
  • A focus on shorter-term targets and their implementation, which India has been highlighting, is needed.
• Finance, the central issue: Climate finance promised to be the central issue of COP26. 
  • The developing countries have been complaining that the decade-long commitment of $100 billion had not been met. 
  • Glasgow only established a work programme on post-2025 financing and continued tracking progress on the $100 billion. It called for double adaptation finance by 2025. 
  • Since current levels of finance are already low, this implies mobilising about $40 billion, which is well short of estimated needs; the United Nations finds current needs are $70 billion. 
• Focus on private financing: South Africa announced it had received multi-donor support of $8.5 billion to support a ‘just transition’ out of coal, and India is reportedly negotiating support from the World Bank to address coal mine closures. 
  • Companies committed to net zero initiatives could get $130 trillion. It suggests a growing effort to mobilise private finance. 
  • Developing countries have long insisted that publicly funded climate finance is a right devolving from the ‘polluter pays’ principle rather than aid. 
  • Now access to substantial funds may require embracing a more multi-stranded approach.
• On coal use: There is a clause calling for the ‘phase-down of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. 
  • India read out an amendment modifying ‘phase-out’ to ‘phase-down for coal, among other changes. 
  • India’s real concerns included not precluding subsidies for social purposes, such as for cooking gas; all countries should be asked to limit coal use at the same time and noting the lack of mention of oil and gas.
  • The term ‘phase-out’ is of considerable importance to vulnerable countries, and that India introduced the amendment, has given us a bad diplomatic reputation.
  • From an environmental point of view, a more explicit discussion of coal, but ideally all fossil fuels, is positive, including for India. 
  • From a developmental view, however, India is concerned that explicit mention of coal constrains us in our choice of fuel. 
  • A possible way out is for India to explicitly seek global support for an accelerated transition away from coal.
• Ignoring CBDR: By calling on countries to strengthen targets to align with the Paris Agreement objectives without explicitly considering CBDM, ignores the long-standing issue of climate equity. 
  • Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) is a principle that acknowledges different capabilities and differing responsibilities of individual countries in addressing climate change.
• Adaptation is preparing for the reality that some climate impacts are unavoidable. It has long been neglected in global negotiations. It reflects a global power imbalance that places less weight on the concerns of vulnerable nations. 
  • Glasgow set up an explicit two-year work programme for a ‘global goal’ on adaptation.
  • But, the important complementary agenda of ‘loss and damage’ – was not agreed upon.
  • The mechanism was set up at the 2013 Warsaw CoP under pressure from developing countries to address the climate liability of developed countries in addressing the damages already incurred by developing and vulnerable countries.
  • At the core is the fear among some developed countries that taking forward the loss and damage agenda will open the door to a call for reparations.

What Glasgow accomplished was necessary, if not sufficient, for accelerated climate action.. But the real determinant of success or failure rests on national politics and popular support for climate change within countries. For India, these politics are complex because they revolve around simultaneously balancing concerns over whether our policy space will be limited by inequities embedded in the global mitigation efforts, and our own interests as a vulnerable country in enhancing and accelerating climate action. A balanced view requires consideration of both objectives.

The Hindu Link:

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-heavy-lifting-on-climate-action-must-begin/article37569132.ece

Question: What are the key points of the Glasgow Climate Pact? What are the significance and the issues/concerns with the climate pact?