E - COP26 Carbon Markets

E - UNFCCC Article 6 and ITMOs Offsets

2021 A large gap remains between 2030 commitments and Paris Agreement goals

2021 Additional benefits compared to NDC-like pathway out to 2100

2021 Comparing the latest year 2100 warming projections for different scenarios

Carbon credit prices Jan-Nov 2021 - Platt

Delegates associated with fossil fuel industries outnumbered national delegations at COP26

Progress on near-term and long-term commitments

"A paradigm shift has happened, " said Svenja Telle, an emerging tech analyst at PitchBook. "Before, climate finance was seen as a task without returns. It was a sinkhole. Now climate finance is seen as one of the most profitable investment strategies out there. That changes everything."

“The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us” -- Aminath Shauna, environment, climate change and technology minister for the Maldives

“We must build connections with those who understand the urgency and the truth of our situation. The mainstream is not our ally and predatory capitalism can never provide a pathway to a stable climate.”

“We're delusional if we think we can save our climate by tweaking a system that rewards exploitation and that measures success with planet destroying increases in GDP. “

1. The #COP26 outcome reflects a deep and long-overdue change in the architecture for climate policy, led in large part by President Biden and his Climate Envoy John Kerry.

2. The new climate architecture includes, first, the acknowledgment that there is now a climate emergency that will quickly become catastrophic and unmanageable without fast mitigation, a focus on 1.5°C as the outer limit for warming, and recognition that this, the 2020s, must be the decisive decade for fast climate action.

3. The new architecture includes the importance of cutting non-CO2 climate emissions, as well as CO2, with a specific focus on #methane, a super climate pollutant responsible for nearly half of today’s warming. Cutting methane is the single biggest and fastest mitigation action the world can take to keep warming from breaching the 1.5°C guardrail.

4. Another aspect of the new architecture is a shift to sectoral agreements—a second front in the climate war, based on strategies that focus on individual sectors of the economy, inspired by the Montreal Protocol.

5. With these outcomes, veterans of COPs will see the glass as more than half full: the climate emergency now acknowledged and the path laid out for keeping the 1.5°C target alive. For young people, they’ll wonder why we’re not taking even stronger action to solve this emergency. They will surely maintain their anger and demands to hold leaders accountable. Without them, we’ll never reach a safer, more equitable future.

200+ scientists’ warning: “We, climate scientists, stress that immediate, strong, rapid, sustained and large-scale actions are necessary to hold global warming to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.”

Agnes Callamard, Amnesty Int’l Sec’y General: “If we do not put our hearts and minds into solving this existential threat to humanity, we lose everything.”

Agnes Callamard, Amnesty Int’l Sec’y General: “The UNFCCC ... has betrayed the very foundations on which the United Nations was built – a pledge first not to countries, nor states, but to the people.”

Agnes Callamard, Amnesty Int’l Sec’y General: “Their failure to commit to maintaining the global temperature rise at 1.5°C will condemn more than half a billion people, mostly in the global south, to insufficient water and hundreds of millions of people to extreme heatwaves.”

Alessandro Vitelli, IETA spokesman: "We're not coming to a shuddering halt today and tomorrow, and suddenly there's going to be no emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. There is a process to transition that's under way, and carbon markets are the best way to make sure that transition takes place."

Andrea Meza, Costa Rica minister of environment and energy: “If we want to address the climate crisis, we need a managed but decisive phase-out of oil and gas production.”

Andrea Xieu, Mexican collective Futuros Indígenas: “Indigenous nations were not part of the negotiations despite the fact that 80% of the planet’s biodiversity survives in our territories. The problem is not only the blah, blah, blah of politicians, but the bang, bang, bang of greenwashing that will continue to destroy our lives and territories.”

Andrea Xieu, Mexican collective Futuros Indígenas: described the deal as an embarrassment that illustrated the murky influence of fossil fuel companies in Glasgow.

Anna Jones, Greenpeace UK: “What we can’t afford to have is another huge extension of those deadlines to 2030 and then not meet them. We need to be seeing a reversal now.”

Any chance of halving fast-rising emissions by 2030 – the declared aim of the talks – is now negligible.

Article 6: COP26 also finalised rules for global carbon trading. However the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to “offset” its carbon emissions

Article 6: Glasgow pact created rules to prevent double-counting of emissions credits, closed loopholes, and added stronger language make credits being traded across borders represent real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

As a climate scientist, watching COP26 conclude without commitments to end carbon dioxide emissions was like watching a group of firefighters standing around squabbling in front of burning houses with children inside.

As regards all the most important pledges to phase out coal, reduce subsidies and protect forests, Glasgow failed.

Banks and other investors will be racing to find impactful and creditworthy businesses in which to invest climate capital. This could lead to the rapid scaling up of climate-focused businesses, and as a result a wholesale transformation of the competitive landscape in ‘green’ technologies and manufacturing.

Brandon Wu, the director of policy and campaigns at ActionAid, was highly critical of those who had vilified India for the phrasing of the agreement. Wu, like others, pointed out that the agreement had only targeted coal while avoiding mention of other fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil, which are used in abundance by the US and European countries.

But the biggest breakthrough was unexpected. On Wednesday, China and the U.S. — the world’s two largest climate polluters — said they would commit to “enhanced climate actions” to keep global warming to the limits set in the Paris agreement. Most critically, the statement included a commitment to phase down coal. And while we can’t yet quantify the impacts of this development, it presumably moves us closer to the 1.5 Celsius goal. This level of U.S.-China cooperation quickly shifted the entire COP26 narrative and outlook.

But to ask the human species to give up energy use, which is what is implied by many of the deep reduction targets in a short space of time, is distracting science fiction. These challenges are made even more difficult by having nearly 8bn mouths to feed today, with another 2bn by 2050.

By forcing Parties to “revisit” their NDCs before next year’s COP, the Pact will induce some countries to reconsider their targets and redraw their emissions pathways. And this will cascade down to business, likely pushing many organizations to accelerate their own decarbonization plans.

By laying out the “45% by 2030” emissions target in black and white, the Pact has set a clear benchmark for evaluating the credibility of businesses’ climate transition plans. Those that fail to integrate this target could find themselves the target of climate activists, investors, and even legislators.

By the end of the first week, the latest commitments from various countries for the first time appeared to offer a chance of keeping the warming of the planet below 2 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels. That’s half of what we were heading toward prior to the 2015 Paris summit (COP21).

Cautious optimism: US-China agreement to work together

China’s intervention - via India - effectively undermined COP26 President Alok Sharma’s goal to “consign coal to history.”

Claire Stockwell, Climate Analytics: “It is all very well for leaders and governments to claim that they have a net-zero target, but if they don’t have plans as to how to get there, and their 2030 targets are not aligned with net-zero, then, frankly, these net-zero targets are just paying lip service to real climate action. That’s the key reason we think Glasgow at this stage has a very big credibility gap.”

Climate finance: the pact “notes with concern that the current provision of climate finance for adaptation remains insufficient to respond to worsening climate change impacts in developing country Parties.” There is no funding target mentioned.

Coal target was watered down at the last-minute to a pledge to “phase down” rather than “phase out” coal power, but the inclusion is still significant as the first mention of coal in a COP text

Collin Rees, senior campaigner with nonprofit Oil Change Int’l: BOGA raises the bar for who can credibly claim the title of “climate leader.” “You see some of the countries with the biggest plans for extraction of fossil fuels, both currently and over the next decade, trying to claim to be climate leaders.”

Collin Rees, senior campaigner with nonprofit research group Oil Change International: “The industry is pushing to lock in this production, pushing to continue to extract oil and gas long beyond when we know that we can allow them to do that, ” he said. “That’s why this is such a big deal. This is the first time at the international level that that has been recognized — that not only do we have to address the consumption of fossil fuels, but we really do have to limit production as well.”

Collin Rees, senior campaigner with nonprofit research group Oil Change International: fossil fuel industry is trying to lock in demand by exploring for new reserves and building new infrastructure like pipelines and export terminals.

Companies were eager to show their support in Glasgow, with countless industry booths and appearances by corporate elites like Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and BlackRock Inc. Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink.

Concerns about integrity of new carbon market system: Carbon Market Watch called it a “travesty” that will dilute the positive impact.

COP26 is over. And we are now on track for global heating that exceeds 2oC. At this temperature, up to 99% of coral reefs will die. Are we comfortable with this truth.

COP26 president Alok Sharma’s apology goes to the heart of the goals of COP26, that it would deliver outcomes matching the urgent “code red” action needed

COP26 will be seen as an inflection point for global climate recovery.

Countries will have to take a detailed inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions by 2024, which will be used as the basis for future emissions cuts.

Developing countries want international climate adaptation finance to roughly double from 2019 levels to about $40 billion by 2025.

Dirk Forrister, IETA CEO: Article 6 agreement “establishes an integrity framework to support the expansion of carbon markets to help governments and businesses deliver higher climate ambitions.”

Domestic politics rather than international pressure is often the force driving climate policy. So there are no guarantees nations will deliver greater ambition in 2022.

Excessive and unrealistic expectations risk a response that says it's not worth trying. This would be a disaster. This is why the multiple supporting agreements achieved at Glasgow on methane, forestry, finance and carbon markets, were a major success. These commitments need to be delivered but together they keep us moving forward.

Frances Seymour, WRI - “It’s great that forests were given a big place on the stage at Glasgow, that they had a head of state level segment on forest ... When you look back over the past few decades of climate action, forests had been the Cinderella neglected step sister.”

Frances Seymour, WRI - “Many of us who’ve been in this business for several decades have seen this movie again and again and again, and the ending never changes. Pledges are made and then nothing happens.”

George Monbiot: And instead they’re giving us this pathetic, limp rag of a document. Demonstrating they are here not to protect life on Earth, but to protect the fossil fuel industry from challenge.

George Monbiot: The Glasgow Climate Pact, for all its restrained and diplomatic language, looks like a suicide pact. After so many squandered years of denial, distraction and delay, it’s too late for incremental change.

George Monbiot: What a total fiasco it is. This is getting very close to the last possible chance, and instead of the sweeping change which we need, like leaving all fossil fuels in the ground by 2030, not even on the table, not a prospect.

Global temperature likely to exceed 2oC under even most optimistic scenario

Global Witness found that 503 people with links to fossil fuel interests had been accredited for the climate summit.

Greta Thunberg on Twitter: “The #COP26 is over. Here’s a brief summary: Blah, blah, blah. But the real work continues outside these halls. And we will never give up, ever.”

If targets under international law, with a much more universal commitment, have not been met, what are the chances that a non-legally binding commitment (which the Glasgow Declaration is) will be?

Inger Anderson, exec dir UNEP: “It is not good to see that net-zero pledges are generally vague and untransparent; they are hard to calculate and hold to account; many kick the can beyond 2030, when we know that we need to halve our emissions between now and 2030 to be on track to limit warming to 1.5C.”

Inger Anderson, exec dir UNEP: these new near-term commitments are, “frankly, an elephant giving birth to a mouse”.

James Thornton ClientEarth CEO on overall summit issues: “Negotiations have failed to secure an agreement to end coal or ‘wind down’ the use of oil and gas. Countries in the Global South that have done little to exacerbate global warming are not seeing the $100 billion per year in climate financing that was promised previously. And serious doubt remains over whether limiting warming to 1.5C – the key metric for survival for many climate vulnerable communities – can be achieved.”

James Thornton ClientEarth CEO: “new regular reporting may help citizens compare and analyse countries’ short and long term greenhouse gas reductions plans, which will help people hold governments to account on their commitments.”

James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO on deforestation: “For it to translate into action, this commitment needs teeth. It must address how deforestation is defined and measured, set binding milestones, address financing issues, and ensure participation and protections for local communities and Indigenous peoples. To ensure countries live up to their promises, transparent and robust monitoring is essential.”

James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO on loss and damage: “Climate change is inherently unequal: its impacts – such as droughts, heatwaves flooding, and rising seas – are felt most in those countries least responsible. This is clearly a human rights issue, and robust international efforts are needed to ensure peoples’ futures are protected. When governments do not take action, litigation will increasingly be used to hold them accountable.”

James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO on loss and damage: “This year’s agreement includes establishing a facility to support technical assistance on loss and damage from climate change in developing countries. But this is far from providing financial support to compensate for loss and damage, which the coalition of least developed countries was pushing for.”

James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO on the overall summit: “The push for pre-2030 action, including a new annual high level Ministerial meeting from 2022, will further highlight governments that are delaying action. Finally, the recognition of the role of Indigenous peoples and youth in climate action is also a first and could provide momentum to legal cases that challenge governments over their failures.”

James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO: “Coal should already be consigned to history, and the agreement should have gone much further – with explicit commitments to also move away from oil and gas. Instead, we are left with a weak reference to removing ‘inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels’.

James Thornton, ClientEarth CEO: “On emissions reductions, we’re still not moving in the right direction. Promises to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement are meaningless if they do not result in emissions reductions in the short-term. Governments should establish short-term plans and targets, and back those up with strong regulation and enforcement.”

Jane Francis: The polar regions are no longer an early warning signal for climate change ... Instead, they are now a driver of climate change

Jason Box: The lack of a science-based response is alarming

Jochen Flasbarth, headed of Germany’s COP26 delegation: the joint U.S.-China agreement in Glasgow was the summit’s “high point.”

Joe Eisen, executive director of Rainforest Foundation UK: “REDD has proved to be pretty ineffective over the past 14 years, and without reviewing the reasons why it’s been ineffective, all of a sudden we’re seeing a huge upscaling through LEAF ... And there’s serious concerns about its viability and how it might incentivize state capture of land.”

John Kerry: “Not only are companies ahead of government, but companies understand that their future is tied to having a stable marketplace.”

Kelley Kizzier, VP for global climate EDF: "The agreed Article 6 rules give countries the tools they need for environmental integrity, to avoid double counting and ultimately to clear a path to get private capital flowing to developing countries.”

Kelley Kizzier, VP global climate EDF: :This COP will be remembered as the Methane Moment — the year this long-overlooked climate pollutant finally received the attention it requires.”

Kelley Kizzier, VP global climate EDF: "The decision eliminates double counting for compliance markets and establishes a strong framework to ensure appropriate accounting for voluntary carbon markets that also supports emissions reductions in countries hosting carbon market activities.”

Kelley Kizzier, VP global climate EDF: “A COP26 signal to phase out coal and fossil fuels is significant, even if weaker than ideal.”

Kelley Kizzier, VP global climate EDF: “The sum of COP26 went beyond the two weeks in Glasgow. The COP drove critical announcements long before delegates were on the ground.”

Kelley Kizzier, VP global climate EDF: “Today’s agreement on Article 6 provides the rules necessary for a robust, transparent and accountable carbon market to promote more and faster climate ambition and create a further avenue for finance flows from developed to developing countries.”

Kelley Kizzier, VP global climate EDF: The Glasgow pact “eliminates double counting for compliance markets and establishes a strong framework to ensure appropriate accounting for voluntary carbon markets that also supports emission reductions in countries hosting carbon market activities.”

Key COP26 achievements

Key topics like setting up a system to pay for damages wrought by climate change were still unsettled

Lars Koch, policy director at ActionAid Denmark re oil-producing countries and Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance: “If they don’t become members of this alliance, what they are actually saying is, ‘We don’t mean what we say about 1.5, ’” he said. “It is just pure, deep greenwashing.”

Lars Koch, policy director at ActionAir Denmark: “BOGA will need to recognize the need for wealthy, economically diversified countries to phase out oil and gas production more rapidly than others.”

Laurent Donceel, senior policy director at the Airlines for Europe industry association: The Glasgow pact will make the CORSIA program stricter. “This is a significant clarification in the business decision-making of airlines ... It will influence their investments in sustainable aviation fuels and their fleet renewal.”

Leaders can force the changes they could not make in Glasgow. Because most climate actions devolve to lower tiers of government, mayors, local authorities, counties and states can be enabled to slash transport and building emissions and help households.

Loss and damage: pact urges developed countries to provide support, but no funding mechanism in place and contributions are voluntary

Making matters worse, “Biden’s climate and social spending plan, ” the Times noted, “does not eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.” Those subsides total about $20 billion per year. So we ordinary folk pay oil big-shots to set our atmosphere on fire. Biden won’t fix that. Period. How about them apples?

Meanwhile at the Glasgow climate summit, Biden opened by claiming the U.S. would keep its promise to slash greenhouse emissions by more than half by the end of the decade. Does he know something we don’t? ‘Cause by the end of the decade a Trump clone will likely have been in power. Unless the Dems can thwart the Cro-Magnon GOP base, Biden’s promises aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

More of the bla bla bla we know very well. Same/similar pledges from governments and corporates going on for more than a decade to halt deforestation in 2020 (ohh missed!), 2025 (ohh we will missed it), 2030… (we will certainly miss it). How can we achieve something we are consistently missing by using the same methods: press releases…!

More than 40 countries have committed to ending their domestic use of coal for electricity, and 25 countries agreed to stop financing coal power in developing countries.

More than 100 countries agreed to slash methane and there is a reference to methane for the first time in the pact

More than 100 countries, including Russia, Brazil, and the US, pledged to end deforestation by 2030.

More than 130 countries said they will zero out their impact on the climate in the next half-century, and most countries strengthened their pledges to cut emissions.

Murray Worthy, Global Witness: "What we seeing is the putting forward of false solutions that appear to be climate action but actually preserve the status quo, and prevent us from taking the clear, simple actions to keep fossil fuels in the ground that we know are the real solutions to climate crisis."

Negotiators made progress on some crucial problems, like how countries can trade emissions credits and pledging more money to deal with the staggering costs of climate change in developing countries.

New alliance established at COP26 - the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, launched by Costa Rica and Denmark, commits members to phasing out new licenses for oil and gas production. Members currently include France, Greenland, Ireland, Quebec, Sweden, and Wales

Nick Molho, executive director of Aldersgate Group: the outcome of COP26 “made it crystal clear to businesses that they need to move away from fossil fuels.”

Pascoe Sabido of the Corporate Europe Observatory: "If we're serious about raising ambition, then fossil fuel lobbyists should be shut out of the talks."

Paula VanLaningham, head of carbon pricing, S&P Global Platts: "Sunday's adoption of Article 6 has opened the door for billions of dollars of investment to flood into the Voluntary Carbon Markets over the next several years. Crucially, Sunday's agreement around Article 6 creates a system that will avoid the potential double-counting of offset emissions between countries, which will help to lend much-needed credibility to the emissions markets in the coming years."

Paula VanLaningham, head of carbon pricing, S&P Global Platts: "the new scheme also empowers those countries – many in the Global South – who produce the bulk of the credits on the carbon market, to make their own decisions about which credits they offer for sale on the international market. It also provides them with the opportunity to meet their own national targets with the credits generated by projects within their own borders."

Paula VanLaningham, head of carbon pricing, S&P Global Platts: "The decision to limit the number of older Clean Development Mechanism Credits that can be claimed in national targets will lend further credibility to these markets and will, critically, increase the overall price of carbon offsetting, thereby encouraging additional emissions reductions.”

Phase-down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies language: The word “unabated” implies that there is wiggle room for countries to use technologies like carbon capture to keep coal-fired power plants running, and “inefficient” before “subsidies” may allow some subsidies for dirty fuels to persist.

Piers Forster: “There is no safe level of climate change ... Things are not going to be OK at 1.5 degrees.”

Piers Forster: the planet is on a path to heat by about 2.5 degrees Celsius by 2100

Piers Forster: there are only promises of reductions, with no hard and fast signs that global emissions will decrease

Positive outcome: 1.5℃ target has taken centre stage, with the recognition that reaching this target will require rapid, deep and sustained emissions reductions of 45% by 2030, relative to 2010 levels.

Positive outcome: Article 21 of the Glasgow Climate Pact to protect nature and ecosystems, including forests and biodiversity.

Positive outcome: Nations are invited to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022.

Positive outcome: pact urges countries to fully deliver on an outstanding promise to deliver US$100 billion/year for five years to developing countries

Possible future action includes an emergency Marshall-style “plan for the planet” to catapult ambitious countries into a sustainable future.

Reversing deforestation and land degradation requires challenging the very fundamentals of a global economy and governance that centralizes power in the hands of governments and capitalist corporations.

Right on cue, on November 4, Indonesia claimed the deforestation pact did notinclude a promise to end deforestation by 2030. An Indonesian official called such a commitment “inappropriate and unfair, ” Reuters reported. How long before other countries begin reneging on this? Once the whining starts, it degenerates quickly into sloth. I give this deforestation pledge a couple of months before all rats have abandoned ship.

Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney CIEL: “Article 6 creates a way for public and private investors to weaponize the Paris agreement for the sake of profits at the cost of local communities and indigenous people’s rights.”

Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney CIEL: “Net zero is a scam. It is used as a smokescreen to avoid actual transition away from fossil fuels and carry on business as usual by relying on unproven carbon capture technologies and offsets.”

Skeptics argue that the whole accord rests on a massive bet that the world's biggest polluters will eliminate all their net emissions in the next few decades and say the recent surge in coal mining in China, India and Australia proves just how hard this is going to be.

So far the lack of stronger commitments for emissions cuts by 2030 creates a “very big credibility gap” for net-zero promises, according to the Climate Action Tracker.

Sophie Grig, Survival International: “Nature-based solutions sound nice, but they won’t solve the climate crisis even if you’re willing to sacrifice indigenous people and local communities.”

Steve Trent, CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation: “It’s not enough to publish ‘net zero by 2050’ plans if those plans rely on creative carbon accounting over real decarbonisation across the whole of our economies.”

Talk of carbon pricing evokes the bitter memory of shock therapy in eastern Europe and the developing world. BlackRock’s backstop idea is the logic of the 2008 bank bailouts expanded to the global level – socialise the risks, privatise the profits.

Taskforce on Scaling the Voluntary Carbon Markets: The value of the VCM market is now more than $1 billion and forecast to increase fifteen-fold by 2030.

That is why ahead of COP27, through our Business Manifesto for Climate Recovery, we are calling for the development of a new global framework of Corporate Determined Contributions to capture business progress and delivery against their targets, ambitions and aims.

The #COP26 climate agreement states global emissions must be reduced by 45 percent by 2030. We better get started.

The #COP26 triggered frustration, anger and despair shared widely by many of us. However, we should acknowledge and embrace the above as we move ahead with unstoppable #climateaction and ensuring/scrutinising that promises are lived up to.

The biggest surprise in Glasgow was an agreement by China and the US, the two biggest emitters, to work together.

The effects of fossil-fuel finance and reduced deforestation pledges are more challenging to model, but any additional emissions reductions beyond those already committed to under existing NDCs are expected to be small.

The Glasgow pact “notes with deep regret that the goal of developed country Parties to mobilize jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation has not yet been met.”

The key points of the Glasgow Pact

The new net-zero promises result in 2100 warming of 1.8C that – if achieved – would mean that the world would have at least a two-in-three chance of avoiding 2C warming by 2100.

The only way 1.5C can be achieved must now be for those countries who want progress to work outside the UN process.

The rules on international carbon trading bring clarity to companies and standardization that should help reduce emissions, though some activists are worried they aren’t quite tight enough

The sum of the new NDCs plus net-zero commitments — if they are met — would put the world on course to warm by roughly 1.8°C (but lots of uncertainty around this number)

The US and the EU seem less preoccupied with grand schemes of carbon pricing and blended finance, than with pushing a case-by-case approach

The World Health Organization must declare an immediate health emergency, making the link between the pandemic and the climate crisis

The world’s carbon budget could be exhausted sometime between 2027 and 2033.

There are now more than 2,700 billionaires, 600 more than one year ago. They can be cajoled, bullied and taxed

This COP has been like none other. We have seen that alongside the core negotiations, public-private co-operation has delivered great progress.

Thomas Joseph, Hoopa tribe, California: “Cop26 leaders signed an agreement that will entrench sacrificing Indigenous people … [but] failed to include real solutions to meet the climate chaos that many of our frontline Indigenous communities are facing.”

Thomas Joseph, Hoopa tribe, California: “The leaders pushing for market-based solutions and the commodification of our Mother Earth are signing a death sentence.”

Those critical of #COP26 outcomes should really think and reflect on how one Glasgow week delivered 3 time more ambition increase than 6 years of NDC adjustments!

Two big ticket items weren’t realised: renewing targets for 2030 that align with limiting warming to 1.5℃, and an agreement on accelerating the phase-out of coal

Two days after Glasgow ended Indonesia’s environment minister “walked back her country’s commitment to its core objectives, calling the proposal to end deforestation by 2030 there “inappropriate and unfair.””

UN climate events have evolved as urgency increases: COP26 meeting, with 39,000 registered attendees, was the largest climate meeting in history.

Unless COP26’s failure is recognized as failure, there is no way to learn from it

We need more than conversation about Loss and Damage. We need a funding facility to ensure loss and damage compensation is delivered, both for reasons of basic fairness, and so all nations can address this planetary challenge on the basis of enhanced capability.

We need perspective and patience. My take is that #glasgowcop26 was a triumph. Those who say we can switch from fossils over night are deluded. Our use of energy is more profound than people think - it defines us as a species.

Weak 2030 targets: new projections from Climate Action Tracker show even if all COP26 pledges are met, the planet is on track to warm by 2.1℃ – or 2.4℃ if only 2030 targets are met.

When it comes to COP26 I read a lot of disappointment, and I fully understand it given the seriousness of the climate crisis and the limited time window we have. However, even if "phase out" has been replaced by "phase down", the fact that fossil fuels made it into the actual text will be remembered as the beginning of a landslide that will make them obsolete in the next decade.

Zhao Lijian, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson: “In many developing countries, not everyone has access to electricity and energy supply is not adequate ... Before asking all countries to stop using coal, consideration should be given to the energy shortfall in these countries.”

Zhao Lijian, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson: China attaches “high importance” to the energy transition, and has recently set out major steps including a target to reduce coal consumption from 2026 and to end the building of overseas power projects that use the fuel.

2007 Delay will make achieving potentials more difficult

2007 Projected industry emissions to 2030

2008 IEA projections of 550 and 450 ppm scenarios

2008 In scenarios oil consumption peaks around 2020, gas 2025

2009 Emissions reductions in 2020

2010 Low carbon energy production by 2020

2012 Cost and net costs by 2020, 2035, 2050

2012 Evolution of transport sector technologies now to 2030

2013 The key chart

2014 Projected emissions in 2030

2015 7. Implementation of Energy Innovation's recommendations would yield big reductions

2015 10. Delaying policy has a significant impact on emissions reductions

2015 12. What if all the policy measures were cranked to full potential?

2015 14. But costs are higher, unless you factor in climate and health savings

2017 To do that we need to peak emissions by 2020

2021 A large gap remains between 2030 commitments and Paris Agreement goals

Progress on near-term and long-term commitments

So far the lack of stronger commitments for emissions cuts by 2030 creates a “very big credibility gap” for net-zero promises, according to the Climate Action Tracker.

2021 A large gap remains between 2030 commitments and Paris Agreement goals

2021 Additional benefits compared to NDC-like pathway out to 2100

2021 Comparing the latest year 2100 warming projections for different scenarios

Progress on near-term and long-term commitments

Claire Stockwell, Climate Analytics: “It is all very well for leaders and governments to claim that they have a net-zero target, but if they don’t have plans as to how to get there, and their 2030 targets are not aligned with net-zero, then, frankly, these net-zero targets are just paying lip service to real climate action. That’s the key reason we think Glasgow at this stage has a very big credibility gap.”

Inger Anderson, exec dir UNEP: “It is not good to see that net-zero pledges are generally vague and untransparent; they are hard to calculate and hold to account; many kick the can beyond 2030, when we know that we need to halve our emissions between now and 2030 to be on track to limit warming to 1.5C.”

Inger Anderson, exec dir UNEP: these new near-term commitments are, “frankly, an elephant giving birth to a mouse”.

So far the lack of stronger commitments for emissions cuts by 2030 creates a “very big credibility gap” for net-zero promises, according to the Climate Action Tracker.

The effects of fossil-fuel finance and reduced deforestation pledges are more challenging to model, but any additional emissions reductions beyond those already committed to under existing NDCs are expected to be small.

The new net-zero promises result in 2100 warming of 1.8C that – if achieved – would mean that the world would have at least a two-in-three chance of avoiding 2C warming by 2100.