The 26th Conference of the Parties came and went in a whirlwind of its own hype, leaving in its wake a flutter of promises from delegates across the world. Environmental activists, the press, and the public are still estimating the lasting impact of the progress made at the conference itself. Questions were raised about the 500 delegates coming from the fossil fuel industry, which could be seen as the environmental equivalent of letting the foxes into the chicken coop. This meant that there were more delegates acting on behalf of petroleum companies at COP26 than over one hundred nations put together. It is understandable that, during the transition phase from fossil fuels we currently find ourselves in, that we require oil and gas to avoid disruptions to global energy demand. However, we can no longer afford to be neutral when prioritising sustainable energy to mediate the effects of climate change.
The Paris climate agreement, signed at COP 21 is the outstanding commitment signed by 193 nations around the world to work towards limiting the rise in global average temperatures to only 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Estimations from the commitments pledged in 2015 show that if emissions continue as they are, the average global temperature will rise by at least 2.4°C, with some calculations saying it could be closer to 3°C. The main action of COP26 to address the deficit in pledges was to open the floor to new negotiations at COP27 next November. This could be seen as a net positive, but also as kicking the can down the road one year as the 2030 deadline of the Paris agreement draws closer.
Now that the circus has left Glasgow and the world is now looking towards Egypt, the home of next year’s conference, let’s take a look at some of the key takeaways from COP26.
Cop26 and global food
One topic that seemed off menu was food. The global food industry would be the third highest polluting nation on Earth, behind only the United States of America and China if it were a country. Local governments and authorities on a sub-national level were encouraged to sign the Glasgow Food and Climate Change agreement. Over 100 localities from across the globe signed the agreement whilst in Glasgow.
The pledge focuses on using local governments, such as cities, councils or principalities, to link the effects of global food production on the climate and pressure national governments to incorporate sustainable food solutions with any legislation on the necessary reforms to cut emissions.
Elsewhere at the conference the United States and the United Arab Emirates collaborated on a project called Aim 4 Climate (AIM4C). The project, is a push for the marriage of agriculture and big-tech, promising technological solutions to the global supply chain’s sustainability. AIM4C is part of US President Joe Biden’s big push to show that the United States can and will be a world leader in a net-zero world.
Its promise of a software driven and largely worker-free agricultural industry is not without its fair share of criticism. Small farms and fisheries feed over a third of the world, and are a livelihood for millions of people worldwide. Joe Biden’s plan is being seen as part of the problem not the solution. The $4bn pledge to revolutionise agri-tech, creating large, automated and intensive farming methods as the predominant food production process may end up a step in the wrong direction, with opposers to the project highlighting that it may make the carbon contributions associated with farming even worse than before, and could be a devastating loss of income to some of the most marginalised people in the world.
Meat is another discussion about the global food chain that is controversial and was not touched upon in any real way. The festival itself was criticised for a menu with 60% of dishes containing either meat or dairy products. Some groups feel that animal rights are vital in fighting the climate discussion, whilst others acknowledge that animal farming is a lifeline economically for many around the globe. No decision was made either way about the meat industry at COP26.
One interesting takeaway from the food itself at the conference this year was that 80% of the food was grown in Scotland; with a focus on fresh and seasonal produce, some sourced within mere miles of the conference centre. A Particular standout was the sustainably grown seaweed, grown by Mara seaweed, hailing from the capital city Edinburgh. Potatoes and carrots provided at COP26 were grown on a farm that is focused on decarbonising its energy usage. Benzies farms of Aberdeenshire, power their cold storage facilities by wind energy, and harness waste biomass to provide heat. These were great examples to the sort of sustainable farming practices that are possible today, and the importance of eating local produce to cut down emissions.
This viewpoint, however, comes from a perspective of privilege. Many people simply cannot afford to eat locally or seasonally, even in wealthy countries. Those less well-off economically may not be able to purchase these organic and fresh ingredients. No matter who we are, we have all purchased the cheaper vegetables, grown less sustainably and travelling from far and wide to reach us, over the more expensive, locally sourced options.
Something that garnered significant attention from the red tops and social media was that the menus came with two price lists. The first, Pound Sterling, comes as no surprise, the only eyebrows raised coming from steep prices. The second, however, may come as a shock to many. The kilograms of CO2 equivalents (kgCO2 eq.), the universal metric for quantifying carbon emissions, required for each meal to reach the plate, was listed next to the cost of the item.
It may have been eye-opening for carnivores at conference to see just how much more carbon was required to bring a meat-based dish to their plates when compared to the vegetarian or vegan equivalent. Beef dishes were shown to produce 5 times the amount of greenhouse gases produced by their plant-based counterparts. With the focus at COP26 so much on energy, electricity, transport and temperatures, gazing at these menus might have been the only opportunity that our world leaders got to consider the effect of the things we eat on the world around us.
Indigenous communities and COP26
Indigenous communities were supposed to be at the forefront of the COP26 negotiations. Representatives of indigenous communities from Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa came to Glasgow to have world leaders hear their voice. Indigenous communities are some of the people at the greatest risk to climate change, and are seeing their way of life affected both by climate change and the factors influencing the pollution. All over the world, indigenous communities are seeing a disruption in their way of life at the hands of corporations.
Land loss and deliberate shortages of water are but some of the challenges indigenous communities are facing alongside climate change, as more of the natural world is lost. Huge protests, which attracted hundreds of thousands of protestors to march through the streets of Glasgow were led from Kelvingrove park to Glasgow Green by representatives of global indigenous communities. However, as the collection of passionate and peaceful protestors snaked its way through the streets of Glasgow, it came nowhere near the UN blue zone in Finnieston, where the negotiations were actually taking place.
Indigenous communities have long felt ignored by governments and corporations and the general feeling is that COP26 did nothing to change that. Even the measures to achieve net-zero emissions are still threatening their ways of life, culturally, spiritually, and physically. Whilst the majority of indigenous communities this year were kept out of negotiations, the aforementioned delegates from fossil fuel corporations were given a seat at the table. Spokespersons from indigenous groups have called their mistreatment in Glasgow not only a failure, but an outright betrayal.
140 nations promise net-zero emissions.
The philosophy of net-zero, is to reduce carbon emissions as far as possible, and then offset the remainder through removal schemes, technologies and credits. It is vital to understand that we could never go fully without carbon emissions and maintain life as we currently understand it. Some industries, such as steelmaking, are inevitably carbon intensive and it is currently not well understood if the industry could ever be decarbonised.
Steel will be required in whatever options we take to mitigate the climate disaster. Whether it is personal electric vehicles or investing in public transport, Teslas or trains, we will need steel to build the projects to reach our targets. In order to keep the steel industry feasible, other industries must work to cut their emissions.
Renewable energy, tree-planting and carbon capture technologies are all proposed factors for the ‘buying back of carbon credits’ and are commonly implemented by big business. The efficacy of carbon capture technologies is a heated debate in the scientific community. It is often denounced as an expensive waste of time, that distracts from doing positive actions. In fact, a lot of the net zero strategies are seen as feet-dragging on the issue. Tree planting, for example, can actually be worse for forests if the trees are not planted sensibly in properly managed and maintained forests.
This year at COP26, the negotiations introduced the concept of a carbon trading system. Despite support from big polluters, this is being seen as a deliberate cop-out. Nations will now be able to buy credits from other nations that have lowered their emissions, in order to offset their own emissions, which have not been cut. Wealthy nations will be able to pass the buck to smaller countries, using their money as a bargaining tool.
Over 100 nations agree to end deforestation.
Over 100 nations agreed to an end to deforestation by 2030. Even Brazil has agreed to this, a country that has lost over 700,000 square kilometres of amazon rainforest (an area larger than France) since 1970, and continues to clear land on a massive scale. Indonesia is another controversial signatory of this agreement. Despite this pledge to end deforestation, the south-east Asian Archipelago nation is expected to double its production of palm oil over the same time frame. Deforestation linked to palm oil production is the root cause of one of the most devastating deforestation and habitat destruction projects in the entire world. Orangutans, the great apes indigenous to the islands of Indonesia and surrounding countries are facing extinction, largely due to habitat loss that is largely linked to the palm oil industry.
In order to change this for the better, to end deforestation and support biodiversity of some of the world’s most fragile ecosystems, we must phase out palm oil, which is omnipresent throughout global food and cosmetic products. It should be noted, that a large proportion of palm oil is wasted in industrial processes, which could be repurposed for further use.
Cheap Brazilian beef, raised in the France-sized chunk of what used to be rainforest, should be globally withdrawn from supermarket freezers and restaurant menus. The demand for products such as these is driving the incentive for deforestation.
‘Phasing out’ or ‘phasing down’? COP and the future of coal burning.
Coal has been a fundamental part of human life for centuries. The industrial revolution, the greatest technological advancement in human history, was powered by coal. Even today, the burning of coal is seen as a necessity for developing nations in order to become developed. To become a western aligned, post-industrial economy, first you must become an industrial economy.
China, India and the United States of America are responsible for a large proportion of the coal emissions across the world. The combustion of coal for energy production accounts for approximately a quarter of all emissions worldwide. Despite the seeming reliance of global industries to coal, it was an imperative of COP 26 to come to an agreement on the reduction of coal emissions.
The negotiations on the coal pledge stretched into Saturday the 13th from the scheduled closing date of Friday, with some nations arguing over the phrasing of the promise. Indian delegates in particular were not satisfied with ‘phasing out’ of coal as a pledge. Eventually, the negotiations were settled on ‘phasing down’ of coal emissions. This is a move that many on the global stage see as a step back from the original pledge, and a weakening of the promise over all.
Commitment to Financing the Global South
The Global South, the umbrella term for countries that are not developed, post-industrial economies, are at the greatest risk to the effects of climate change. As sea levels rise and the ocean warms, we will see more humanitarian crises, from flooding of land to an increased severity in tropical storms.
Not only will the global south see a harsher change in climate than the global north, the infrastructure of the global south is less established that in developed nations in Europe, Australasia, North America and East Asia. It is for these reasons that the wealthiest nations on Earth pledged, in 2009 to provide $100 billion every year to the global south to help fight climate change. More than a decade on this target has not been met. If the US were to cut its military budget by only 13%, it could not only fund the $100 billion needed to aid the global south but it would also keep its title as the best funded military in the entire world, by a considerable margin.
In the same time, the G20 nations have handed out more than $3 trillion dollars (30 times as much money) to fossil fuel corporations in the form of subsidies. Whilst the richest nations in the world have the cash to ladle into fossil fuels, all that could be achieved at this conference is the promise that they will, eventually, reach that target.
As we reflect on COP26 outcome and prepare for COP 27, we need to appreciate the urgency of the challenge before us. The CEO of IntelliDigest, Dr Ifeyinwa Kanu during CBI’s Sustainable Finance Husting at COP26 emphasised the need for businesses to build on the six key pillars of sustainability -Purpose, People, Peace, Partnership, Planet and Prosperity to accelerate our race to net zero. A negligence of any of these pillars of sustainability will imply that the other pillars including net zero will lag and we will end up hitting a brick wall. The time to act is now.