In November, the United Nations convened its 26^th global climate summit, the Glasgow Climate Change Conference, or COP26. Held in Glasgow, Scotland from Oct. 31-Nov. 12, 2021, COP26 saw attendance and discussion from delegates representing almost 200 countries, while 21,000 representatives from observer organizations, host city volunteers, and the general public also attended formal talks and related events. The Chicago Policy Review has put together a cliff-notes summary of the summit, the first in a series by senior contributor Mika Armenta on efforts to address the systemic problems caused by climate change.

Before continuing, if you have difficulty keeping the terminology straight and understanding the difference between the many acronyms associated with this conference, check out CPR’s Climate Lexicon.

Overall, COP26 elicited mixed emotions from delegates and the public. Some felt that attendees discussed and concluded a great deal, others lamented that they resolved few of the ongoing concerns. On some fronts, observers viewed the outcomes as progress towards addressing human-induced climate change, but many felt disappointed by the scope of the pledges.

What were the key outcomes regarding resources and emissions at COP26?

Countries failed to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius target of the Paris Agreement by the time of COP26, and they agreed to return in 2022 with stronger 2030 emissions reduction targets that credibly align with their net-zero commitments. The most hopeful forecast, by the International Energy Agency, predicts that if all nations meet their net-zero targets, temperature rise could be kept to around 1.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. Critics of the agreement contend that the new commitments represent insufficient urgency, stating major emitters including Australia, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Russia lack sufficient ambition and do not provide a credible pathway to reach net-zero targets. If the commitments are not made more aggressive, the global average temperature may increase by 2.2 to 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100 (current policies will lead to an increase of 2.3 to 2.9 degrees Celsius). CMP signatories therefore decided to reconvene with new commitments to reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius target next year.

Despite the inconclusiveness and tabling of the 1.5 degrees Celsius target issue, attendees came to a consensus on related issues regarding resources that contribute to emissions. Going into the conference, rules for the global carbon markets under the Paris Agreement were among the most contentious issues between countries because of the need to balance current economic reliance on carbon dioxide with climate change adaptation goals.

Specifically, states agreed to not double-count, which occurs when two countries claim the same carbon removal or emission reductions as counting toward their own climate commitments. Despite this step forward, old carbon credits (generated since 2013 under the Kyoto Protocol) will continue to carry-over and count toward meeting commitments of the Paris Agreement. This is a feature of carbon markets that makes it possible to pass false emissions as true. Although countries agreed on greenhouse gas reduction goals, which will facilitate action in the short-term, the decision about whether to phase out or phase down coal usage did not see quite the same level of approval from critics.

One of the more dramatic moments at COP26 occurred when a last-minute intervention from India and China led to a weakening of commitments in the final text. Alok Sharma, President of COP26, visibly cried as he read the text of the final decision; ultimately, the compromise was largely viewed as a step in the right direction, as the first statement to reduce coal in such a climate deal. Forty-six nations, including five of the world’s 20 highest coal-using countries, committed to phase out coal, while an additional 29 countries committed to redirect current investments in international fossil fuel exploration to clean energy by the end of 2022. The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance pledged to stop licensing rounds for oil and gas exploration and production, and major international banks promised to end all international public financing of coal power that is not mitigated with technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the end of 2021. Furthermore, many states, cities, and businesses agreed to stop selling internal combustion engines by 2035.

Deforestation pledges also found the spotlight, with both financial institutions and countries committing to address deforestation in the 2020s. More than 140 countries responsible for roughly 90% of the world’s forests pledged to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. This pledge was backed by $18 billion in funding, including $1.7 billion dedicated to support indigenous peoples.

What were the key outcomes regarding accountability and monitoring at COP26?

To spur immediate action, improve understanding of global progress, and align with the Paris Agreement’s five-year cycle, the CMP took several steps. First, the UNFCCC encouraged countries to use common, five-year time frames for monitoring their commitments. At the last summit, countries did not establish an implementation period length for their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and this has made it difficult to monitor and compare their progress towards NDC goals. As a result of COP26, if countries hold to these standards, the new NDCs that countries will make in 2025 will have an end-date of 2035, and in 2030 their commitments will have a 2040 end-date. However, because countries did not agree to, but were rather encouraged to, critics remarked that the effort may be insufficient to effectively improve monitoring and assessment.

Second, countries agreed to submit information on their emissions and financial, technological, and capacity-building support in standardized formats and tables. The purpose of this is to make comparisons across countries easier and more consistent, as well as to generally improve transparency about countries’ progress, and thus accountability.

Finally, countries agreed on the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh work programme, a plan to improve assessment of progress towards climate change goals by requiring regular workshops and methods-development to assess progress. The Programme will be in effect from 2022-2024.

What were the key outcomes regarding green finance at COP26?

Green finance will play an increasingly pivotal role in driving climate action. Entities ranging from top law firms in banking and finance to the World Bank largely considered convergence and collaboration between investors, businesses, cities, and subnational regions on this notion at COP26 a positive outcome. Such systemic collaboration and convergence can drive real economic transformation as multiple actors, not just states, contribute. For instance, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a coalition of leading financial institutions, committed $130 trillion of private capital to accelerate the transition to a net-zero economy.

Countries also committed to greater investment, although not to the degree of the private sector. Specifically, CMP members agreed to develop new, larger climate finance goals in 2024 that will go into effect after 2025, establishing an Ad Hoc Work Programme to convene technical experts and ministers to ensure that the process of developing these new goals continues to be both inclusive and robust.

In addition, developed countries agreed to double funding toward adaptation by 2025, which, if targets are met, will amount to at least $40 billion. Adaptation is the anticipation and taking of preventative action against the adverse effects of climate change (e.g., building recycling infrastructure or nudging individuals to reduce their food waste); mitigation is intervention that prevents or reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The Adaptation Fund specifically received $356 million in pledges, almost three times the fund’s target for 2022. The Least Developed Countries Fund, which supports adaptation in low-income countries that are vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks, have low levels of human assets, and are faced with structural obstacles to green development, was pledged $413 million. Despite these steps forward, poorer nations also issued many criticisms on attempts by COP26 to address the financing of climate change on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

First, although high-income countries agreed to establish an office tasked with researching a possible loss and damage fund through which wealthier nations could make payouts to LMICs that have been affects by climate change they did not cause, many climate-vulnerable countries considered this a watered-down, non-committal response. The original proposal was for a new finance facility dedicated to loss and damage and not just considering the fund’s existence, but after opposition by developed nations, the CMP settled on a dialogue for discussing possible arrangements for loss and damage funding.

Second, wealthier nations failed to live up to a prior commitment of $100 billion in compensatory aid by 2020 to LMIC. The failure to follow through on this pledge, which was made in 2009 at COP15, could cause distrust between Annex 1 (developed nations with high greenhouse gas emissions like the United States) and non-Annex 1 countries (LMICs): why should they reduce their emissions while suffering consequences of climate change for which they are largely not responsible?

Finally, those states citing that LMICs will lose motivation to turn to clean means of powering their economies as they sink further into debt criticized the form in which financial aid has typically arrived: loans. Loans further send LMICs into debt (as opposed to grants) and currently constitute 71% of LMIC adaptation finance. Many argued that grants should take precedence.

Regardless of reactions to the measures taken at COP26 concerning the financial commitments to combatting climate change, there is growing consensus that green finance from both the private and public sectors will play an increasingly pivotal role in driving climate action. To meet climate change goals, all aspects of the economy will need to participate; every actor ranging from state governments and multi-national companies and banks to individual investors will need to adjust their business models, develop credible proposals to transition to a low-carbon, climate resilient future, and implement these plans.

Unlocking systemic change will require similar creative thinking and retooling from both the private and public sectors, and there is evidence that a synergy between the two is underway. This is the subject of the next article in this series on climate change efforts: the financial problems of climate change, green financing, and how is it being addressed.

For more details on the outcomes of COP26, check out https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop26-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-glasgow.