Major Emitters Delay Action at COP26; 'They Talk But Don't Do
| Author | Bruce Rich |
| Position | Attorney and author who has served as senior counsel to major environmental organizations |
| Pages | 23-23 |
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2022 | 23
Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, January/February 2022.
Copyright © 2022, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.
The Developing World
ACTIVIST Greta unberg
said the 26th Conference
of the Parties to the UN
Climate Convention, like the past
quarter century of COPs, amounted
to “blah, blah, blah.” Queen Eliza-
beth II observed, “ey talk but they
don’t do.” Are they right? Scores of
nations endors ed ambitious voluntary
side agreements, but many were full of
loopholes. Let’s look at some reveal-
ing snapshots.
Over 120 nations with 85 percent of
the world’s forests pledged “to halt and
reverse forest loss and land degradation
by 2030.” e agreement gave no de-
tail, wrote the Financial Times, of “how
[its] implementation
would be tracked, or
what might happen if
nations reneged.”
Indonesia signed,
but then its environ-
ment and forestry
minister called any
commitment to halt deforestation “in-
appropriate and unfair.” e agreement
reiterated the failed 2014 New York
Declaration on Forests, where 40 coun-
tries, including the Democratic Repub-
lic of the Congo, Indonesia, and several
Brazilian A mazon states, pledged to
halve forest loss globally by 2020 and
end it by 2030. Yet since 2014 the loss
of tropical forests increased, and many
signatories ignored the 2014 pledge in
mitigation plans under the 2015 Paris
climate agreement.
A U.S. and EU initiative to reduce
methane emissions 30 percent by 2030
was endorsed by over 100 countries.
e planet’s three largest emitters, Chi-
na, India, and Russia, ref used to sign.
Coal is still responsible for 40 per-
cent of annual global CO2 emissions.
To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees
Celsius, the head of the International
Energy Agency wa rned that 40 percent
of the world’s existing 8,500 coal plants
must close by 2030, and no new ones
must be built. In an agreement on coal,
richer nations pledged to end use “by
2030 or as soon as possible afterward s,”
and developing countrie s pledged “ by
2040 or as soon as possible after wards.”
ere isn’t a clue what “as soon as pos-
sible” really means. Coal exporter Aus-
tralia did not sign, nor did China, In-
dia, and the United States, representing
72 percent of world coal power emis-
sions. Only 40 countries did sign the
agreement.
In the main Glasgow Ag reement,
196 countries promised “accelerating
. . . the phase-down of unabated coal
power and inecient fossil fuel sub-
sidies.” It’s the rst time “coal” and
“fossil fuels” appear in a nal COP ac-
cord. (e proverbial
good news and bad
news.) India , China,
and Saudi Arabia,
inter alia, lobbied to
replace “phase out”
with “phase down,”
and add “unabated” to
modif y “coal power.” is loophole al-
lows existing and new coa l plants that
add carbon capture and storage — a
technolog y that has not shown feasibil-
ity on a large scale.
U.S. climate negotiator John Kerry
called continued government subsidies
totaling over a half trillion dollars an-
nually for coal, oil, and gas “the de-
nition of insanity.” Glasgow pledges a
“phase-down” of “inecient” insanity.
Over half of these subsidies come from
just four countries: China, India, Rus-
sia, and Saudi Arabia.
e United States and China pro-
claimed cooperation to strengthen cli-
mate eorts. Next day Chinese news
agency Xinhua boa sted of the largest
daily coal production in Chinese a nd
human history: 12 mill ion tons, when
burned greater than Ireland ’s annual
GHG emissions.
Major corporations and banks
(Gfanz, the Glasgow Financial A lli-
ance for Net Zero) with $130 trillion
in assets pledged to achieve c arbon net-
Bruce Rich is an attorn ey and
author who has served as senior
counsel to major environmental or-
ganizations. brucemrich@gmail.com.
zero by 2050, but their investments are
already committed to a potpourri of
climate dirty a nd clean portfolios. he
Economist asserts Gfanz excludes state
companies like Coal India and Saudi
Aramco, responsible for over half of
global emissions, and that Gfan z risks
encouraging institutions to sell dirty
industries rather than clea n them up.
e Glasgow agreement raties
methodologies to make carbon ac-
counting and oset trading more rig-
orous. Mark Carney, UN special en-
voy for climate and nance, has stated
that carbon markets “operate in the
shadows” with some good “but lots of
bad . . . that does actua l harm.” Carney
should know. It’s easy to claim but dif-
cult to achieve scientic carbon neu-
trality. Last year, as head of susta inable
investing at Brookeld Asset Manage-
ment, he asserted its $600 billion port-
folio was carbon net-zero, claiming
fossil fuel assets were oset by avoided
emissions linked to its clean energy
portfolio. Experts at Oxford declared
this was “not credible and represent[s]
greenwas hing.” Carney and Br ookeld
recanted.
Despite COP26’s aws, its parties
agreed to strengthen climate com-
mitments under the Paris Agree-
ment — not in 2025 as planned,
but this year. More corporations
and private nance are moving from
greenwash to real actions for a
climate-friendly economy. Yes,
Glasgow was blah blah bla h, but just
barely enough to keep hope alive
that it is still not too late.
Just barely enough to
keep hope alive that
it’s not too late to
act on climate change
B
A
E I C N Y
F D D
E A
C W Y
K R F A S V
C F BP D H O S F
T S E E I C
N Y U S L
ISBN P
ELI ELI P
W A T WEST
Major Emitters Delay Action at
COP26; “hey Talk But Don’t Do”
To continue reading
Request your trial