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 endorsed 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 Amazon 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 countries 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 Agreement,

196 countries promised “accelerating

. . . the phase-down of unabated coal

power and inecient 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

modify “coal power.” is loophole al-

lows existing and new coal 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 “inecient” 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 eorts. Next day Chinese news

agency Xinhua boasted of the largest

daily coal production in Chinese and

human history: 12 million tons, when

burned greater than Ireland’s annual

GHG emissions.

Major corporations and banks

(Gfanz, the Glasgow Financial Alli-

ance for Net Zero) with $130 trillion

in assets pledged to achieve c arbon net-

Bruce Richis an attorney 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 and clean portfolios. he

Economist asserts Gfanz excludes state

companies like Coal India and Saudi

Aramco, responsible for over half of

global emissions, and that Gfanz risks

encouraging institutions to sell dirty

industries rather than clea n them up.

e Glasgow agreement raties

methodologies to make carbon ac-

counting and oset 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 scientic carbon neu-

trality. Last year, as head of susta inable

investing at Brookeld Asset Manage-

ment, he asserted its $600 billion port-

folio was carbon net-zero, claiming

fossil fuel assets were oset 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 ookeld

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”