COP26: The 26th COP Out From Solving the Eco Crisis
The winter of 2021 saw the much anticipated 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26 for short) take place in Glasgow. Many prominent faces from various spheres of life took part: world politicians such as Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron, and Narendra Modi, celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Emma Watson, and climate activists such as David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg.
The priorities of COP26 were outlined by its president Alok Sharma prior to the conference: to adapt and increase resilience towards the impact of climate change, to safeguard our ecosystems and our natural habitats, to move towards cleaner energy and zero-carbon road transport, and ‘unleash’ the finance that will fuel these goals.
And now, the big question — what went on?
According to the Soil Association, some progress was made (note the use of the word “some”). Over 100 countries said they would end deforestation by 2030; over 100 countries said that by 2030 they would cut their methane emissions by 30%, and over 45 governments said they would invest in more sustainable farming practices.
But many of these actions and pledges seem to be moving at a snail’s pace, with some yet to even cross the start line. The Climate Action Tracker states that by the end of the century, Earth’s temperature will increase by 2.7 °C temperature if current policies were to continue. The temperature rise is projected to be 2.4 °C if the pledges for 2030 are adhered to, 2.1 °C if long-term targets are adhered too and 1.8 °C if all targets discussed are completely adhered to. In any scenario, the cumulative sum of all these efforts fail to meet the goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5 °C since pre-industrial levels, as noted by The Guardian.
And the criticisms the conference faced added further salt to the wound.
Even before COP26 began, Wionews reported that 400 private jets that were used to bring in many of the attendees undermined the sincerity of the very people who pledged more eco-friendly practices. The pledges that were promised, too seemed to lack integrity, as many of these were a) not mandatory and b) had no established punishments or fines should they be left underachieved. On top of this, pledges that should have been written in stone, namely, the phasing out of coal, were watered down to the ‘phasing down’ of coal.
And the criticisms didn’t cease there. Many pointed out how the decisions reached at the conference lacked clear direction as to how mitigation and adaptation to the climate crisis would be achieved. Some noted how many of the pledges were not mandatory, and that there was a lack of mechanisms in place for the nations and organisations to be ‘punished’ should they fail to live up to their promises.
Perhaps the most damning event that arose around the time of the conference was the leak of documents that detailed how big-shot countries such as Australia, Japan and Saudi Arabia had requested the UN to water down the need to quickly move away from power generated through fossil fuels. The leak also revealed how wealthy countries such as Switzerland were reluctant to provide financial aid to poorer nations so that they could work to reduce their carbon footprint.
Though the conference attempted to put forth promises to curb (or, at least try to curb) the climate crisis, the half-hearted pledges eerily mirror those of previous climate conferences that were said but seldom executed. I leave you know with Greta Thunberg’s comments which, I suspect, the opinion of many people: “Nothing has changed from previous years really. The leaders will say ‘we’ll do this and we’ll do this, and we will put our forces together and achieve this’, and then they will do nothing. Maybe some symbolic things and creative accounting and things that don’t really have a big impact. We can have as many COPs as we want, but nothing real will come out of it.”
Sources
