I started to burn Correctly at the climate negotiations in Glasgow. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson returned during the day – by train, after criticism of his private jet trip last week – to press the final stages of negotiations.
Meanwhile, the first full draft of a negotiating text at the 26 COP . Climate Summit published – It contains language that may seem uncontroversial to outside observers, but it is met with great surprise in the negotiating rooms.
For the first time in these contexts, the phasing out of coal and fossil fuel subsidies are mentioned. The wording is not strong – countries are urged to speed up the phasing out of coal subsidies and fossils, not to mention any years. But mentioning fossil fuels at all has long been a red curtain in the negotiations, with all nations in principle having a veto over what should be included.
– It’s an unexpectedly big step forward. But it is also potentially so provocative for some countries that it will likely be difficult to maintain, says a source familiar with the negotiations on DN.
DN sources estimate it The wording may have been the result of the great pressure that was there both from abroad and from Great Britain to talk not only about emissions in general but also about the sources of emissions – particularly coal, oil and gas. Climate Minister Per Polund thinks the time has come.
It is a fact that humanity and the use of fossil fuels is the basis for climate change. It’s really time to take that bull by the horns and realize that’s where the problems lie, he told DN.
However, when it comes to articulating the goal of limiting heating to 1.5 degrees, the draft agreement is criticized for being too weak. The draft confirms the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting temperature rise to less than two degrees. At the same time, it is emphasized that the goal should be to limit it to a maximum of 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels – something that countries particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis would have liked to see as an absolute ceiling.
Existing national climate plans to 2030 will lead to a warming of 2.4 degrees, According to a new report From Climate Action Tracker. David Wasko, director of international climate at the World Resources Institute, thinks there is a “fuzziness” in how to describe the 1.5 degree goal.
The negotiating text emphasizes the importance of the 1.5-degree target in a similar way to the G20 agreement, but there is no clear emphasis on keeping temperature rise within 1.5 degrees, he says.
Statsvetaren Naghmeh Nasiritosi, who researches climate policy at Stockholm University and the Institute for Foreign Policy, believes the draft appears in many ways more ambitious than she had expected.
– But his wording is still too vague and not sufficient to achieve the goals that the British themselves set for the meeting.
To decipher the UN language, it is important to look at the verbs that begin each paragraph, she explains. The most powerful absolute verb isWillFor countries to do things. It is not included anywhere in this first draft.
– Nagham Nasiryousi says the writings are constantly very vague, that countries that want to do something are welcome to do so.
The published text is What negotiators hope will be the outcome of COP 26, but negotiations are now beginning with representatives from nearly 200 countries participating in the climate summit in Glasgow. And it’s likely to be challenging, according to DN sources — and the likelihood of wording for fossil fuels remaining in the final document is seen as small. Oil and coal countries such as Saudi Arabia, Australia, Norway and China may have objections to the writings.
– There will be conflicts about this, I find it difficult to see that the decision was made in plenary, says one of the sources.
Climate Minister Per Poland is somewhat more optimistic.
– One should not now draw conclusions about what will happen in a few days. It’s a huge step forward to be on the first draft.
Other areas where It is expected to last until the next few days on financing climate measures in poor countries, where negotiations have been slower than in other regions. Poor countries are demanding a doubling of the money that goes into adapting countries to climate change. Currently, the text calls for rich countries to “urgently expand” climate finance, a language that Eddie Perez of the Climate Action Network is highly critical of.
The text is very problematic, it does not meet the extreme need for funding at all either for emissions reduction or adaptation, he says.
Another issue cited as critical is urging the countries in the draft to toughen their climate plans by the end of 2022. Previously, the discussion was about updating the plans every five or ten years.
We now have a date and timeframe for parties to update their climate plans in accordance with the Paris Agreement, says David Wasko, director of international climate at the international research organization World Resource Institute.
Greenpeace Chef Jennifer Morgan On the other hand, he is highly critical of the fact that the first draft allows parties to delay updating their climate plans until next year. She describes it as an agreement to “keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best”.
“It is a polite request that countries can do more next year. It is not good enough and negotiators should not even consider leaving this city until they come to an agreement that meets the requirements,” she says in a written statement and continues:
“We have just been told that we are on course for a temperature increase of 2.4 degrees. The task of this meeting has always been to bring that number down to 1.5 degrees, but with this text world leaders are delaying it until next year. If that is the best they can come up with, no No wonder young people today are angry with them.”
“Unapologetic writer. Bacon enthusiast. Introvert. Evil troublemaker. Friend of animals everywhere.”