To be optimistic or pessimistic? The good and bad of COP26

Looking at the ongoing UN COP 26 climate conference, one might wonder, how will this one end?

There’s a Russian joke, what is a pessimist? The answer: a well-informed optimist. Optimism brings with it the hope that things will be different this time, but there are also the cynics who wonder if this climate summit can bring the change the world needs. With another whole week of meetings scheduled, there are sure to be more announcements and policy promises. Whether the end will be successful or a déjà vu of the end of the UN’s 2009 climate meeting in Copenhagen, we’ll know on Nov. 13.

So, how did the previous 25 Conference of Parties (COP) go? Depends on how success is defined. The first was held in Berlin in 1995. Delegates (today totaling over 30,000) are engaged in hashing out agreements and getting net-zero pledges and action plans in place. From such negotiations, 95 percent of emissions were committed to a global framework in Paris, and Glasgow is meant to firm up action on achieving committed reductions. That’s where the portfolio of climate pledges in the forms of net- zero and net-neutrality commitments come into play. 

Let’s start with why it’s hard to be optimistic about COP 26, and it begins with the overriding driver of global emissions — fossil fuels. UN Secretary-General Guiterrez on Monday argued, “our addiction to fossil fuels is pushing humanity to the brink,” and he pleaded for concrete action.

The problem is the world continues to use a lot of fossil fuels with no end in sight, and we are running most of the global economy on a century-old fossil-based system. 

And the geopolitics of energy is back and with a vengeance. It’s now the fall and winter is coming, and we’re seeing challenges to energy security in Asia, Europe and other regions of the world. Demand for coal is up, natural gas prices have hit new highs as Europe, China and India scramble to meet demand. Even as President Biden and the U.S. delegation put the U.S. position forward and affirmed that the U.S. is back as a leader fighting climate change, the U.S., India and Japan requested OPEC+ to increase production in an effort to lower oil prices, which are now 60 percent higher than a year ago. Even Europe, which leads most policy forward action around climate change, recently added natural gas to its taxonomy of sustainable energy. Countries are confronting the conundrum of striking the right balance between cheap, clean and reliable. 

Another challenge of achieving success is the absence of key players. One is an energy-hungry giant and the other a major global petro-power: Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia are sitting out COP 26. Russia and China sent representatives, but neither Putin nor Xi was in attendance for the Global Leaders’ Summit on Monday, and both were called out for their absence in Biden’s speech.

It’s debatable whether Biden’s choice of words were the best if the U.S. really wanted to get China on board; history shows shaming and blaming China usually doesn’t sit well in Beijing. China did its own biting back and responded with a reminder of the 2017 U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (under then-President Trump) and its own history of holding the spot of largest emitter until China’s rise to the top of the CO2 ladder. The U.S. and China went into Paris in 2015 on a cooperative footing — not so this time around.

The current U.S.-China rhetorical spat is part of a more extensive contentious and highly competitive relationship, which many in the climate world hoped would be reconciled, at least around issues of climate and cooperation. Still, the end of the first week of COP26 is not bringing great hope of a détente even around the climate’s collective action problem.

China is pushing back against a change to the Paris Agreement that allowed for a range of global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, and in Glasgow, there is pressure to move it to a more ambitious limit of warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. These point degrees of difference could derail getting to a happier end for the conference.

Another big player is India. On the first fay of the conference, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India committed India to net-zero by 2070. However, India still has over 300 million people living in almost absolute energy poverty, so India needs to address climate change while also ramping up on all forms of energy to get close to domestic energy security. 

To date, the commitments made in Paris six years ago have fallen short of ambitions. They have ultimately been unsuccessful in bringing down overall global emissions, which are high in 2021. The U.S. Energy Information Administration and International Energy Agency expect emissions to increase over the next five years — but achieving the decarbonization involved in getting to net-zero emissions represents the key to reversing the greenhouse gas emissions trajectory.

The glass is not entirely half-empty; the conference so far has achieved some significant wins. There is positive news and reason for hope over despair. A global methane pledge was signed by over 100 countries, and the target is to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. China, Russia and India — the three countries responsible for 35 percent of global methane emissions — have not yet signed on to join the pledge.

And then there’s sustainable finance and the more active role of the private sector. A half-win came during the recent G20 meeting, where countries agreed to a sunset timeframe for coal financing — no public finance for overseas coal projects (in September, China already pledged to end the funding of overseas coal projects). The G20 wouldn’t commit a timeline for ceasing coal in their own countries, which has been increasing this fall and is expected to remain in demand this winter. 

Deforestation is another area where there’s progress, with over 100 countries agreeing to end deforestation on or before 2030, and Brazil is on board, home to the Amazon rainforest.

Really, the optimism is in what’s happening outside of COP26, the robust landscape of renewable energy development and the already rapid deployment of less carbon-intensive energy, and the movement of public opinion toward climate change. 

Today, across the political and private sector landscape, there’s greater recognition of the urgency we all face when addressing climate change. And young people have made clear they won’t accept the old and tired words and lack of action. They hold power and are already exerting it in their consumption choices and how they vote. 

Let’s hope that those countries and companies that have made ambitious promises and pledges leave Scotland and get to work.  

Carolyn Kissane is the academic director of the graduate programs in Global Affairs and Global Security, Conflict and Cyber at the Center for Global Affairs and a clinical professor at NYU School of Professional Studies, Center for Global Affairs. She is the director of the SPS NYU Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab.