Did the Glasgow summit really fail? – Corriere.it

Who sent us
Glasgow – Time balance sheets At the beginning of the second week of COP26. overwhelm herwave of protesters“I understand their frustration,” President Alok Sharma admitted. However, all is not lost. Because there are always two vertices that go in parallel: a vertex Leader (absent and present) with phrases Loud but not obligatoryAnd negotiators who work in the shadows. The COP within the COP, which starts today and on which success or failure depends.

Last Monday and Tuesday they spoke 120 heads of state And the government, even if I feel the absence of Xi Jinping, Sharma Advance the strategy of “pledges” or commitments: mini-agreements that should lead the way on key issues. “If all the commitments made are fully met, they will put the world on the right track to limit global warming to 1.8 degrees Celsius,” said IEA Director Fatih Birol. We’re 0.3 degrees higher than the goal scientists have called for but it’s a huge jump compared to the +2.7 degrees expected at the opening of COP26. obligations, however, It is not obligatory And only in a few years will we know if the promises have been kept.

More than 100 countries are committed “Stopping and reversing” global deforestation by 2030, A statement backed by public and private investment, which will primarily help protect the Amazon, the tropical forests of Indonesia and the Congo Basin. “We were expecting more details – Joe Blackman, forestry expert at Global Witness – commented. Governments have made similar statements in the past that were not respected.” 103 countries have signed an agreement to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. If fully implemented, Commitment could reduce global warming by 0.2°C by 2050, but three of the biggest emitters – China, India and Russia – did not sign.

More than 20 countries, including Italy, have pledged to end foreign funding of all fossil fuels by 2022. Another 40 countries will stop using coal (developed countries by 2030 and developing countries by 2040), but China, Russia and the United States refused to do so. “Joe Biden was quick to criticize Xi Jinping’s absence, but his decision not to sign the coal agreement dealt a severe blow to what was supposed to be key policy for the COP,” he comments. financial times.

90% of the global economy is “committed” to achieving zero emissions towards the middle of the century. “But if national plans to reduce short-term CO2 emissions do not immediately put us on a path toward net zero, the models on which IEA projections are based will collapse very quickly,” warns Jennifer. Alan from the land negotiations bulletin. India has promised to reach net zero in 2070, 20 years after the United States and the European Union and ten years after China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. India has also committed to getting half of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. “Words mean nothing if they are not followed by facts,” warns John Kerry, the US special envoy on climate. Survival International denounces that “55 new coal mines and 193 existing mines are planned in the jungles of central India”.

In the next few days, it will not be about making more commitments to cut emissions. National Plans (or NDCs) have been submitted by a majority of 190 countries And even if “it wasn’t enough to reach the 1.5 target,” as Unfcc President Espinosa stated, they are unlikely to change. Negotiators are now focusing on three main issues. 1) Transparency – There is currently no common coordination for NDCs or for verification that countries are doing what they have promised -, 2) climate finance – the target of mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 has not yet been achieved Some developing countries have stressed that financing cannot be in the form of loans – 3) identifying global carbon market rules to support emissions offsets and the achievement of the net-zero target.

On the table is the highly sensitive issue of adaptation, providing the practical (and financial) solutions needed to adapt to climate impacts and deal with losses and damages, particularly those of the most vulnerable (and least polluting) nations. The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Amor Motley, was very harsh: “The inability to provide important funding, as well as losses and damages, falls, my friends, on the lives and livelihoods of our communities. It is immoral and unjust ».