Glasgow marks yet another failure to commit to meaningful green finance for developing countries
The progress made at CoP26 was, unfortunately, gradual. It is not a question of summarily criticizing the Glasgow Climate Pact, given that certain objectives have been achieved. The commitment to the 1.5 Â° C target by 2100 survives (some would hardly say so). The carbon market issue will be less troubling: countries can now use legacy carbon credits to cover their first nationally determined contributions for which the target year for most countries is 2025. This is a pioneer for the carbon market under the Paris Agreement, which has yet to enter into force. Apart from that, more than 140 countries have pledged to take significant steps to end deforestation and land degradation. Together, they represent 90% of the world’s tropical rainforests (critical carbon sinks). The highlight is the signing of Brazil, against the backdrop of the catastrophic effects of the decisions of the Bolsonaro administration on the Amazonian rainforests. More than 100 countries have also signed the pledge between the US and the EU to reduce methane emissions by 30% by a third by 2030. Methane is about 30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide when it comes to trapping heat and currently accounts for 20% of global GHG emissions, after carbon dioxide (70%), although it breaks down much faster. In this regard, it is also a handy fruit for climate action. There are other positive points in the results of CoP26.
But, even as a new âpactâ has been announced, the world remains hopelessly off target; Clearly, ambitions can reign higher than ever, but the concomitant action and determination are still lacking. Many have argued that such deals are always a mixed bag, and certainly no one expected full consensus. But, with time almost elapsed to stay on track for the 1.5 Â° C warming – which would limit much of the damage the world has to expect with even a 2 Â° C path – the ambition just seems a silk headband. Countries were quick to blame each other for unfulfilled expectations, but they must remember that the misery of climate action will be shared.
Rich countries have greatly disappointed on the responsibility of financing climate action in the developing world. Plus, there isn’t even a whisper about net negative emissions by 2050, to make room for the growth imperatives of developing countries. They have failed to deliver the $ 100 billion a year by 2020 to pursue green growth; the needs estimated by developing countries are $ 1 trillion per year. The Glasgow Pact expresses deep regret in this regard and “urges developed country parties to fully achieve the goal of $ 100 billion as a matter of urgency and until 2025”. When it comes to financing for adaptation, a key demand from the most vulnerable countries, rich countries have only agreed to double the funding from 2019 levels by 2025. As an indication, at around $ 15 billion. dollars in 2019, adaptation finance accounted for only 20% of all climate finance flows. against the estimated need of 50% to finance adaptation on a global scale.
New Delhi has made significant commitments, in terms of reducing the carbon intensity of the economy and developing renewable energies, outside of a net zero target year, bearing in mind its growth needs. So no one should blame him for calling for the “phase-out” of coal instead of the “phase-out” in the final deal with China, Iran, Venezuela and others., But, he must separate from China in the future, given China’s historical responsibility for emissions, as its per capita emissions burden also exceeds India’s. The International Energy Agency recently articulated the full scale of ambition needed for global climate action. No one expected Glasgow to deliver even part of it, but a comparison with IEA projections shows how frugal the sum of the pact’s ambitions is.