2022: Where to for climate mitigation?

18 January 2022

With Joe Biden’s climate summit in April, the UNGA meeting in September and the COP26 meeting in October, 2021 promised to be the year of taking climate action seriously. Yet, despite the many rousing speeches and announcements, climate scientists and activists were left disappointed. As many leading economies and the global energy industry continue to press ahead with fossil fuels, estimates suggest that current pledges leave the planet on the course to global warming well above 1.5°C.

Here, 9DASHLINE invites a select group of leading experts to explore where climate mitigation should be heading after COP26.

GAP BETWEEN TALK AND ACTION TO LEAD TO 2.7°C WARMING

Julia Teebken, Research Associate at the Environmental Policy Research Centre (FFU), Freie Universität Berlin.

The Glasgow climate summit (COP26) in November 2021 had a mixed outcome. Below the line, the international community committed to a phase-out of coal — language that was weakened by India and China to “phase-down” in the final hours of COP26. Putting a date on climate neutrality was front and centre of the negotiations. Most countries committed to net-zero targets; the EU aims to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 as per the European Green Deal. Like the EU, China had committed to a net-zero target before 2060 in 2020 already, which was further specified in the 1+N policy framework published in October 2021.

However, the political pledges, especially those for 2030, are set too low for keeping the 1.5°C target in reach. Although countries have verbally (re)confirmed their commitment to 1.5°C, a credibility gap between talk and action has been attested with current policies leading to a 2.7°C warming. Several observations can be made from the perspective of inequality. First, at the level of intergenerational justice, the current mitigation targets keep the pressure high for future generations to act in much shorter time frames than their predecessors, making them liable for a problem they have not caused.

Second, the Global North is behind its obligations as major emitting countries by failing to collect the promised USD 100bn as part of the Loss and Damage mechanism, which was due in 2020 already. Collecting the remaining USD 20bn has been postponed to 2023, leaving countries of the Global South hanging. Finally, the distributional effects of intensified climate change (and more ambitious policies) are spread unevenly globally and locally and will be exacerbated by current mitigation targets, adding pressure to an already overburdened policy field: climate change adaptation.

Besides a crocked nature-society relationship, power and vested interests play an omnipresent role in why the cause, cost and effects are so unevenly distributed geographically, across time, and within society. To close the gap immediately, new partnerships that complement efforts under the UNFCCC can be one step in the right direction. Accounting for consumption-based emissions in third countries, as part of Loss and Damage obligations another. Breaking with dominant political economy ideologies and accounting for patterns of social inequality is yet the biggest challenge. The starting point for this could be advancing progressive taxation frameworks such as those for global digital platforms such as Amazon, Facebook and Netflix.

DEEP REGRET MUST BE FOLLOWED BY ACTION (AND MONEY)

Anna Stünzi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of St.Gallen, Switzerland.

Last year's climate conference (COP26) was adorned by good news: agreements on ending deforestation, methane reduction, and lots of net-zero targets from countries and private actors. A closer look at the good news is less pleasant: while the updated climate targets indeed promise increased ambitions, the current sum of targets still leads to an average increase heavily overshooting the Paris climate target. The parties have decided to meet again next year and bring back more ambitious targets.

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) out of which more than 25 are situated in the Indo-Pacific region belong to the most vulnerable countries to climatic changes and a lack of ambition determines their very existence. Even if countries manage to come up with higher ambitions this year, adaptation is crucial for these states. This is costly, however, and securing finance is not an easy task: compared to mitigation finance (such as renewable energy projects), adaptation projects are rarely linked to a stable rate of return which makes it less attractive for financiers.

In 2009 developed countries pledged to provide USD 100bn annually from 2020 onwards to developing countries in order to support their mitigation and adaptation measures. Yet, this number has not been met and the amount of USD 80bn (achieved in 2019) is heavily criticised. NGOs and recipient countries raise several problems: a) the numbers are inflated because a lot of projects are not related to climate nor additional to other development assistance, b) too little money flows to adaptation, which is partly due to that c) a large part of climate finance is provided as loans and not grants (which, again questions the assistance character of these projects).

At the COP26 it was acknowledged ‘with deep regret’ that developed countries were not able to fulfill their promise even with the generous accounting methods. In addition, there was no agreement on how and by when the missing parts will be made up for, nor how much finance should be provided in future. What’s left to say? Besides more ambitious national targets the question of finance must and will be at the core of the upcoming COP, too.

SCIENCE COOPERATION CAN OFFER HOPE

James Borton, Senior Fellow at the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute.

The world is under attack. It faces climate crisis and geopolitical challenges. While the two largest carbon emitters, China and the United States promised and pledged at COP26, to work together to accelerate the transition to a global net-zero economy, through green and low-carbon approaches, there’s little time left for symbolic gestures. China and the US can suspend the superpower competition with goodwill and scientific imagination to mobilise a techno-war on carbon that will improve the quality of life not just for American and Chinese citizens but also for the planet.

As a global journalist, I have seen first-hand the existential crisis facing low-lying island nations in the loss of coral reefs and fragile ecosystems from warming oceans. From Vietnam to the Federated Islands of Micronesia, the stakes are also dramatically rising with the sea level. We have heard cooperation pledges from China and the US before but neither nation has taken specific measures to keep the world from warming by more than between 1.5°C to 2°C. Although a few policy experts suggest that on climate change there’s more agreement than divergence between Beijing and Washington, scientists are pushing for more action and accountability. After all, both sides pledged to take similar steps forward in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

To mitigate climate change and transform geopolitical conversations, let’s jumpstart a US-China Working Group on Climate Change to develop and expand new technologies and capacities in solar, wind, tidal, hydro and geothermal energy generation. There’s hope for this approach to science cooperation as evidenced by the international science-driven South China Sea climate change workshops held over the past two years that addressed much needed environmental cooperation in marine protected areas, plastics pollution, and monitoring of monsoons. Of course, regulatory frameworks and environmental standards often prove painful but if there’s geopolitical will and investment incentives, governments will indeed see that it is in the public’s interest to encourage clean energy and environmentalism.

CHINA’S CARBON TRAJECTORY REMAINS UNCLEAR

Barbara Pongratz, Junior Analyst at the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), Berlin.

Even though the 26th Climate Change Conference (COP 26) in Glasgow was less of a resounding success than a step in the right direction, it has confirmed countries’ commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Another success factor is that the final agreement, the Glasgow Climate Pact, urges signatories to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) including readjusted goals and targets by the end of 2022, rather than submitting an update in four years as originally planned. Global efforts to mitigate climate change are entering a phase where actions are becoming more concrete and targets look to be set more clearly on the road to this year’s COP27 in Egypt’s Sharm El-Sheikh.

Although the Chinese president was not present at COP26, which would have shown firm commitment, the government had previously released a fairly ambitious agenda for mitigating climate change at home through the 1+N policy framework. “1” stands for the central guiding document for China’s agenda to peak emissions and reach carbon neutrality. “N” are sectoral plans for peaking emissions in each sector that are still to be published.

At COP26, observers have criticised that the country has not detailed at what level of emissions it will peak “before 2030”, and how quickly it will become climate neutral until 2060. So far, the Chinese government has published one "N" document, with around ten more to be issued. The release of these — four of which have already been drafted — will provide a clearer picture of the largest emitter’s carbon trajectory to the international community. The “N” documents will be an important tool in the global fight against climate change as the EU will be better placed to hold China accountable.

Another means for the EU will be to step up its own game in the area of renewable energy targets. Close negotiations between the US and China have shown that despite differences in other areas, joint steps toward more ambitious targets are possible. So, it will be up to the EU to keep a close eye on China's achievements, while encouraging a race to the top by setting even bolder targets for itself.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform. Image credit: Unsplash/Marek Piwnicki.