The 26e Conference of the Parties (COP26), which opens Sunday in Glasgow, promises to be difficult to say the least. Not only will the international community have to commit to doing much more in terms of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but it will also have the obligation to finally offer the billions of dollars promised for years. to developing countries to help them fight the climate crisis.
This new two-week UN climate summit was originally scheduled to take place in 2020, five years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement. But it has been pushed back to this year due to the pandemic, which should normally have given signatory states more time to come forward with more ambitious climate targets. A total of 143 “parties”, out of the 192 in the Paris Agreement, have also submitted an update of their “Nationally Determined Contribution” (CDN), or their voluntary commitment to reduce emissions. of GHGs.
The problem is that the account is still not there, insofar as the agreement signed in 2015 aims to limit global warming to 2 ° C, or even 1.5 ° C, compared to the preindustrial era. Assuming that all states honor their commitments, the temperature rise would reach 2.7 ° C. Worse, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for a 45% drop in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to the 2010 level, the UN is instead forecasting an increase of 16 %.
This lack of ambition is therefore likely to dampen the atmosphere in the corridors of the Scottish Event Campus, where this COP26 is being held. “When I look at past COPs and the level of ambition with which countries will come to Glasgow, I see a gap between, on the one hand, the expectations of civil society and the prescriptions of climate science, and, on the other, the level of ambition of the States, which is insufficient to fight against the climate crisis ”, summarizes Philippe Simard, lecturer at the School of Applied Politics of the University of Sherbrooke.
I see a gap between, on the one hand, the expectations of civil society and the prescriptions of climate science, and, on the other, the level of ambition of States, which is insufficient to fight against the climate crisis. .
Without mentioning an announced “failure” of the Glasgow meeting, he sees it rather as an illustration of the “weakness” of the climate negotiations regime, which remains “very slow”. He nevertheless welcomes the progress made since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. At the time, we were easily heading for a warming of 3 ° C to 4 ° C, which would amount to an unprecedented catastrophe for humanity. Since 2015, several countries, including Canada, have also set themselves the goal of achieving “carbon neutrality” by 2050, as recommended by the IPCC.
Exit fossil fuels
Mr. Simard insists, however, on the fact that the States’ GHG reduction targets have yet to be translated into concrete actions to demonstrate their relevance. “It’s very worrying, especially in light of the latest IPCC report, which said that the climate has already warmed by 1.1 ° C and that we could reach 1.5 ° C by 2030, or even 2040. Each additional warming brings us closer to the climate wall, with increasing heat waves, drought, flooding, rising sea levels, and so on. “
“It’s one thing to set targets, but it’s another thing to stick to them. However, the targets were systematically missed, and we do not have, for the moment, details on the means that will be taken to respect the targets ”, adds Alexandre Gajevic Sayegh, assistant professor in the Department of political science of the University. Laval.
Combating climate change inevitably involves a rapid exit from fossil fuels, including in Canada, underline the two speakers. But for the moment, the major producing countries plan to use around 110% more fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with the objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 ° C. This same production would be 45% higher than what would not exceed a warming of 2 ° C, according to the most recent edition of the Production Gap Report, published last week.
In this context of the omnipresence of fossil resources in the global energy portrait (they represent more than 80% of the energy consumed), COP26 could be the opportunity to advance the idea of a “carbon market” at the planetary scale. This mechanism, which would aim to cap and then reduce GHG emissions, however encountered strong opposition, in particular from Brazil and Australia, during the COP25, held in 2019 in Madrid. Even if the principle is enshrined in the Paris Agreement, its implementation “would be very complex”, according to Philippe Simard.
Broken promises
For Alexandre Gajevic Sayegh, the success of the Glasgow negotiations will depend on the progress that will be made in relation to the promise of financing from developed countries to developing countries. In 2009, during the COP15, which took place in Copenhagen, the parties agreed on the payment of 100 billion US dollars per year, starting in 2020. This sum was to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change and initiate the energy transition to a low-carbon economy.
“This funding was intended to largely resolve the tension between rich countries and developing countries. It is also a duty of justice, because developed countries have based their prosperity on fossil fuels and several developing countries are suffering the repercussions of the climate crisis without being responsible for it ”, argues Mr. Gajevic Sayegh. This is particularly the case for several island states threatened by rising sea levels.
However, as of today, the sums promised are still not there and they will probably not be before 2023. What is more, according to what emerges from a press release published this week by the government Trudeau, who has agreed to get involved in “the implementation plan” of this commitment, the funding promised from 2023 would be assured only until 2025. This question will therefore be “unavoidable” over the next two weeks. , according to Alexandre Gajevic Sayegh. “This will be the central question in Glasgow, and COP26 will be a success, or not, depending on what emerges from this issue. If it is not resolved, the meeting will probably be considered a failure, ”he emphasizes.
It is certain that one day it will be too late and that day is very near.
While nearly $ 80 billion have so far been pledged, much of it in the form of loans, the sum of $ 100 billion now appears too low, given the increasingly important needs for adaptation, according to Philippe. Simard. These, estimated at more than $ 70 billion per year, could be quadrupled by 2030. In short, the longer the international community delays in concretely fighting the climate crisis, the higher the bill will be.
More than ever, therefore, time is against us, according to Alexandre Gajevic Sayegh. “It is sure that one day it will be too late and that day is very near. We must reduce our GHG emissions by 45% by 2030, or just over eight years. It’s very short time, and we still don’t have any indication that we’re on a massive decarbonization path. There is therefore no other avenue than to speed things up. “