“We brought in the sinews of war, that is to say the discussion on fossil fuels, oil, gas, coal” in a final agreement at the end of a major international conference on the climate, underlines Sunday, November 14 on franceinfo Sébastien Treyer, director of IDDRI, the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, a think tank seeking to “propose tools to place sustainable development at the heart of international relations and public and private policies”.
>> COP26: timid limitation of fossil fuels, no new aid to vulnerable countries … What to remember from the conference on the climate crisis
The final agreement adopted at the COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland on Saturday, includes for the first time in the history of the COPs, a mention of fossil fuels, the main cause of global warming. However, the issue of the total exit from coal is not present in the final agreement, unlike a previous version of the text, corrected under pressure, among others, from India and China. They were not mentioned in the Paris agreement. “The political pressure is more important”, believes Sébastien Treyer, who believes that “most private actors and governments” are “convinced that carbon neutrality is the horizon of economic modernization”.
franceinfo: The objective set during the Paris agreement of not exceeding 1.5 ° C of global warming compared to the pre-industrial era seems to have been abandoned in practice. In view of the commitments made, experts are currently counting on 2.4 to 2.7 ° C more. Is the Glasgow Agreement at a discount?
Sébastien Treyer: What is certain is that we still have far too far to go for the 1.5 ° C target to remain credible. But there are still concrete advances and changes that took place during the COP, with collective political pressure that is also accelerated. It is written in the final text that the countries should meet again next year, and not in five years, to put on the table new more ambitious climate plans. It is also explicitly mentioned that the countries which had not improved their climate plan will have to improve them next year. This is obviously something of the order of the process, but it means that we must not abandon the objective of 1.5 ° C. We are still seeing certain countries, such as India, switch over. At the start of the COP, she announced a carbon neutrality objective by 2070. It seems distant, but it is given credibility by a five-point plan which, in the medium term, explains how the country will acquire more renewable, less coal. India is making efforts that were, until a few years ago, unthinkable.
Isn’t there a very big gap between the satisfaction of the leaders participating in the COP in Glasgow and the reality of the content of the agreement?
Ursula Von Der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, is right to speak of an acceleration of the conviction of most private actors, and of the governments which were present at the Glasgow Conference, that carbon neutrality is the horizon of economic modernization. India and even Nigeria have put relatively concrete evidence on the table on what achieving carbon neutrality in the second half of the 21st century means for them in the coming decade.
“Now, we have to look so concretely, the investment decisions that are made tomorrow, in the coming year, will be aligned with these objectives.”
Sébastien Treyer, director of IDDRIto franceinfo
We will see in particular whether China continues to open coal-fired power stations or not. And I think that one of the challenges of holding countries to account again next year is, in particular, to continue to put pressure on the United States and China. They signed an agreement saying that they would continue to collaborate on the climate, even if on the other hand, they are in conflict on all the other subjects. Our objective, in my opinion, is to encourage these large countries to come back next year with very concrete, more ambitious things, but reflected in the reality of the investments that will be made during the year.
Regarding coal, in the final agreement, the participating countries undertake to reduce its use, consumption to produce energy, but not to eliminate it, which was initially planned. India and China, in particular, obtained this amendment which, according to all the NGOs, constitutes a clear setback. Should the glass be considered half full or half empty?
For me, this is really the result of a compromise. And so, the Glasgow text is extremely flawed, because it is the result of a compromise. And it is often like that in a negotiation.
“It is the first time, in a text of a declaration of a COP, that fossil fuels are mentioned. Even if obviously, the text is extremely watered down and will not give much hold for an effective exit of coal.”
Sebastien treyerto franceinfo
Usually, the major fossil fuel producing countries opposed any such mention. We put the sinews of war, the discussion on fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal in the heart of the texts, which is really a step forward.
One of the key points of COP26 was to make commitments to help poor countries suffering the brunt of global warming. There is no guarantee on this in the final agreement. Greenpeace France speaks of “tragedy for humanity”. Is it a disappointment for you?
The wording of the COP agreement is indeed very, very soft on the idea of doubling funds for adaptation to global warming. In addition, there is no guarantee that the 100 billion dollars per year, promised from 2021 to 2025, will really be disbursed. And I think that there is a need to put very strong pressure again in the years to come. We are more at 80 billion today. The other point that I think is extremely important is that countries were asking for funding, a specific fund for “loss and damage”, damage already suffered and attributable to climate change. I think that here too, we must see that for many northern countries, there is a fear that this fund will be difficult to manage. They don’t know exactly how we’re going to attribute what is really due to climate change. However, there was still a click, a step forward, even if largely insufficient for me, which shows that the issue of loss and damage has become politically legitimate today. The countries of the North will not be able to escape it.