what are the points of the text most criticized after the agreement reached in Glasgow?

0

They eventually came to an agreement. The 196 countries of the COP26 adopted, Saturday, November 13, in Glasgow, Scotland (United Kingdom), a pact to accelerate the fight against global warming. But the critics are already firing on the limits of this text. Franceinfo reviews the main points that pose a problem.

>> COP26: timid limitation of fossil fuels, no new aid to vulnerable countries … What to remember from the conference on the climate crisis

Insufficient constraints to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 ° C

Admittedly, the objective of containing the increase in temperature to 1.5 ° C by the end of the century is maintained. The statement “reaffirms”, indeed, it would be necessaryt “continue efforts [en vue] to limit the increase in temperature to 1.5 ° C “. But the means to achieve this do not follow. According to forecasts from the IPCC (climate experts), the planet is on a trajectory “catastrophic” 2.7 ° C warming compared to the pre-industrial era, or 2.4 ° C at best, according to a study published at the end of the week.

In its final version, the agreement calls on member states to raise their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 2022 compared to what was provided for in the Paris agreement. But it opens the door to arrangements for “special national circumstances”, which sparked a rain of criticism from environmental associations and countries most affected by global warming.

“The expected revolution did not take place. If the objective of 1.5 ° C remains on the table, the commitments made still lead us towards a catastrophic scenario of + 2.4 ° C warming by 2100 compared to the pre-industrial era, and the final decision text does not contain a sufficiently binding provision to quickly bridge the gap with the objective of the Paris Agreement “, thus castigates Greenpeace.

“There’s no time to lose”, reacts for its part the specialist of the Argentine climate Inés Camilloni, one of the experts of the IPCC.

“Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced by more than 7% each year, and this year they have increased further. The longer countries delay (in implementing their commitments), the lower the target (of limiting temperatures) will be difficult to achieve. “

Ines Camilloni, climatologist and IPCC expert

after conclusion of the agreement

The Maldivian reaction, an archipelago country threatened with being submerged by the rising waters of the Indian Ocean, was pithy : “We remind the world that we have 98 months to halve global emissions. The difference between 1.5 and 2 ° C is a death sentence for us.”

No guarantee on aid to poor countries

Another subject of discontent: the issue of aid to poor countries has still not been resolved. Scared by the broken promise of the richest countries to increase, from 2020, their climate aid to 100 billion dollars per year, the poor countries demanded financial compensation for damage already suffered. They are, in fact, the most affected by storms, droughts and heat waves caused by climate change, a phenomenon for which their responsibility is very low.

But developed countries opposed it. And foremost among them, the United States, which fears possible legal consequences. Poor states eventually gave in. They agreed to continue the dialogue so as not to lose the progress made in the fight against global warming, the effects of which already threaten them directly. But they said to each other “extremely disappointed”. “It is an insult to the millions of people whose lives are being ravaged by the climate crisis”, commented Teresa Anderson, from the NGO ActionAid International. “There were huge expectations (…), but the rich countries most responsible for global warming, in particular the United States, have covered their ears”, deplores the association.

“Rich countries, historically responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, must do more”, outbid the Climate Action Network, a federation of associations mobilized against global warming. Her responsible for international policies, Aurore Mathieu, ruled on franceinfo, Sunday, November 14, that the COP did not provide “no concrete answer for communities affected by global warming”.

A reduced commitment to coal

Third annoying subject: the text is less restrictive than expected on the end of coal mining. Certainly, the words “fossil fuels” appear in the final document, which is unprecedented at this level. Fossil fuels, the main cause of global warming, were therefore not even mentioned in the Paris agreement. Buthe wording on ending the use of coal was watered down until the last moment before adoption in plenary, under the weight of China and India in particular.

The final version calls for “intensify efforts towards the gradual reduction of coal without (CO2) capture systems and to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”, while the previous version spoke of “gradual disappearance of coal“Switzerland and the European Union first tried to oppose it, notes the journalist from the World Audrey Garric on Twitter. But in vain.

In the end, the Indian version won. A “bitter pill to swallow”, but accepted “for the common good”, regretted the representative of Liechtenstein at COP26, summarizing many interventions by delegates. And even the British president of this 26th world climate conference, Alok Sharma, said to himself, in a voice moved and tears in his eyes, “deeply sorry” of this outcome.


source site