Recap of COP26: Key Outcomes and What Comes Next

What Congress Needs to Know in the Lead Up to COP26: Briefing Series on the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Glasgow
Find out more about the briefings in this series below:
Part 1	Creating Policies, Coalitions, and Actions for Global Sustainable Development
Part 2	Momentum on Climate Adaptation
Part 3	The Role of International Climate Finance
Part 4	The Negotiations: What’s on the Table
Conclusion	Recap of COP26: Key Outcomes and What Comes Next

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) held a briefing that reviewed what took place at the U.N. climate change conference in Glasgow—the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—and why it matters for Congress.

With dozens of events and negotiating sessions happening at any one time during the two weeks of COP, it can be challenging to keep up with all the details. The briefing reviewed the key outcomes of COP26 and provide context and nuance to the main headlines coming out of the meeting. Panelists dove into takeaways from international, private sector, and local government perspectives.

This briefing series was co-sponsored by the British Embassy Washington.

This briefing was part of a series made possible by our partnership with the Henry M. Jackson Foundation.

HIGHLIGHTS

 

Dr. Simon Evans, Deputy Editor and Policy Editor, Carbon Brief

• Heading into the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), there was an enormous ambition gap. A graph from the Climate Action Tracker shows that pre-COP26 pledges and targets were not enough to keep global average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
• The annual Conference of the Parties is a technical process that cannot in and of itself deliver lower emissions; only national governments and businesses can do that.
• For many years, countries have worked under the UNFCCC process to create an international rule-based system for managing climate change. Now that we have that in the Paris Agreement, the nature of COP is changing from a rulemaking body to one that is more interested in implementation. What we are seeing at COP26 is the growing pains of a process that is attempting to adapt itself to the reality of the ambition gap and a new global regime under the Paris Agreement.
• As part of the Paris Agreement process designed to increase the ambition of country climate commitments (known as nationally determined contributions or NDCs), 151 countries updated their NDCs in the lead up to and during COP26.
  • The Paris Agreement recognized that the initial NDCs submitted in the run-up to COP21 in Paris in 2015 were insufficient to stay below even 2 degrees Celsius of warming, so the Agreement included a built-in ratchet: every five years, countries are supposed to come back with a more ambitious pledge. COP26 was particularly important because it is the fifth COP since the Paris Agreement was ratified and countries were supposed to update their NDCs ahead of the meeting.
• At COP26, we saw several sectoral initiatives and multilateral announcements.
  • Countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, and Poland recognized the need to phase down coal, although some countries set long timelines.
  • In the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use, countries committed to ending deforestation by 2030. The declaration was backed by $17 billion of investments. The Forests, Agriculture and Commodity Trade (FACT) Dialogue, a road map for the sustainable development and trade of agricultural commodities, was launched.
  • More than 100 countries signed the Global Methane Pledge, committing to cut their collective methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030.
• Adding these new pledges to already existing emission reduction commitments shows that there has been an increase in ambition. The Paris ratchet is clunking slowly forwards. Collectively, the updated NDCs and new pledges add up to 15-20 percent of the gap between the current emissions trajectory and the trajectory needed to keep global average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
• Carbon Brief published an analysis looking at the temperature implications of the different commitments that countries have made.
  • Before the Paris Agreement, it was estimated that global average temperature would rise 3.5–4 degrees Celsius this century. After taking into account the pledges that countries made up to the end of 2020, estimates amounted to a temperature rise of 2.6 degrees Celsius. With the updated pledges from COP26, including the coal, methane, and deforestation agreements, estimates suggest temperature rise could be held to 2.3 degrees Celsius.
  • Each incremental bit of ambition is important—each fraction of a degree counts in terms of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. It is key that countries move from pledges to implementation. If countries not only meet their 2030 climate pledges, but also meet their longer-term commitments, it is still feasible to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius.
• The Glasgow Climate Pact was the agreement released at the end of COP26.
• Climate science, specifically the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are front and center in the pact, including specific details from the special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
• To close the ambition gap that remains after COP26, the Glasgow Climate Pact includes a faster ratchet, and requests all countries revisit and strengthen their 2030 targets by the end of 2022.
• The pact also included a “dialogue” on finance for loss and damage caused by climate impacts, a key demand of developing countries like the small island states.
• COP26 set up the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh adaptation work program to define and determine how to measure the global goal on adaptation [Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, will host COP27].
• The pact also included a section on the need to “phase down” coal. Although there was a lot of news coverage on how the phrasing was changed from “phase out” to “phase down”, the most significant thing is that, for the first time ever, there is language in a COP agreement explicitly targeting fossil fuels.
• Six years after the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, the Paris rulebook was finally completed at COP26.
  • Countries finished the new transparency rules under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement to ensure that each country is actually lowering its emissions to meet its targets. The new transparency rules require that all countries report their national emissions and progress towards achieving their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) beginning in 2024.
  • Countries also completed work on Article 6 about international cooperation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through carbon markets. One highlight is a rule that helps to avoid “double counting,” the practice of multiple countries counting the same emission reductions.

Nicole Montclair-Donaghy – Kampeska Cinkila Win (Little Shell Woman), Executive Director, North Dakota Native Vote

• The Standing Rock Nation is a fierce protector of land, air, and water. Standing Rock is not an oil and gas tribe, but nevertheless it is impacted by the oil and gas fracking happening in North Dakota.
• The COP26 delegation from Climate Generation, a nonprofit, provided the opportunity to share perspectives as an indigenous organizer.
• As an organizer, I see that lack of inclusion in decision-making processes is the root cause of the disparities that indigenous communities face.
  • Five percent of the world’s population is indigenous, but 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity is protected by indigenous people. Although fossil fuels are sometimes presented as the only economic opportunity for indigenous communities, the indigenous people of North Dakota are actually leading the way in clean energy. Standing Rock Nation has a 300 kilowatt solar farm, the largest in North Dakota.
• There was a lack of accessibility at COP26. The Climate Generation delegation, made up of other indigenous people, did not observe any official session of the negotiations. COVID-19 created many obstacles.
• The fossil fuel lobby was the largest delegation at COP26.
• Key takeaways from COP26:
  • Indigenous voices must be included in climate negotiations. In order to establish an equitable and just transition, it is important that resources are shifted to frontline communities and tribal lands so that climate solutions are rooted in restorative practices and climate and racial justice.
  • The United States must improve access to technical assistance and improved outreach for federal funding opportunities. Native communities are often forgotten in the funding process.
  • The United States needs to invest in clean jobs in Indian country. It is critical to electrify and develop the public sector by developing electric transportation, wind, and rooftop solar.
  • We must treat climate change like the crisis it is. While the economy must be included in the process, the economy will not save our land, air, and water. A model built for the world’s largest polluters to buy carbon offsets is not sustainable.

Dr. Joanna Depledge, Research Fellow, Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge

• It is important to note that there are limits to what a COP can actually achieve legally and politically, and this is often misunderstood. COP decisions can establish collective goals and rules to enable more effective action and cooperation among governments, but it is the governments and private-sector stakeholders that have to take action to limit emissions. The COP itself could never save the world, only domestic implementation can.
• COP decisions are made by consensus, with the agreement of all or almost all of the parties involved. This type of decision making requires compromise, and no country would be able to achieve all of its negotiation goals.
• Looking at the big picture, COP achieved several positive outcomes.
• COP26 negotiations had a more positive and collegiate atmosphere than in recent negotiations. This improved atmosphere reflects the increasing consensus on climate change, and greater diplomatic engagement on the part of the United States over the past year. This undoubtedly made a huge difference to the relative success of COP26, especially when compared with the last COP in Madrid in 2019, which was very disappointing.
• The joint declaration by the United States and China was universally welcomed as a positive development. Although the declaration was vague, the commitment of both countries to work together on climate change was encouraging.
• Another key development at COP was the submission of updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The Paris Agreement “ratchet mechanism” is starting to work, albeit unevenly. The majority of the updated NDCs are improvements on the original NDCs.
• At Glasgow, many countries also announced that they would reach net-zero emissions by around mid-century, although these targets were vague in details. About 85 percent of the world’s population is now covered by net-zero targets. The United States was instrumental in inspiring other countries to make net-zero targets after it declared its own goals earlier this year.
• At COP26 there was a sharpening of focus on methane. The Global Methane Pledge was sponsored by the United States and the European Union, and methane was mentioned in the Glasgow Climate Pact. Methane is short-lived in the atmosphere but it is also a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
• Another key message from COP26 was that advanced economies like the United States and the United Kingdom need to do much more to support decarbonization and climate adaptation in the developing world (see EESI briefing, The Role of International Climate Finance).
• At COP26 there was a move to end international support for fossil fuels and redirect funds to cleaner energy.
  • A declaration signed by more than 30 countries and development banks calls for a halt to overseas funding for unabated fossil fuels next year. If the development aid currently going to fossil fuels is ended, the money should be redirected towards clean energy.
  • An $8.5 billion deal was made to help South Africa transition away from coal, which helped South Africa release a particularly ambitious updated NDC. Targeted arrangements, like the one with South Africa, will become increasingly important in boosting the low-carbon transition and building trust in developing countries.
• COP26 delivered some significant wins, but it is now up to governments and stakeholders to deliver and build on these. It is important that as the spotlight shifts away from COP, the pledges are not forgotten.
  • Finance, especially loss and damage and aid to developing countries, must take center stage.
  • Countries with weak 2030 emission targets must be pushed to revisit these by COP27 in 2022.
  • Countries must follow through with side-declarations like the ones on methane, deforestation, and fossil fuel financing.
  • The U.K. COP26 Presidency and U.S. diplomacy will continue to play a key role. This leadership must be founded on strong climate policy domestically. The United Kingdom and the United States build the credibility and authority to push others to do more through robust action at home.

Anne Kelly, Vice-President, Government Relations, Ceres

• The U.S. commitment to climate action at COP26 was very different from the past few years. Businesses and investors look at economic signals to make their decisions. To have an administration that favors rulemaking over rule-breaking sends a critical economic signal, and that may be why so many companies decided to show up at COP26.
• Business is not a monolith. The business community represents a vast spectrum, from real leaders to real detractors. The fact that the fossil fuel sector was the largest sector represented at COP26 is unfortunate. Ceres, however, represents business leaders who are setting science-based targets and seeking to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
• An important April 2021 letter, co-organized by Ceres and signed by more than 400 companies around the world, calls for stronger climate targets, for a “phase out” of coal, for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and for mandatory climate risk disclosure.
• Ceres is also mobilizing investor and business support for methane reduction, which aligns with the Global Methane Pledge made at COP26 and the current methane reductions in the Build Back Better Act.
• Ceres hosted a session at COP26 around deforestation, which set the stage for the declaration to end deforestation. Congress should expect further business support on methane and deforestation.
• At COP26, the United States made pledges to cut its emissions both formally and informally, and this increases the pressure to pass the Build Back Better Act. The business community will get behind the package and make a compelling economic case for action. Companies are ready to support and invest in renewable energy.
• A Yale University–George Mason University study, Climate Change in the American Mind, September 2021, found that the number of Americans concerned about climate change has never been higher. That is why 395 companies in the United States have set science-based targets and commitments to demonstrate corporate climate action.
• If the United States can pass the Build Back Better Act, the United States will be able to hold its head up high in future global negotiations like COP27.

Q&A

What is something you have been hearing about COP26 in the news that you think does not get it quite right that you can clear up for us?

Depledge: There were two news stories that raised my eyebrows. First, the news claimed that China was not represented at COP26 because President Xi Jinping did not go to Glasgow. These news stories did not mention that Xi Jinping has not left China since the beginning of the pandemic, so it was unlikely that he would come to Glasgow in any case. In addition, the fact that he was not there physically did not keep China from participating actively in COP26.

The second story was the negative portrayal of India because of its reluctance to phase out coal and its net zero by 2070 target. News stories pointed out that this target was later than many others but did not mention that India’s per capita emissions are tiny. With per capita emissions that are seven times lower than the United States, there was no way that India could be expected to take on a 2050 net-zero target. It was disappointing to see journalists not put that in context. The fight over coal also was not just India: Nigeria, South Africa, and others were also wary of phasing out coal. These developing countries had legitimate concerns and even agreeing to “phase down” was an important win. Still, in general the level and quality of media coverage at COP26 was wonderful.

Kelly: I agree that the quality and quantity of the press coverage was impressive, even by news outlets that do not normally cover these types of topics. However, there was a tendency to talk badly about India and China without putting their actions into context. We have to recognize the massive contribution of the United States to global emissions. The United States has also contributed to the rise of China and India’s emissions because we have outsourced our manufacturing to them.

 

How did you as a journalist keep track of everything happening at COP26 and report on it as accurately as possible?

Evans: This COP was particularly overwhelming, with a deluge of announcements at all times. The COP venue was also quite cramped and claustrophobic. Accurate reporting requires good sources of information: negotiators, observer organizations, NGOs, and so on. One of the underrated methods of gaining information is to just read the draft negotiating texts. The texts are written in slightly strange “U.N. speech,” but you can understand what the main conflicts are by looking at them.

 

Now that the Paris rulebook is complete, what happens next?

Depledge: It will take a few months to really understand what this will mean internationally. It will certainly mean an increase in emissions reporting from countries, especially developing countries. Capacity building will be necessary to allow for the gathering of this emissions data. There will be an influx of new data on adaptation needs. Right now, private sector companies can start to think about partnering with people in developing countries on promising projects. The market mechanisms mentioned in Article 6 will replicate what we already have under the Clean Development Mechanism, but with improved safeguards. For example, there are safeguards to prevent land grabs from Indigenous peoples and a process for making complaints and appeals.

Kelly: It is our hope that Ceres’s business partners are thinking about ways in which they partner with developing countries. Many of these companies have extended supply chains in the developing world and so they feel responsibility for tracking what is happening in these countries. It is not going to be enough for businesses to measure the carbon footprint of their operations in the United States. I am excited about that and I think it is a positive outcome.

Evans: We have got this really important process next year with the request for countries to revisit and strengthen their climate pledges. We have already seen in Glasgow that Australia does not plan to increase its climate pledge. In the Glasgow Climate Pact, there is a commitment that pre-2030 ambitions will be a standing agenda item at the next COP and beyond.

 

What will you be watching out for in the months leading up to COP27 next year?

Kelly: First and foremost, I am going to be looking for the passage of the Build Back Better Act. This bill is really important to show that the United States is serious about its nationally determined contribution (NDC). I will be looking for the implementation of the Build Back Better package as well as the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law No: 117-58), which includes historic investments in electric vehicles, rail, and climate resilience.

I am also hoping we get closer to a bipartisan agreement on carbon pricing or a program like the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP) (see EESI briefing, The Growing Climate Workforce: How Policies Today Could Shape the Jobs of Tomorrow). The CEPP was removed from the Build Back Better Act, but it could be revisited in a bipartisan way. Finally, I am looking for the United States to keep its promises to environmental justice and Indigenous communities. The Biden-Harris Administration has promised to look out for vulnerable communities in a way no other administration has. We need to make progress so we can model as a nation what the world needs to do in terms of protecting the people who have been bearing a disproportionate burden of climate change impacts.

Depledge: There is a well-defined agenda going towards COP27, which includes workshops, talks, and sessions. I wanted to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be releasing the second and third parts of its sixth assessment report, which will focus on mitigation and adaptation. This will be an important moment to track where we are on climate impacts and what we can do to address the problem.

The period leading up to COP27 has to be about meeting promises, especially on finance and mitigation. The entire history of the climate change regime, despite real progress, has been littered with broken promises. If the United States can pass the bills that Anne Kelly is talking about and can deliver on its financial pledges, that will make all the difference in unlocking the global response to climate change.

 

Compiled by Isabella Eclipse and edited for clarity and length. This is not a transcript.