Descent climate agreement shows world leaders are not yet in emergency mode

In August, a United Nations report detailed a grim future to the planet: Some of the devastating effects of climate change have now become irreversible, and only drastic action can avert even worse devastation. “The alarm bells are ringing,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres speak at the time, described the findings as “red code for humanity”. Keeping the temperature limit below 1.5C, Guterres said, will require “urgently stepping up our efforts and pursuing the most ambitious path”.

The UN climate conference in Glasgow, which opened in October and ended last week, was supposed to be a time for leaders to go down that road – to “do what’s necessary” and “meet mandate is rapidly shrinking,” as President. Joe Biden put it in his comments to the body. But rather than being the kick-off to “a decade of ambition and innovation to sustain our common future,” COP26 was an unfortunately missed opportunity. World leaders on Saturday reached an agreement to “accelerate climate action this decade”, including reducing dependence on fossil fuels. That is, according to the President of the conference Alok Sharma, One “Historic deal.” But what exactly will the Glasgow climate accord actually achieve? That’s not so obvious.

For two weeks, world leaders engaged in “intense negotiations” on how to tackle the climate crisis. The outcome of all those negotiations? An agreement that the crisis is really happening and that something needs to be done to solve it. The pact represents “some progress, but not close enough to avoid climate catastrophe”, former President of Ireland Mary Robinson speak concluding the conference. “While millions of people around the world have fallen into crisis, there are not enough leaders in crisis mode.”

Robinson added: “People will consider this a historically shameful act of duty.

Under the pact, countries will “review and strengthen” their emissions targets, mobilize “public and private finance” to combat global warming, and support communities that “fit in.” respond to climate impacts”. It will also fully implement the 2015 Paris climate accord. That’s all significant. But the devil is in the details, and there aren’t many ways specifics in the deal signed on Saturday. In fact, part of the accord calls for the participating nations to return next year to their emissions-cutting plans – an endeavor that hardly reflects the urgency the COP26 leaders have devoted to. in the past two weeks to call. Activists, like Greta Thunberg, barely impressed.

It is nothing for nothing that most of the countries of the world have agreed to the Glasgow treaty. But to reach that deal, negotiators cut its provisions dramatically. As New York timeNS report Over the weekend, the 11-hour discussions included a controversy over coal language: The pact was originally intended to call on countries to “get rid of” fossil fuels, but India, which considers coal was important to his development, protested. Finally, the countries agreed to “step down” their use of fossil fuels. John Kerry, Biden’s climate envoy, defends language change. “If we hadn’t done it,” he say, “We won’t have a deal.” But what good is an agreement if it doesn’t go far enough to solve the problem it wants to solve? “We do not need to reduce gradually, but gradually eliminate it,” Simonetta Sommaruga, who represented Switzerland at the conference, said, Times. The debate is not merely semantic; There are real-world consequences if not enough action is taken. “What is balanced and pragmatic with other parties will not help the Maldives adapt in time. It will be too late for the Maldives,” said the representative of that country, Shauna Aminath, speak At the conference. “The difference between 1.5C and 2C is a death sentence for us.”