The new draft of the COP26 Climate Summit Agreement, released on Friday morning, has sparked talks on the final scheduled day of the conference, where nearly 200 countries are attempting to reach an agreement to avert catastrophic global warming.
Major Highlights of New Draft:
The draft, prepared by the British hosts of COP26, includes the following:
-
The COP26 summit aims to keep alive the 2015 Paris Agreement's aspirational target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoiding its most disastrous consequences.
-
Countries' current pledges to reduce emissions this decade would result in warming far exceeding that limit, to 2.4 degrees Celsius.
-
To try to bridge the gap, the draft COP26 agreement asks countries to update their 2030 emissions-cutting plans by the end of 2022 - a faster timeframe than the United Nations' current five-year review cycle.
-
However, it couched that request in weaker language than a previous draft, and it failed to provide the rolling annual review of climate pledges that some vulnerable countries have pushed for.
-
Both the United States and the European Union have stated that they would support a more rapid review, but others argue that an annual ratchet would be a bureaucratic burden.
-
The most recent version stated that climate pledges should be upgraded to account for “different national circumstances”.
-
This refers to the disparities between rich and poor countries, and it may placate developing countries who argue that rich countries should reduce emissions and phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible because they are largely responsible for climate change.
-
According to the draft, government ministers will also meet once a year to check in on efforts to raise pre-2030 ambitions.
Requirement of More Investment
The issue of finance is widely regarded as the most significant impediment to reaching an agreement at COP26. Poorer countries claim they cannot afford to reduce emissions faster or adapt to worsening climate-related disasters unless richer countries provide more financial assistance.
The draft agreement stated that rich countries should double their funding to assist poor countries in adapting to climate impacts by 2025, compared to current levels - a step forward from the previous draft, which did not specify a date or a baseline. Only a quarter of countries' climate finance is currently spent on adaptation.
However, the proposal remained hazy on how to fix a long-standing pledge by rich countries to provide poorer countries with $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020 - a deadline they missed and now expect to meet in 2023.
The draft COP26 agreement expressed "deep regret" for the missed $100 billion targets, but did not outline a strategy for ensuring the money arrives.
The draft also addressed the contentious issue of compensation for the damages caused by climate change. The proposed agreement would establish a new "facility" to address the damages, but it does not specify whether this would include new funding.
Vulnerable countries had specifically asked for a new loss and damage fund, a proposal that was met with opposition from the US and other rich countries, and on Friday said they would fight for a more ambitious deal on loss and damage funding.
Phasing-Out Fossil Fuels:
The draft text took aim at the use of coal, oil, and gas, advising countries to phase out coal power and fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible, but without specifying a deadline.
This would be the first time that fossil fuels are named and shamed in the conclusions of a UN climate summit, a contentious move that Arab countries, many of which are major oil and gas producers, had objected to in an earlier draught.
The most recent proposal qualifies a previous draught by stating that countries should phase out "unabated" coal power- the dirtiest form of power - as well as "inefficient" subsidies for all fossil fuels, which include coal, oil, and gas.
Some campaigners argued that the new language was a ruse to keep funding polluting projects, but other analysts said it would be difficult for countries to argue that fossil fuel projects, which have huge health and environmental costs, are anything other than "inefficient."
