“I apologize for the way this process has unfolded. I also understand the deep disappointment,” British COP26 President Alok Sharma said at the close of the climate conference last Saturday night (13). “It was a fragile victory,” he defined.
The sense of frustration was shared by negotiators, observers and activists at the UN climate conference, whose final tension was marked by the dispute in which China and India managed to change the term “elimination” to “reduction” of coal.
“I am very disappointed that the text has been watered down, for me there is no scenario in which we stay at 1.5ºC if we do not eliminate coal,” he told sheet the Minister of Climate and Energy of Denmark, Dan Jorgensen.
As the mention of the elimination of fossil fuels was considered historic in a UN document, the victorious defense of its continuity set the tone for the disappointed statements of world leaders soon after the final plenary.
The criticisms also referred to the lack of new commitments by rich countries with climate finance and the insufficiency of global emission reduction targets — which still lead the world to a scenario of warming above 2.4°C, while science points to the limit as safe. of 1.5ºC.
“We are disappointed with the pledge of US$ 100 billion (about R$ 545 million) pending and I appeal to all donors to make this a reality in the next year”, said the Executive Secretary of the Climate Convention at the end of COP26. from the UN, the Mexican Patricia Espinosa.
The developed bloc had promised, in 2009, to raise US$ 100 billion by 2020 to finance climate action in developing countries, but the announcement at COP26 was that the amount should only be completed in 2023.
“And we all know it’s not just about $100 billion. So it’s critical to start the process of setting the new global finance goal as soon as possible,” Espinosa said.
The most vulnerable countries were also disappointed. Although the COP26 outcome document recognizes the current occurrence of extreme weather events that are more impactful for developing countries, there was no agreement on a loss compensation fund.
“We put our homes at risk as those who have options decide how quickly they want to help save those who don’t,” said the representative of the Maldives Islands at the final plenary of COP26.
“It is no longer possible to measure the progress of the negotiation according to the ruler of the previous text. The only possible ruler is that of the science of the IPCC, and COP26 does not reflect the urgency seen in the report of the panel of UN climate scientists. who have their life and family at risk on an island in the Pacific or in the Northeast of Brazil will be satisfied with the result,” stated Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the Climate Observatory, in a note released at the end of the conference.
US climate envoy John Kerry said at the end of COP26 that Glasgow is not the finish line. “Those who thought it would be like that don’t understand the challenge we have. Paris built the arena and Glasgow kicks off the race,” said Kerry.
After two weeks of negotiations between diplomats from 197 countries, COP26 also managed to reach the conclusion of the rulebook of the Paris Agreement to combat climate change —which was signed in 2015 and only now, fully regulated, can it move on to the implementation phase .
“The COP26 outcome document is well structured around the goal of limiting warming to 1.5ºC and paves the way for its implementation, with a commitment to more substantial financing for adaptation and the establishment of a carbon market.” said the president of the Talanoa Institute, Natalie Unterstell, who accompanied the COP26 negotiations.
A deadlock target that led to the failure of the COP before, Article 6, which regulates a global carbon market, was resolved at COP26, under pressure from the private sector. The system remunerates activities that generate the reduction of carbon emissions, through the sale of credits that work as licenses to emit.
“The way to further increase climate ambitions is also through the use of market instruments,” stated in a statement the CEBDS, the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Bringing together 77 of the country’s largest business groups, CEBDS has been advocating the regulation of carbon credit trading at national and international levels.
“The absence of a regulated domestic market will generate losses and loss of international competitiveness for Brazilian companies”, points out the Council.
Journalist Ana Carolina Amaral traveled at the invitation of Instituto Clima e Sociedade.
.
