The road to Glasgow
Authors: None The Lancet Planetary Health
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2021)

The Glasgow Climate Conference (COP26) is rapidly approaching and hopes remain high for substantial new climate commitments sufficient to keep global average climate warming of 2°C (or less) within reach. The road to Glasgow is still far from smooth, however, having already been delayed by a year due to COVID-19. Now pandemic-related travel restrictions and associated costs are threatening to prevent the poorest nations from being able to fully participate. So concerned were the Climate Action Network (CAN)—a global network of civil society organisations working together to fight the climate emergency—that they recently called for COP26 to be postponed. Not a proposition any climate advocacy group would take lightly. CAN cited vaccine inequity, unaffordable accommodation, travel challenges and new surges in the COVID-19 pandemic as their reasons for postponement. Arguing that the de facto exclusion of a huge number of developing country delegates will undermine the COP26 process and outcomes. There is a difficult balance to be struck here; delaying COP26 further is far from desirable, but there are very serious risks of underrepresentation of the countries who are most vulnerable and frequently most vocal in pushing for ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The UK Government has now agreed to cover the cost of hotel quarantining for delegates from high-risk nations and UK-provided COVID-19 vaccines for delegations without domestic vaccine access have now begun. These measures, though rather late in coming, should be sufficient for LMIC experts and officials charged with taking part in the climate negotiations to participate. That should also prevent obstructive nations using fears about representation to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the outcomes. However, practical concerns remain because non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that have supported some low-income countries in past negotiations are likely to have reduced participation in Glasgow. Online meetings have undergone something of a revolution during the pandemic. They offer a means to reduce the environmental impact of meetings and broaden participation, leading some to think online COP26 participation may solve many of the travel challenges. Unfortunately, online presence is currently a poor substitute for physical presence in the climate negotiations, the process is just too complex, and online participation would likely be a major disadvantage. Online meetings could perhaps help to fill some of the support gaps left by lower NGO participation, but COP26's success hangs primarily on physical attendance. The issue of climate finance represents another rut in the road to Glasgow. Back in 2009, rich countries committed to channel $100 billion annually to help developing nations tackle climate change. That commitment should have been delivered on in 2020 and every year thereafter. So far however there is a significant shortfall. Saleemul Huq of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development argues that “If the money is not delivered before November, then there is little point in climate-vulnerable nations showing up in Glasgow to do business with governments that break their promises”. US President Joe Biden has recently pledged to double US contributions to $11 billion per year which is an encouraging sign that we may hear more such pledges in the coming weeks. China has also surprised commentators by pledging to end investment in new coal-fired power projects overseas, dealing another blow to the coal industry and helping to build momentum on the road to COP26. It is hard not to see Glasgow as something of a make or break moment on climate change. A kind of last-ditch attempt at strong international climate policy and implementation. But that does rather beg the question, what do we do if Glasgow outcomes are inadequate to keep warming within relatively safe limits, even in principal? Of course, we hope this question is irrelevant and COP26 does deliver strong climate commitments, but if it doesn’t it won’t change our fundamental situation. We will still need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible. More climate heating is definitely worse, but the world will not end or become uninhabitable at 2·1°C of warming or 2·5°C. Each additional increment of warming is bad, but for precisely that reason, it is never too late to begin to cut emissions in earnest. Glasgow is a vitally important opportunity to make collective progress towards decarbonising our economies and minimising climate heating, but it is important to remember that even if COP26 fails to deliver it will never be too late to stop making things worse. For Saleemul Huq's comments see https://news.trust.org/item/20210616122609-wicrj/ For Saleemul Huq's comments see https://news.trust.org/item/20210616122609-wicrj/