COP26: Global last chance or more hot air?

To some, the Glasgow COP26 summit is either a last chance for world leaders to step up and really commit to tackling the climate emergency and take steps to forestall catastrophic geopolitical events such as mass migration, and global competition for food and water, whilst for others, it is merely hot air with little practical substance due to the divergent agendas of powerful economies.

The Glasgow meeting brings together a diverse group of developing and developed nations, but even before the meeting, their priorities and pace for recommended action, especially over who will pay for remediation changes, have been laid bare, despite the fact that many countries recently suffered from an abnormal spate of floods, drought and wildfires.

Who will fund climate change efforts is the contentious issue, with the least developed countries wanting the richer countries to fulfill their pledges to provide $100 billion each year to help reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, and to agree to net-zero targets on greenhouse gases before 2050. The $100 billion target was committed by the richer nations in 2009 to fund the program by 2020 from both private and public sources. But sadly, the amount actually paid averaged about $50 billion from 2013 to 2015, and reached just under $80 billion by 2019, with the goal of reaching $100 billion per annum unlikely to be met before 2023.

The poorer countries attending the Glasgow event have a valid point, as they are the most vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather, are more economically dependent on nature for food and jobs and are financially too poor to be able to contribute to climate mitigation measures. The richer countries also find themselves in a bind, as the COVID-19 pandemic has sorely tested their finances with significant resource outlays, rising national debt levels and fiscal fatigue from raising taxation levels on their citizens.

Whose voice will then be heard the loudest in Glasgow? Some of the poorest developing countries, especially those island states in the Pacific region facing rising sea levels, will argue that they are indeed negotiating for their survival, while other developing countries have formed coalitions, such as the Least Developed Countries Group, a 46-nation bloc that includes diverse countries like Bangladesh, Senegal and Yemen, representing 1 billion people.

The world is certainly at a critical tipping point in climate control, but the COP26 debates should not be hijacked by extremist views from all sides, for otherwise in the end, everyone will be a loser.

Dr. Mohamed Ramady

However, in the end, there has to be some consensus and acceptance from all, and if there is to be a final Glasgow COP26 agreement reached, then all 197 UN member states that have signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have to sign up to the final Glasgow declaration, thus having the blessing of both rich and poor nations. The alternatives to not reaching an agreement are almost apocalyptic consequences, according to the most vocal climate change proponents and protesters converging on Glasgow, as they predict that inaction will inevitably increase the temperature of the planet by 4 degrees Celsius or more.

The 1.5 degrees temperature target is now set as a central discussion point of the Glasgow summit, with scientists highlighting that this is the minimum goal to hold world leaders to. Some countries have already voiced their reservations and are unwilling to peg their emissions plans to tougher goals, instead preferring to consider more realistic long-term goals, such as net-zero emissions by 2050, or in the case of Saudi Arabia — as recently unveiled by the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh — by 2060, or possibly earlier, depending on advances in technology.

Is the 1.5 degrees target a negotiable number or one that is set in stone by scientific evidence and studies? Proponents for tougher climate mitigation measures claim the latter, and argue that by allowing temperatures to rise by more than 1.5 degrees, we would vastly increase the risk of irreversible changes to the climate. Other major economies, such as China, Russia and even Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest fossil fuel producer, have been reluctant to only focus on the target, preferring to point out that the Paris Agreement states the world must hold temperatures well below 2 degrees, while pursuing efforts to stay within 1.5 degrees. These viewpoints should also be taken into consideration if a consensus is to be reached in Glasgow.

It is not yet very clear what final agreement will be hammered out as a result of COP26. All countries, whether fully committed to a more aggressive climate program pushed by vociferous local stakeholders and citizens action groups, or others not wishing to be viewed as “spoilers,” will certainly agree on a common middle ground which is realistic, achievable and financially supported to succeed, for in the final analysis, it is all about money and then political will.

The world is certainly at a critical tipping point in climate control, but the COP26 debates should not be hijacked by extremist views from all sides, for otherwise in the end, everyone will be a loser.

• Dr. Mohamed Ramady is a former senior banker and professor of finance and economics, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran.