the following is a CNN a podcast. May I just say to all delegates, I
apologize for
the way this process has unfolded and I'm deeply
sorry, I
also understand the deep disappointment but I think as you have noted it's also vital that we protect this package. Welcome back to the climate conversations. I'm Jamie ho and that was president of the last conference of parties. Alok Sharma so cop 26 is over and all eyes on the next year in Egypt. So the expectations of the world on Glasgow, just what did the two week conference achieve? We've heard analogies are plenty. The goal of keeping temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius
is alive but its pulse this week. Besides that, what did the nearly 200 countries and parties to the UN's climate convention achieve where they did fall below expectations. It's been said that the can has been kicked down the road at least two next year and a new president to guide negotiations. But can we really afford to do that with me to discuss? This is Melissa law research fellow at the N. U. S. Energy Studies Institute
Having participated in previous cops for over a decade. Melissa this time has been tracking 26 negotiations from home Melissa. Welcome
Jamie, thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.
You're a cop veteran. You've been to? I don't know how many now in the past and you apparently weren't in Glasgow, tell us why you didn't go this time and what it was like keeping track of things all the way from here.
I decided not to go to Glasgow this year? First? Of course I needed a break. I have travel anxiety, but also because I decided to save my emissions, not go to Glasgow. Yes, and also because the presidency promised a virtual platform, the cop 26 virtual platform and all of us who are credited, we have access to this platform, so I was accredited and I decided to go on. However, there were quite a few technical glitches in the first week, which meant that some of us observing from afar, we're
not really able to go in, but it's okay. I'm on quite a number of mailing lists and there were people updating about the car, you know, what was happening inside the Scottish event campus. So there was no shortage of information coming out of Glasgow,
I will take it that you were then at least able to keep track of things unfold on a daily basis. Right back to the substance Glasgow was meant to be a really big caught, the one after paris in 2015 that would operationalize many of the decisions from paris. There was so much riding on it now, we've had a few days to digest it, a few days to read through all the reports, what's your take on what happened? It's not exactly a definitive moment for
concerted climate action that we'd all maybe hopeful. But in your eyes, were there really big surprises, maybe a few wins, then what's your take on the biggest disappointments? You
Just need to Google Cop 26 and you'll know right. A lot of mixed reactions about whether the cup was a success or failure. I personally think that there were some winds but there were also a number of disappointments.
I think for me one of the big winds was that the U. K. Really displayed great diplomacy and they managed to invite some 120 world leaders and these world leaders attended something called the World Leaders Summit on the 1st and 2nd of november, the UK presidency said these were decorations on coal, cars, cash and trees. It also includes maintain some of the big declarations, if
you don't mind, I'll just share here. Was that a number of countries, I think something like 42 of them have set coal phase out dates and also they have publicly announced that they would end finance or coal. And then for cars over 20 countries also signed some pledge By 2035 that they would actually have zero emission cars on the roads. But then some of the observers have pointed out that major car manufacturers such as like Germany China France, Japan and us have not joined this declaration.
There was also something on forests. Very, very big news about forests. 141 countries actually pledged to halt and reverse deforestation By 2030 or within the decade and that's significant. There was another one on methane where over 100 countries agreed to reduce methane emissions. You know maintain emissions got a higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide. So they've agreed to reduce this by 30% from 2020 levels by the
end of the decade as well. And there was quite a bit of money I think 328 million pledged by a number of philanthropies to to tackle methane as well. What was really surprising actually for me was the US china joint Glasgow declaration on enhancing climb action in the 2020. This was really big. I think nobody really saw it coming. It was a surprise announcement in the second week and in fact this was the same people that made some announcements about US china called a collaboration prepare.
It's right so this is us special envoy john Kerry and his chinese counterpart Seattle wa There was a bit of a gap in the last four years for the U. S. But I think a lot of people were pleasantly surprised that the U. S. And china decided to collaborate and I think it really took us over the finish line. So those are a
couple of the winds. I feel maybe I just mentioned one more ahead of cop 26 2020 was supposed to have been the year of cop 26 it was also the year where the updated climate pledges or nationally determined contributions were due because of the covid 19 pandemic. The submissions were fine and few between last year. We were really hoping that countries would step up this year and ahead of cop 26 submit all of the updated pledges by the end of cop 26.
We had something like 100 and 50 over countries who had submitted the updated NBC's. This is important because this shows commitment to the paris agreement. It shows commitment to the process. And we also saw a number of net zero commitments grow ahead of the cop. I mean there were really some surprising names right countries that came up with net zero targets. These are arab countries in the week prior to cop the U. A. E. United arab Emirates who will host cop 28 in 2023.
They had announced a net zero target by 2050. And Saudi Arabia also committed to net zero emissions by 2060. Even India also committed to net zero by 2070 during the cup itself. So with some of these additional commitments, the international Energy agency actually put out some very early estimates saying that we might be able to keep global warming to about 1.8 degrees Celsius. But then some experts have also said that there
may be a bit too optimistic. So we'll see what the data analysis comes up in the coming days and weeks. All of this was kind of a result of the big push because of the I. P. C. C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had released a report in august so it's really timely. This is the working group. One report that report said that it's really urgent climate crisis is happening and we must act For me, those were the major issues going in to
the carbon at the car. But of course for me, the biggest win was the completion of the Paris rulebook. Uh and you see issues like common timeframes reporting tables for transparency and Article six all concluded thankfully at this car. And that kind of means that we have the full set of rules and we can move on and get to implementation.
Well you've definitely laid it all out. But as you were speaking then, I sort of see two sets of issues and decisions and news that came out over the last two weeks. And I suppose one part of the part of things that happened were sort of things not necessarily related to the formal negotiations at the U N F triple C. So all the declarations that came, for example, all the
leaders declarations that came before negotiators actually started negotiating. And we had as you say, all the announcements of methane and the forestation, even the US china announcement as well, which was kind of separate from the negotiations. But as you say, may have provided some impetus for the talks.
Do you think all
that happening in parallel had significant enough impact on the actual formal negotiations as they looked at really decision text for example, which all negotiators looked towards and the world looks towards as well. Was that enough? And do you think that adds to the
decision or does it
actually detract from some of the more concrete things that people had hoped that all parties to the U N. F. To percy would agree to? Because as you say, there was some disappointing parts to it as well.
Yeah. So you're right, Jamie, I think there were some people who felt that these big declarations on cold cash cars and trees were considered site deals by the UK presidency and there were certainly not formally part of the U N F C C C process. I think some people also felt that the leaders being in week one at the conference actually reduce access a little bit more as well because of all the security detail around some of these world leaders, the access for observers going into
the negotiating routes was even smaller. We also know that these countries that made these declarations, they haven't actually included these in the N D C. S. Right? The nationally determined contributions. So how will they be held accountable?
You
Know, fulfilling these targets as well. And I talked about net zero and yourself alluded to it as well. These are big dreams, right? Net zero by 2050 it somewhere where 30 years away. And we just don't have the time or the carbon budget to wait that long. Many members of civil society, maybe even some governments are really upset right about this are disappointed because I read somewhere it's called like a betrayal. And uh so there were many countries also who said that there could
have been more balance in the agenda. So heavily focused on mitigation while other issues are adaptation and loss and damage finance were actually sidelined because of the nature of wanting to finalize the paris agreement rules as it were.
Yeah, I wanted to jump in on a couple of numbers. Okay. And I'll use your experience having observed these negotiations over maybe even more than a decade and that's basically the 1.5 degree aspiration and go versus the two degree aspiration angle. You see different perspectives and where people lie on the spectrum, right? Some will feel that you know, 1.5 really is on life support. You know, hopefully they'll get there but maybe not.
But there's some voices as well which are on the optimistic side say that actually is now entrenched in the U.N.F. people see in the global sort of mindset and
No one's really talking about two
degrees anymore. It's not aspiring for 1.5 degrees. Even if it's going to be tough. What's your take, having seen how over the last 10, 12 years people have spoken about 1.5 or two degrees that you know, how would you conceptualize and contextualized where we are now compared to back then,
since paris we've certainly seen More focused on 1.5 as opposed to 2°, even though 2° is also enshrined as you know, in the paris agreement, there was a quote, I think the representative from kenya who said that 1.5 is unacceptable even to them because it feels something like three degrees on the ground and they will experience it very differently from a country that might be able to
adapt to the level of temperature increase. And of course, it's an existential issue for small islands And I remind you of Singapore is a small island as well. So those of us who are acceptable to sea level, right? I think we really don't have time to waste and 1.5 shouldn't be an aspiration. It is a threshold beyond which I think the adverse effects of climate change will really be felt and it really is being felt this year even And the preceding years. So it's really important that we
stay true to this. 1.5. I do see, as you said that there's been a lot of focus, we are now focusing more on 1.5 as opposed to two degrees because we recognize that the world vulnerable are really going to bear the brunt of climate effects. I do see more of it these days.
But the thing is this, there is more attention on it, But it's just barely there. And a big part of really getting to 1.5, therefore, is everyone really coming up with stronger and more ambitious at DCs correct. I suppose one of the things that this car agreed to at least was that people will come back next year with potentially more and hopefully more ambitious targets, was this something of a surprise to you that people agree to come
back so soon? Or did you for see some degree of reticence and maybe not total agreement that they would come back so soon, given what was decided in paris,
I was completely surprised by this statement or this provision in the covering decision of the Glasgow Climate Pact and this was originally introduced by the UK presidency. So I actually went on record and then said that it's not what countries
agree in
paris, so they're not going to agree to it, but then it remained in the text. And so this has led to countries like Singapore, Minister for sustainability and the environment actually sit that Singapore will revisit its NBC. So I think that's promising.
However, NBCS is one part of it and the majority of the developing world have actually called for greater international support in order to fulfill some of their conditional targets in the NBCS Trust is super important with regard to these international meetings and processes where the covering decision is concerned, there was also this term that made it into the final text which is to express deep regret On the failure of developed countries to mobilize the US100
billion per year by 2020. The NBC suddenly have to be taken into consideration the context of whether finance will be mobilized as well and whether developing countries ought to trust that the developed World because of historical responsibility among other things have to provide. Right. And this is all enshrined in the convention as you know that they always go back to it over and over again, right? The principles of common but differentiated responsibilities
and respective capabilities so on and so forth. But certainly the covering decision does indicate that parties will have to accelerate the deployment of as you call clean technologies and this is paragraph 36 I'm talking about where for the first time fossil fuels is mentioned in any sort of decision. It was quite surprising to me and certainly I think a lot of people also you you were pricing on the news that folks blaming china and India for watering down
the text right? It was supposed to have been phased out unabated coal power but in the end what made it in was face down. But if you look at that paragraph in totality, you'll see that it's got a lot of components to it. So it mentions the deployment of clean power generation energy efficiency. It also mentions the phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, which is really important for this region. And also it talks about a just transition. There's a lot to unpack
moving forward. Really need to think about what this means for countries thinking about their NBCS and revisiting it between now and november next year, where the cop is going to take place in Egypt and they're supposed to bring those new NBCS and submit them before that cop in Egypt will be a busy for countries
I'm gonna jump in on the face down with his face out. This one has really caught the imagination of everyone in the news thinking about what it means and it's quite clear what it means on the whole though, as you say, well, it may have been convenient to look at India and china as part of the reason as to why that was changed from a face out to face down. But overall though, what's your sense? I mean obviously people will criticize things for not being as ambitious as it was.
But do you think the signal is strong enough that, you know, people do now know that the era of coal is going to end even if it's a face down. Is that where we're headed? You think it's strong enough language and as you say, fossil fuels have been mentioned and overall scene as a package is the right thing more on the wall for fossil fuel industries and subsidies and call in the long run, is it clear enough now
it's pretty clear, I think we need to recognize that there were also a number of countries that signed up to the cold packed and even though they may not be the largest emitters in the world or they may not have, you know, the largest share of coal and their energy makes you have countries like south Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam Poland Ukraine that signed on to reduce coal and the use of coal. And I think that's important right? Because climate change is a global problem and it requires
everybody to contribute. So I do think that India and china have been disproportionately blamed for this so called watering down of the face out. Turn right the language and the covering decision. The reality also is that we need to think about fossil fuels and phase out face down in the context of global equity. What are these coal power generators being used for? Is it being used for luxury emissions or is it being used towards development powering
the poor villages, that sort of thing. I know I'm going to get shut down for this, but we need to add more nuance to the discussion. Right? It's not bifurcate that well anymore. Rich poor. There are so many countries in the world actually middle income and they can actually afford the transition, but not all countries can afford transition just yet. They certainly need to be held not necessarily only be helped by the richest countries
since you mentioned equity are going to ceo of you Now on one issue, which again, there was some criticism on the fact I didn't go far enough. I didn't address it in any way that was satisfactory and that was the
issue of loss and damage. As with all cops. This one again was quite majorly in focus this time around, but there was some disappointment there, explain to us what you would have expected and hoped for and loss and damage and in the final balancing decisions where it was that it sort of fell off and didn't meet expectations.
Indeed, the top 26 agenda was supposed to help in the operationalization of loss and damage, but you're right, there was no specific action taken at the end. Um, there was a proposal for a loss and damage facility by a group of countries, but this was removed towards the end. There was already political dialogue actually on loss and damage
to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. Of course in the world, there was some progress in Glasgow about the functions of the santiago network on loss and damage. So parties made some little bit of progress that yes, there was a lot of disappointment around loss and damage and I do agree with analysis that the car was a bit lopsided. Right? So there was so much focused on mitigation and really very little on adaptation, but as with all caught bandwidth of negotiators is limited.
And I was told also that because of the pandemic and because of the requirements of the venue having to safe distance, there was not enough space for everybody to be represented. And I believe a lot of delegations also cut back on sending people. And so it could also have well been banned with issues not having enough negotiators on the ground going to these meetings and prioritizing the agendas on adaptation and loss and damage. So it could
be any number of factors. But I was told also that Egypt will focus on adaptation, potentially lost damage as well. So perhaps countries if they can't wait of course can look forward to the next call for.
One of the things that you mentioned earlier on was the issue of trust and inclusivity as well as part of the process that brings people on and it's very hard to not feel hard done by if I were developing country if I were a small island state that again, um, loss and damage has not been satisfactorily dealt with. Again, it is one of those things. And I suppose the other thing is again, as we've always said earlier on as well, climate finance, right? In the overall scheme
of things. You've seen this sort of recur year to year cop to cop what's the take their when it comes to what was decided or at least I was admitted to as you alluded to at the beginning, as far as finances concerned.
Yeah, there's a huge finance gap as you know, so there was an agreement that developed countries would provide us $100 billion 2020 years. So every year they would have to provide this amount. But then the developed countries have not been able to do that. They agreed, I think prior to call, they announced that they would try to do it. I think by 2022 next year, there was also an agenda item at 26 which is to develop a program to decide on the next climate goal.
This is the post 2020 climate finance goal. And what they did agree at the car was to establish an ad hoc working program between 2020 2020 24. So what people need to know is that It was never required at least by this year to decide on the number. So the new goal needs only to be concluded by 2020 for so what they needed to agree on in Glasgow was the process, how would they get to this number in Glasgow countries were able
to come to consensus on it. And so we now know that there will be something like four technical expert dialogues and ministerial level discussions each year between 2020 2020 20 for so it's gonna shape up to be a very intensive process and it also needs to be inclusive. It will be open to non state actors as well because more and more I think countries are realizing that we cannot just rely on governments
to fund mitigation or adaptation right? We need to unlock private sector finance as well in a way I thought that it was also really great that this car we saw quite a number of contributions towards things like the adaptation fund. Even there were first time contributors like U. S. And Canada. There was also this big group called the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet. This is anchored by philanthropic organizations and multilateral development banks
To unlock another $100 billion. Finance is going to have to come from everywhere. And if we only rely on the court process, I think we're not really going to get to 1.5. So I think we really need to reach all of the underserved groups and try our best to disseminate and mobilize the funding as quick as possible.
You know, one of the things that you said at the beginning about what this car at least was able to achieve was finalized the rule book from Paris Let's get back to that conversation and the good news as far as that's concerned in finalizing that rule book and one of the issues was Article six that a lot of people were looking
at as
it relates to carbon markets. Tell us in your view how you saw that pan out, and was that something you think is a good outcome for everyone concerned.
Article six essentially is in relation to international cooperation. Some people know it as the carbon markets or non-carbon markets
provisions under the Paris agreement. It's really complicated, it's very technical in nature and yes, countries were not able to come to conclusion Prior to Glasgow of course, um it was supposed to have been part of the big package in Katowice Poland back in 2018, but it's such a big issue that parties couldn't come to a final decision and it was pushed to Madrid then the delay because of pandemic, and finally in Glasgow We have some outcomes and I think
it was really important because our very own Minister for sustainability and the environment mr graceful was called on by the UK presidency to co facilitate the ministerial level informal consultations on article six. So, really difficult job as I understand, she actually had to switch out two or three partners on the way the other minister was originally supposed to be from Japan, the Norway, that kind of lost the election and then became another guy.
So she was actually the main ST throughout the year, really all of the operative paragraph of article 66264 and 68 were finalized. Article six essentially allows countries to transfer what we call carbon credits. The technical term is for 62 is internationally transferred mitigation outcomes and they will be allowed to use
these mitigation outcomes towards their climate pledges. Now, some civil society probably call this as a bit of a cop out, right, because they feel like it undermines the actual necessary mitigation that needs to happen and it allows countries to buy their way out of climate action. But I think that the outcome at least on article six is important because it does help us to accelerate the deployment of funding
towards technology and so on. The crux of article 6.2 was the issue of corresponding adjustments, meaning to say that if a host country develops a set of mitigation outcomes and they transfer it to the next country country b let's say then they cannot use that set of outcomes or credits towards their own pledge. They have to cancel it from their own ledger or inventory.
This is the fear of double
Counting. That's right. Yes, absolutely. So on the other side, of course, that country also will need to mention, Okay,
they they have bought these from the other country. And so corresponding adjustment is really important because otherwise there will be a lot of double counting and just keeping in mind that under the Kyoto Protocol, right, you had only one group of countries, 37 industrialized nations that had targets and so they were hosting projects in the developing world and then taking their credits.
But now under the paris agreement because every country has an NBC always expected to put forward an NBC climate target. You have the situation where maybe the developing countries want the credit for themselves rather and they don't want to sell it or they may be both buyers and sellers. And so these ways to account is really going to be very important. What countries were able to do in Glasgow was to ensure that corresponding adjustments will have to be reported
Under the enhanced transparency framework. The corresponding adjustments will need to be part of a structured summary. When countries submit their biennial transparency reports from 2024 onwards, the small work that needs to be done, which is to elaborate further guidance on a single method for corresponding adjustments because at the moment NBcs look very different. The intended
nationally determined contributions were submitted. Pre paris paris agreement wasn't even called the paris agreement, It wasn't a doctor countries summit all kinds of NBCS. And so they all look different some five years, some are 10 years, some are not even CO two related. The non CO two and maybe their renewable energy targets.
So in the end we need to figure out a single method for how you would go about making these corresponding adjustments if one country has uh CO two related target and another country has a renewable energy giggle target. For example, what methodologies would you apply to make sure the adjustments are made accurately.
The thing about this then is you know, as especially developing countries, look at how Article six was resolved and at least settle for this round of negotiations. You do have contacts around the NGO circuit and people who do watch this closely. Was this a good outcome and a fair outcome on article six as a whole that you think people can sort of accept and then just move on to remaining things in future cops? I'll
be honest, by and large is too complicated for a lot of people. It's not just the Ngos, you know, it's
everybody,
it's really complicated and basically what people want to know that their country is going to make their best effort to Reduist consumption of fossil fuels and then taper of the emissions. But the reality is very different right? The reality is that emissions will probably increase because of recovery from COVID-19 because of growth because of population demands and so and so forth. So how do you taper off, how do you allow countries actually meet those ambitious targets? True markets really to
carbon markets? And of course, I think that broadly speaking, there will be people who don't believe in markets at all. Article six was on the agenda. It was a big provisions under the Paris agreement and it had to be finalized and I think those of us who have been following the talks are quite released really, you know, um, that article six is finalized and we have two new mechanisms right in most one and 64 which is the new mechanism that
succeeds the kyoto protocol's clean development mechanism. Some of the observers that really have been following very closely a lot more closely than I have are quite happy with the outcome. I'm cautiously optimistic.
We certainly hope that the existence of markets does not detract from the crucial necessity for action. But I'm going to now sort of as we tail off our conversation zoom out from the details into really larger bigger picture things. And we spoke about this right at the start about the U. S. And china.
We had john Kerry and CS and were again meeting and they are I will presume all colleagues as you and I know as you look back on the last four or five years, do you think the reintroduction of the biden administration and the US being able to work with china at least at some level on climate change as has been evidence during this cop. Do you think it made a material difference if as a thought experiment it wasn't the case. We have had
a different cup. Perhaps you suggested you a little bit surprised. But really how surprised? I mean, I know I was quite pleasantly surprised that it happened. But again, could this have happened in any other circumstance? You
think? I definitely agree that the U. S. Reentry into the paris agreement made a big difference at this cop and even people on the ground who told me john Kerry is just such a presence when he's around. I was told that he was the one at the very end at the closing plenary went around talking to people very nicely trying to iron out some of the final decisions
and it's not just the US. Right. I think that you also contributed quite heavily and the UK presidency, I was told that France Zimmerman, the lead negotiator for the eu he made a very sincere plea to countries to not reopen the text and as you know, once the taxes reopen can be another few days or a couple of days at least somehow this cop
avoided the late night, the overnight negotiations. Maybe there was some in for most, but most people were told to go home right, go back and rest and come back the next morning. The text will be out at like eight o'clock in the morning and it really was out at like 8 30 in the morning and the secretary of the presidency worked really hard. So I think was
a confluence of factors. But the U. S. And china certainly timed their announcement very well in the second week when all of the flurry around the world leaders summit was over and we were really getting down to business. It just was able to carry us across the finish line. I'm glad of course that the U. S. Is back and they are
very sincere and interested to work with many parties. So you've seen just a range of Countries that they've offered to work with at the cop and also beyond the cop and in China I mean putting aside the geopolitical tensions and differences and they were able to come together and jointly announced one after another. You know, it looked really professional. Um I think certainly in his press briefing said that this was 10 months in the making.
It's not something that they cobbled together Right the moment the Biden administration came back, the Chinese were already involved in some of these discussions. So 10 months in the making really good really good outcome.
Well yes definitely shout out to that. You know of course as we said earlier in a conversation to countries like India as well who came up with quite surprising and quite rejuvenating pledges as far as net zero concern quite early on last question then, you know, as we look forward to Egypt next year, some of the can has been kicked down the road as you look at various cops and how they've been led by various presidencies? Do you think you'll make any difference having a country
like Egypt leading the discussions this time. And do you think that's what's needed in terms of getting to the right outcomes in balancing of some of the areas where we discussed may not have been as balanced as the developing countries may have liked.
I certainly think so. You know, the last few cops have actually been held in european countries or at least in the continent of europe, right? Because the previous one was supposed to have been held in chile, but then in the end was in Madrid, there are some groups who attend the cops who felt like access because of the vaccine not being able to get the vaccine, not being on the red list was a problem for them and
during the U. K. For this car. Right. And so I think, yes, having a developing country next is really important. And Egypt has promised, I think that they would focus on the adaptation agenda item. That's good news. Of course, as you said, this is kicking the can down the road a bit. And if this year was anything to go by, we don't really have a lot of time to do adaptation. Climate change is already happening one more year to negotiate a global goal on orientation and to
secure funding for it. Maybe some countries and some communities will just not be able to survive it. That's the stark reality of it. So I think it's important to have that insight but then also make effort to really get moving on the ground ensuring that these communities making sure that they are resilient to the effects that they're facing individually as communities.
On that note, we certainly hope that that will happen in the meantime. I suppose you have a couple of months to think about whether you want to be in Egypt next year melissa leo. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Jamie. Thanks for having me.
Mhm. Thanks melissa and thanks for listening to the climate conversations. Stay up to date on CNN's coverage of climate change on sienna dot asia. It's all on the orange tab. You can also find this and other CNN podcast on our website and on Itunes and Spotify, the team behind this podcast, Christina robert, lindsey Stirling and Aaron Low. I'm Jamie Hall till next week.