VIDEOThe climate summit in Glasgow is a big step forward, but it is not the breakthrough that government leaders had called for.
Hans Nijenhuis
Latest update:
18:14
Was it all blah blah blah again, as Greta Thunberg tweeted afterwards? Is there progress, as State Secretary Dilan Yeşilgöz (climate) writes in a response? Or is it even a bit ‘historic’, what European Commissioner Frans Timmermans let slip immediately after the exciting denouement?
May continue longer
What is certain is that two weeks of negotiations in Glasgow have shown how different 197 countries are, even as they unitedly recognize that global warming is a major problem. The US and the EU mainly wanted to take steps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
China and India support this, but believe that they can continue a little longer, because they only started their industrial development – and therefore emissions – much later. Compare it to a birthday party where two boys ate three quarters of the cake. The moment two girls start their first piece, mother comes in and says: can this eating be over?
Maintain source of income
Of course, this comparison is not entirely correct. It’s worse. Pie does not make rich, while two centuries of fossil fuels have made Europe and America prosperous. China and India have only really been developing for 20 years. And eating pie does not harm others, while the burning of coal, oil and gas in the west has led to climate disasters in the south.
The large group of poorer countries therefore mainly wanted money in Glasgow to absorb the consequences of climate change. And then there are countries that make a lot of money from the export of fossil fuels, such as Australia, Saudi Arabia and Russia. They mainly tried to maintain their source of income.
Seen in this way, it is already a great achievement that there is a joint text at all. “And I read much harder, much more urgent language in this statement than I have ever read after a climate summit,” says climate scientist Heleen de Coninck. “It is the first time that all countries of the world recognize outright what is in the scientific reports.”
It is the first time that all countries of the world recognize what is in the reports
What has been agreed?
1. The world needs less coal use and get rid of government subsidies on fossil fuels. It is the first time in 26 climate conferences that fossil fuels have been explicitly mentioned as a cause of climate change. This could have important implications for the financing of oil, gas and coal projects. Governments have invested $2,500 billion in the past five years, according to US climate envoy John Kerry, calling it “the definition of insanity.” India’s environment minister Bhupender Yadav, on the other hand, said: “Fossil fuels have made part of the world rich. How can anyone expect developing countries to refrain from doing so?”
In the very last minutes of the conference, India, with the support of China, managed to water down a crucial sentence about quitting coal. Where it has long been stated that countries strive for ‘phasing out’ coal, it has ultimately been stated ‘reducing’ coal. “They’ve changed a word, but they can’t change the signal coming out of this conference,” Greenpeace director Jennifer Morgan said afterwards. “The age of coal is coming to an end.”
The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming is our death sentence
2. ‘Glasgow’ reaffirms that global warming must be limited to 1.5 degrees compared to the pre-industrial level. At the moment it is already 1.1 degrees warmer. If policy remains unchanged, the world will move towards 2.7 degrees. The promises made in the run-up to the climate summit are calculated to lead to 2.4 degrees of warming. ‘Keep 1,5 alive’ was an important goal of the British Presidency. The target of the climate summit in Paris in 2015 was ‘quite below 2 degrees, preferably 1.5 degrees’. Since then, however, more has become known about how much 1.5 or 2 degrees makes a difference. As the representative from the Maldives said: “The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming is our death sentence.” Countries must come up with tightened plans next year to achieve this. That too is new: after ‘Paris’ they were given five years.
3. Rich countries recognize that they need to do more to help poor countries. They expressed ‘deep regret’ that they have contributed too little so far and have now promised to double their contribution to ‘adaptation’ – say: building dikes – by 2025. loss and damage-fund – compensation for the disasters that hit poorer countries and will hit poorer countries – they withheld. There will only be a ‘dialogue’ about this.
4. There is now clarity about the rules of the game. After the Paris summit, it was still unclear how countries could measure each other’s progress. What can be counted and what can’t? This is especially important because, following the EU lead, the world is setting up a system in which emission allowances can be traded. This rewards countries that meet their climate goals early on. The EU has such a system for companies and it works.
Nobody is really satisfied with the outcome, as it turned out on Saturday during the closing hours of the conference. As a result, it was in danger of failing for a while. This prompted European Commissioner Frans Timmermans to make a passionate plea: ,,Let’s be careful not to stumble a few meters from the finish of this marathon. . . . I implore you to accept this text so that we can give some hope to our children and grandchildren.” Is it just hope or more? To do that, Glasgow’s intentions must first be implemented.
Watch all our videos on climate change below:
Free unlimited access to Showbytes? Which can!
Log in or create an account and never miss a thing from the stars.
#Climate #summit #Glasgow #confirms #urgency #Difference #degrees #warming #death #sentence