First modification:
This Friday, November 12, a preliminary document generated different reactions from analysts and environmental referents after progress was noted in the financing and emission reduction sector, but a relaxation in the terms of the end of hydrocarbons and fossil fuels, which marks a setback in conversations.
The international summit to define the steps to follow in the battle against the climate crisis, COP26, is in its final hours, at which time the final details of the new pacts and guidelines are outlined. In this sense, this Friday a new draft of the agreement was published, which aroused conflicting opinions.
On the positive side, there were concrete advances in terms of demands to reduce carbon emissions and in financing poor countries so that they can develop these policies. However, environmentalists expressed their concern about the flexibility of the terms in the new document on the end of the use of hydrocarbons.
As underlined by the E3G think tank, in this recent agreement there are concrete ambitions in reducing emissions and balancing mitigation measures to reduce the emission of CO2 and adaptation so that developing States can carry out the necessary changes.
Going into detail about mitigation, the new draft urges governments to “review and reinforce” their emission reduction targets by 2030 for COP27 and, for those who did not present their strategies, to do so by 2022 with the goal of achieve neutrality by 2050.
Also, the text indicates that the United Nations Organization will be in charge of annually checking the plans so that they are fulfilled. For its part, the text maintains “a great disappointment” because the rich countries did not fulfill the commitment made in 2009 to contribute 100,000 million by 2020.
Ed King, an environmental analyst, said this preliminary agreement is “significantly more balanced” than the one published on Wednesday and has firmer supplements on adaptation and financing, which support the poorest countries.
Meanwhile, a damage and loss plan is also being envisaged to subsidize nations disadvantaged by natural disasters and help them recover without deepening their economic woes.
The relaxation of the hydrocarbon terms, in the center of the scene
The controversial aspect of the new documents is related to fossil fuels and the change of language with respect to what was agreed days ago, where it instructed the States to “accelerate the end of carbon and subsidies for fossil fuels.”
However, now the draft only calls for speed to phase out coal without carbon capture systems and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
In dialogue with the EFE agency, the co-spokesperson of the Spanish environmental party Greens EQUO and member of the delegation of the World Greens, Florent Marcellesi, said that this flexibility is intended to establish the existence of good fossil fuels.
“This is a fallacy, the best fossil fuels are those that stay underground,” he said. For their part, other environmentalist referents saw the glass half full on the fact that, at least, the problem was made visible and they intend to strengthen it before the end of COP26.
However, they see the influence of oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Australia, in these amended articles and fear that progress towards achieving the 1.5 degree limit, the main goal of the Paris Agreement, will be undermined.
The United States special envoy for the climate crisis, John Kerry, was blunt on this issue and expressed the need to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies in order to reach climate goals. He called it “madness” to invest money in this area. Despite this, he was in favor of more balanced language on the end of hydrocarbons.
.