HS analysis Even the most recent CEO should realize that climate regulation will no longer escape – there is also much good in the outcome of the Glasgow talks

Paris the climate negotiations in 2015 ended with the emergence of a historic agreement and an almost euphoric atmosphere. Many negotiators, sensitized by nightly marathon meetings, wiped tears of joy out of the corner of their eyes.

Glasgow’s climate talks also ended in tears on Saturday, albeit differently.

“I apologize for how this process ended. I am deeply sorry, ”said the British politician who chaired the meeting Alok Sharma said the voice trembling.

Sharma referred to a maneuver seen at the last minute of the meeting, in which a number of countries led by India managed to water down a statement on the use of coal.

Multi has therefore considered the outcome of the meeting a failure. The current emission reduction measures of the world’s countries are still not enough to reach the target of approximately two, even 1.5 degrees. While the long-term emission reduction promises made just below the meeting are good in themselves, the problem is that they will not necessarily be translated into short-term concrete action.

A reminder of this was received in Glasgow: India said in the early days of the meeting that it was aiming for carbon neutrality by 2070, and in its final work, the country’s negotiators made sure the Glasgow Declaration did not talk about ending coal use, just reducing it.

But this climate negotiations are, the highest standards of international diplomacy, the coordination of the special interests of nearly 200 countries. The processes are long and no quick wins are known. And yet there is much good in the end result: countries managed to agree on reporting rules to make the measurement of emissions more accurate and to make it easier to compare climate targets. The long-awaited rules were created for the international emissions market.

In addition, a wide range of statements were made during the meeting: China and the United States undertook to make further short-term emission reductions on both sides. A large number of countries committed themselves to combating methane emissions and deforestation. In addition, many large economies committed to reducing emissions from shipping.

One the concrete result is that, in future, the adequacy of countries’ climate promises will be assessed annually. Under the Paris Agreement, mid-term reviews were agreed to take place every five years. Political decision-makers are thus much more likely to respond to pressure from civil society and other countries to tighten climate policy.

There is cause for concern about insufficient climate promises by states, but it is important to note this: The meeting succeeded in sending a message to the private sector that the pace of the green transition is accelerating. The message is important because it supports private sector climate action.

More and more financial institutions are starting to look out for financing fossil investments, more and more companies are focusing their research and development on clean solutions, and more and more large companies are also required to reduce their emission reduction plans.

With the end result has an impact on the Finnish business community as well.

Even the last CEO in Finland should now understand that climate regulation can no longer escape. Attempts to combat emission reduction measures in one’s own sector are stoning. There is simply no longer any option for an industry to avoid new emission reduction measures. Emission reductions are no longer demanded only by the state, but also by customers, financiers and investors.

Similarly, the prospect of the world’s nations tightening their climate promises at an ever-increasing pace in the coming years is creating growing expectations for global demand for clean technology. The investments should now be used to ensure that the green transition takes place in Finland cost-effectively and at the same time creates exportable solutions.

On the other hand The Glasgow deal is a reminder of how different countries are still making progress on climate action. Tools are needed to get stern thrusters up to speed.

One such example is the forthcoming EU carbon tariff system. In the light of the Glasgow results, it is clear that the Commission will continue to prepare coal duties, even though some of the industries that originally demanded the duties have begun to withdraw. The customs mechanism has already shown its strength in Turkey, for example, preparing a national carbon tax in part to avoid coal tariffs.

UN nor are climate negotiations the only forum in which climate policy is pursued. The results should be seen as part of a larger pattern. Similar messages – carbon leakage, emissions pricing, fossil fuel subsidies – are now coming from other arenas of international cooperation, the G7, the G20 and the OECD.

The Glasgow meeting accelerated the rotation of this bike, and now there is nothing in sight to stop the movement.

Correction 14.11.2021 at 22.20: India is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2070 and not 2060, as was first incorrectly written in the story.