{"id":49842,"date":"2021-11-18T08:24:26","date_gmt":"2021-11-17T19:24:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/?p=49842"},"modified":"2025-06-25T01:42:17","modified_gmt":"2025-06-24T13:42:17","slug":"cop26-global-perspective-new-zealand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/aotearoa\/story\/cop26-global-perspective-new-zealand\/","title":{"rendered":"What happened at COP26? A global perspective, and what it means for New Zealand"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Was COP26 a success?<\/h2>\n\n

If you want to know if something has s\ucceeded, you should start by asking the people with the most to lose. In this case, that\u2019s those who are already being hit hardest by climate change, and they\u2019ve given a clear answer:<\/p>\n\n

What is balanced and pragmatic to other parties will not help the Maldives adapt in time. For us, this is a matter of survival. We recognise the foundations that this outcome provides, but it does not bring hope to our hearts. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us.
<\/em>Shauna Aminath, minister of environment for The Maldives<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

The climate emergency has already arrived in our territories. And we are very worried about all these announcements, and deals that are being signed here without considering or respecting the rights and participation of Indigenous Peoples.
<\/em>S\u00f4nia Guajajara, Brazilian Indigenous leader<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

I\u2019m hugely disappointed and hugely let down by COP. Coming from Chad, millions of my people are suffering but nobody is listening to our cries, our tears. It\u2019s our planet, and it\u2019s time to stop messing about with our future.
<\/em>Safia Hasan, 15, climate activist from Chad<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

These groups are suffering the most from climate change, even though they did nearly nothing to cause it. But their reasonable demands for help protecting themselves against climate impacts<\/a>, and compensation from the damage it\u2019s already done, were downplayed and sidelined in the talks.<\/p>\n\n

And while the COP26 deal doesn\u2019t put the 1.5C goal completely out of reach, the governments and companies that obstruct bold action on climate change are knowingly endangering whole communities and cultures for their own short-term profits or political convenience. History won\u2019t judge them kindly for this.<\/p>\n\n

It\u2019s important to be honest about this situation. But it\u2019s also important to remember how much we still have to fight for. There\u2019s no single moment when it\u2019s \u2018too late\u2019 to act on climate change; no cut-off point where we can\u2019t choose a better path.<\/p>\n\n

Every ray of hope and inch of progress at COP26 was won through relentless pressure from activists, campaigners and diplomats, especially those on the front lines of the crisis<\/a>. It\u2019s always been this way, and always will.<\/p>\n\n

So for all the missed opportunities, it\u2019s still worth asking: did COP26 make things better than they were before? Did it create some good foundations to build on? Or did it create new problems that will need to be untangled later?<\/p>\n\n

What was decided at COP26?<\/h2>\n\n

Global climate talks have two main strands. You have the formal (and often technical) UN negotiations, which produce a final \u2018decision text\u2019 that every country signs.<\/p>\n\n

Alongside that, you often have what\u2019s essentially a giant trade show, where everyone who\u2019s working on climate change comes to boast about what they\u2019re doing. The UK government\u2019s love of good green PR meant we saw even more of these shiny \u2018side deals\u2019 at this COP than normal.<\/p>\n\n

This second strand can feel like a bit of a circus, but positive news here can build goodwill and momentum that feed into the formal negotiations.<\/p>\n\n

Let\u2019s run through the big decisions and announcements, starting with what was in the official agreement:<\/p>\n\n

Climate justice<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>Governments wrangled over funding and wider support to help poorer countries protect themselves against climate impacts, and compensate them for loss and damage they suffer as a result of emissions from the rich world.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: you break it, you pay for it.<\/strong> Climate change is already putting a huge financial burden on poorer countries who did almost nothing to cause this crisis. Over a decade ago, governments promised $100bn a year, but they\u2019re still not paying up in full.<\/p>\n\n

There was a tiny bit of progress here, thanks to activists and delegates from climate-vulnerable countries piling on the pressure. But rich governments still didn\u2019t go nearly far enough. While this huge injustice continues, it\u2019ll be hard to build the trust we need for real progress.<\/p>\n\n

A nail in the coffin for coal<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>It only took 26 years, but the world\u2019s governments finally officially acknowledged that tackling climate change means moving away from one of the biggest causes of climate change. The final COP26 agreement explicitly talks about \u2018phasing down\u2019 coal-burning.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough. <\/strong>A major theme of COP26 was sending a signal to the wider world that fossil fuels are on their way out. Lots of the wrangling over the text was really about how strong that signal should be. And while fossil fuel execs certainly won\u2019t be celebrating, the negotiations fell far short of the decisive \u2018time\u2019s up\u2019 message we needed. As Greenpeace\u2019s exec director Jennifer Morgan put it, COP26 was bad for fossil fuels, but not bad enough.<\/p>\n\n

A better timetable for tougher targets<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>Countries\u2019 existing climate targets aren\u2019t anywhere near enough to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees. So they agreed to return with stronger targets in 2022, rather than leaving the normal five-year gap between new commitments.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: essential urgency. <\/strong>This tougher deadline will put pressure on countries to bring their targets into line with the 1.5C goal. It\u2019s also more in line with the overall urgency of the climate crisis.<\/p>\n\n

Carbon offsetting<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>A new official agreement paved the way for countries to trade emissions cuts, paying others \u2013 often in the Global South \u2013 to \u2018offset\u2019 the climate pollution they generate rather than reducing it directly.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: a license to pollute? <\/strong>COP26 opened the gates for much more carbon offsetting. This is almost certainly bad news, because carbon offsetting is almost certainly a colossal scam<\/a> that will delay real action on climate change.<\/p>\n\n

Many of the rules and safeguards that could have made the system even vaguely useful were left out, and the resulting loopholes put Indigenous Peoples at even more risk, as their lands will be in demand for new offsetting schemes.<\/p>\n\n

\"Greenpeace
Greenpeace activists raise a banner reading \u201cNOT FOR SALE\u201d against the iconic giant globe at the centre of the COP26 conference hall in Glasgow, as talks enter their final hours. \u00a9 Emily Macinnes \/ Greenpeace<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n

The side deals<\/h2>\n\n

Forests deal<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>Over 100 governments signed a voluntary side agreement that promised to end deforestation and protect indigenous rights.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: blah blah blah. <\/strong>There was no sign of actual policies to actually deliver on these promises, and there are major question marks surrounding the new funding. Greenpeace Brazil\u2019s Carolina Pasquali said: \u201cThere\u2019s a very good reason [Brazil\u2019s forest-destroying president] Bolsonaro felt comfortable signing on to this new deal. It allows another decade of forest destruction and isn\u2019t binding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

And to top it all off, this deal looks suspiciously similar to another agreement from back in 2014, which did literally nothing to slow deforestation. World leaders have a long track record here, and it\u2019s not good.<\/p>\n\n

Fossil fuel funding<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>A group of over 20 governments and financial institutions agreed to stop funding new overseas fossil fuel projects with public money by the end of 2022. The group includes some major players in energy financing, including Canada, the US, and the UK. This was possibly the most important side agreement at COP26.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: beginning of the end. <\/strong>Historically, governments have been keen to invest in building fossil-fueled power plants outside their borders. But despite some technical loopholes, this agreement starts to bring that era to an end.<\/p>\n\n

It\u2019ll become much harder to build new dirty energy infrastructure, as companies will have to rely on private banks or domestic government funding. It\u2019s vital that overseas energy funding is redirected into renewable projects instead, and that this ambition is extended to end all new fossil fuel projects immediately.<\/p>\n\n

India\u2019s net zero target<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>India pledged to reach \u2018net zero\u2019 emissions by 2070. The pledge was part of a new set of measures including a strengthened renewable energy target.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: better than expected. <\/strong>These measures move India\u2019s climate policy more in the right direction, but there\u2019s still a long way to go. The average person in India creates much less climate pollution than people in Europe or the US. But the size of its population means India\u2019s government has huge influence over the climate. If they meet this goal, analysts say it\u2019ll reduce global temperature rise by around 0.2C.<\/p>\n\n

But 2070 is nearly half a century away, and the whole world needs to be \u2018net zero\u2019 by 2050 if we want to stay under 1.5 degrees. The next 10 years will be a good test of whether the government is taking climate change seriously. Greenpeace India\u2019s Avinash Kumar Chanchal said the government \u201cmust start reducing emissions at source, as fast and as much as possible\u201d.<\/p>\n\n

Cutting methane<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>Over 100 countries joined a side pledge to slash methane 30% by 2030. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that mostly comes from rubbish dumps, industrial farms and leaky oil and gas wells. The pledge mainly focuses on the oil and gas element.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: not methane accomplished. <\/strong>There\u2019s some good stuff here, but some big gaps too. The commitment failed to rule out new fossil fuels, and didn\u2019t tackle industrial meat and dairy agriculture. Also, some of the world\u2019s biggest emitters \u2013 including China, Russia and India haven\u2019t signed up.<\/p>\n\n

US-China deal<\/h3>\n\n

What happened? <\/strong>China and the US agreed to work together on \u2018enhancing climate action\u2019 through the 2020s, with collaboration on the technical nuts and bolts of cutting emissions.<\/p>\n\n

Verdict: something to build on. <\/strong>Many feared that the terrible state of the US-China relationship could seriously hurt global carbon cutting efforts. So this step towards cooperation between the world\u2019s two biggest emitters is a good sign. Their joint statement says a lot of the right things, but this won\u2019t be a real breakthrough until they can back it up with some real actions.<\/p>\n\n

\"Posters
Posters featuring portraits of climate impacted people and activists and their messages to world leaders to tackle the climate and nature crisis. \u00a9 Marie Jacquemin \/ Greenpeace<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n

What does this all mean for global temperature rises?<\/h2>\n\n

You might have seen headlines talking about the world being headed for a particular amount of warming following the new pledges at COP26.<\/p>\n\n

\n

CAT global update: Glasgow has a credibility gap between talk and action. If all govts met their 2030 targets, we would have 2.4\u02daC of warming in 2100. But right now, current policies put us at 2.7\u02daC. https:\/\/t.co\/dkX4jAbo2f<\/a>
A Thread \ud83e\uddf5 pic.twitter.com\/EdLlIfdhXt<\/a><\/p>— ClimateActionTracker (@climateactiontr) November 9, 2021<\/a><\/blockquote>