A Look Back at 2021 and the COP26 Climate Summit
By Myra Jackson, Michelle Bender, and Marsha Moutrie
The Earth Law Center and COP26
As the old year ended and the new year began, we thought about 2021’s events and their impact on Earth and ELC’s work. One of the most anticipated events was the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, which convened in GIasgow, Scotland from October 31st through November 13th. Two of us had the opportunity to attend: Michelle Bender, ELC’s Ocean Campaign Director, and Myra Jackson, UN Representative and Focal Point, who has long guided and supported ELC’s work.
Myra and Michelle opted to go to Glasgow. As an official observer, Myra could witness the proceedings from “inside the room.” Her credentials allowed access to the secured Blue Zone, the conference space at Scottish Events Campus, managed by the UN, where the negotiations took place outside the public purview. Michelle joined the thousands of environmental and social activists, Indigenous people, union representatives, artists, youth groups, nonprofit groups, and uncredentialed business representatives in the Green Zone at the Glasgow Science Center. It was open to the public and offered a schedule of free, ticketed events, including workshops, panel discussions, movies, poetry readings, and exhibitions.
What did they take away? What can we all learn from the conference? Here’s a look back and some thoughts about the conference and our future work, offered from the vantage point of this new year.
COP26 and Its Participants
The UN has been organizing climate change conferences (“Conferences of the Parties” or COPs) for thirty years. The 26th (COP26) was particularly significant because it was the first at which the parties were expected to ratchet up their commitments to mitigate climate change. Under the Paris Agreement made at COP21 in 2015, parties are expected to enhance their pledges to mitigate climate change every five years. The pandemic necessitated a one-year postponement of the 2020 conference. So, COP26 was expected to produce new and stronger commitments.
The UK, which hosted the event, announced four key goals for COP26: secure net zero emissions, globally, by 2050 and keep within reach the goal of limiting global temper increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels; adapt to protect communities and natural habitats; mobilize finance to curtail global heating; and secure international cooperation to achieve results. About 40,000 reportedly registered for the conference: 22,000 political leaders and other members of national delegations, 12,000 representatives of nongovernmental organizations, 2,300 official observers, and 3,700 media representatives.
The official count of delegates actually attending is 38,347, making last year’s the largest of the COP summit ever. Delegates represented 200 countries and included 120 heads of state. The absence of the leaders of China and Russia was widely noted in the press, though China sent a delegation and its climate change envoy. Brazilian President Bolsonaro also did not attend; but his country’s delegation, numbering 479, was the largest national delegation at the conference.
The largest participating group was the fossil fuel industry. The BBC reported that 503 people with links to that industry were accredited attendees. This number included lobbyists, national delegation members, and 103 members of the International Emissions Trading Association. Lobbyists participated as delegates for 27 nations. Reportedly, they outnumbered indigenous representatives by a ratio of 2 to 1. Corporations also participated as conference sponsors, though the UK government limited sponsorship to organizations having “real commitments” to reaching net zero emissions in the “near future.” (This was a change made in response to concerns expressed about fossil fuel companies’ participation as sponsors of past COP summits.)
A Conference Characterized by Conflicting Perspectives and Divergent Goals
Like Michelle, the thousands gathered at Green Zone events and in the streets attended to express and demonstrate their commitment to environmental and social justice as inseparable goals. They also attended to learn, teach, and share their ideas and beliefs about protecting Earth. Michelle organized and opened a panel on “Rights of Nature: An Urgent and Transformative Movement to Address Climate Change”, which conference attendees could view at the New York Times Climate Hub.
In the Blue Zone, “inside the room”, motivations appeared much more complex and varied. In general, delegates went to promote their individual nation’s, corporation’s or organization’s interests through negotiation, bartering, persuasion, shaming, and other means. Heads of state and representatives of “developed” nations (generally in the global North), went to protect or enhance their nations’ present and future economic welfare and political status in the world community. Representatives from “emerging nations” went to protect their perceived pathway to development and increased prosperity.
Some were in the room seeking environmental justice. Registrants from poorer nations (mostly located in the Global South) wanted developed nations to fulfill their promises (made at the 2009 COP) to pay poorer countries $100 billion a year to address climate change. Their rationale was fairness: though they had done the least to cause climate change, they were bearing its worst brunt. Accordingly, they wanted rich countries to acknowledge their role in causing the losses and damages poor countries are suffering from increasingly extreme weather events. They also wanted rich countries to pay reparations. Representatives of poor island and coastal nations were particularly desperate for aid and reparations because their homelands are literally disappearing into rising seas.
Many more in the room went to further their existing, highly-profitable corporate endeavors and consequent power and status. Representatives of oil, gas, and other extracting industries went to ensure continuation of their current business models for as long as possible. Representatives of new, Green Technologies and businesses went to promote their interest in shifting to a Green Economy. Representatives of the world-wide banking and finance industry went seeking the financial opportunities which a “new” economy would bring. They also wanted to combat the negative impact of climate disruption upon economic and social stability, which is vital to the success of financial markets.
The UN hosts and representatives came shouldering the incredibly difficult burden of persuading nation states, industries, and organizations, with vastly different goals, needs, and situations, to come together and compromise for the common, present and future good of all countries and the Earth. The difficulty of the UN mission is illustrated by COP26 President Alok Sharma’s work at the conference.He opened the conference by asking participants act boldly to “consign coal power to history.”
Conference Outcomes
That was not to be. After two weeks of speeches, meetings, negotiations, delegates did manage to agree on the Glasgow Climate Pact. It does not consign coal power to history. The final draft of the pact had included a call to “phase out” coal power and fossil fuel subsidies. However, at the last minute, China and India proposed changing “phase out” to “phase down”, allowing for the indefinite, continued reliance on coal power and fossil fuels. This last-minute change brought strenuous objection from some countries. Nonetheless, in the interest of ensuring the pact’s adoption, the delegates accepted the revisions.
The agreement:
States that carbon emissions will have to fall by 45 percent by 2030 to sustain the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C;
Establishes new rules for trading carbon credits across national borders;
Calls for nations to return in 2022 with new, more ambitious emissions cutting targets;
Requests yearly progress reports on fulfilling commitments; and
Includes agreement by developed countries to double their collective funding of poorer countries’ climate adaptation efforts.
Obviously disappointed by the failure to phase out fossil fuels, President Sharma said of the pact, “We have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But its pulse is weak, and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action.”
In addition to the adoption of the pact, the conference yielded some important pledges. 100 plus nations pledged to cut 30% of methane emissions by 2030; 130 nations agreed to halt and then reverse deforestation by 2030; 45 countries pledged to give more than $4 billion for transitioning to sustainable agriculture; the US and other countries pledged to stop spending on fossil fuel projects abroad by 2022; the US and China, the world’s two largest emitters, agreed to work together on climate issues, despite their other conflicts; and 450 financial institutions, which collectively oversee $130 trillion in assets promised to align their portfolios with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. (The New York Times ran a guest essay entitled “Bankers Took Over Climate Summit”.)
Reactions to the Summit
Commentators’ reactions to the pact and to COP26 were mixed. UN News ‘s Martina Donlon acknowledged that the conference yielded “a compromise that is not enough, especially for small island States and other vulnerable countries” but does provide some “positive steps forward.” Experts from the Council on Foreign Relations commented that, “Countries made notable commitments … but they still fell short of the action needed to keep global warming within manageable levels.” Asked if the conference was a success, they responded, “Yes, but barely.”
In general, commentators acknowledge that, while the COP26 pact may keep the Paris Agreement alive, it will not avert the worst anticipated effects of climate change. Even if the emissions promises are fulfilled, the world will still be on the path to average temperature increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100 -- significantly above the target of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees which is necessary to avert worst consequences.
The doubling of richer countries' contributions to poorer countries for adaptation was criticized as falling far short of the estimated cost of those poor countries’ needs. Moreover, wealthier nations blocked an effort to create a loss and damage (reparations) fund and merely agreed to participate in future dialogue about increased financial support and technical assistance. Myra Jackson notes that the delegates from richer, developed nations appeared absolutely unwilling to consider reparations or even to acknowledge the damage their countries had caused to the rest of the world. She was struck by the reaction of delegates from Pacific Island nations, which face annihilation by rising seas. Distraught, they left asking, “What will we tell our children?”
In addition to criticisms of the pact’s substance, there were complaints about the process. Women and young people were under-represented in the decision-making process. Many registrants from poorer nations, particularly in the global south, were excluded from participation by limited resources and Covid related travel restrictions. One commentator observed that COP26 seemed, in comparison to past UN climate summits, more White and more like DAVOS – a gathering of the rich and powerful for the benefit of the rich and powerful, many of whom arrived by private jet.
A review in Forbes magazine stated: “[L]acking from the discussions at COP26 was the understanding that reaching net zero emissions requires more than just a switch from one energy source to another, but a reinvention of current modes of production and consumption.” We at Earth Law agree that reinvention of current modes of production and consumption are essential, but much more is needed as is demonstrated by the ongoing and relentless series of disasters afflicting the planet.
What’s Happened Since COP26
The day after COP 26 ended, heavy rains and flash flooding in Egypt crumbled mud-brick houses around Aswan and washed hundreds, perhaps thousands of ground-dwelling, poisonous scorpions into villages. The scorpions are known as Deathstalkers because their sting can be deadly. After the flood, the Deathstalkers stung at least 500 people in one day, inundating local emergency rooms.
A severe storm in the US Midwest spawned dozens of tornados which brought destruction to seven US states in one day. One of them cut a 260-mile swath through Tennessee, pulverizing anything in its way, including entire neighborhoods and most of one town. The number of the tornadoes, the length of the most severe tornado’s path, and the fact that this event occurred outside the usual tornado season, all attested to the unprecedented extremity of the event.
Flood water inundated 116 cities in northeastern Brazil, affecting 470,000 people, leaving over 70,000 people homeless or displaced in the State of Bahia.
Super hurricane Rai battered the Philippines, with flooding and winds of up to 168 miles per hour. Over 200 people were killed and 300,00 were evacuated. It was the island nation’s 15th major storm of 2021.
A wildfire raced across drought-decimated grasslands and into residential neighborhoods north of Denver, forcing tens of thousands of Colorado residents to flee their suburban homes with little or no time to pack vehicles. Unseasonable winds gusted at 110 miles per hour. Thousands of homes were destroyed.
These incidents demonstrate the increasingly destructive power of weather events supercharged by climate change. In a matter of hours, or even minutes, a town or neighborhood can be inundated by flood waters, pulverized by winds, or reduced to ashes. As COP26 demonstrates, diplomacy moves slowly; winds, fires, and floods move very, very fast. Effectuation of the commitments made at COP26 is uncertain; the continuance of increasingly ferocious, climate-related disasters is not.
Along with the post-COP26 disasters, recent weeks have included signs of hope. For example, the New York Times reported that 155 Chileans have been elected to write a new constitution during what Chile has declared to be “a climate and ecological emergency”. Among the questions to be considered by the group are how to regulate mining, whether nature should have rights, and how to protect the environment for the welfare of future generations. To help promote environmental injustice, the Biden White House has mandated the replication and use by federal agencies of a regulatory tool developed by the State of California. It uses data and mapping to correlate environmental impacts with income and thereby direct governmental resources to communities overwhelmed by toxic air and economic hardship. It also forces local officials to consider that history when granting various permits.
ELC will continue to push for transformative change
The limited results attained at COP26 were disappointing. At ELC, we were particularly disappointed that the conference focused almost exclusively on economic, technical and market fixes to the climate catastrophe. We have heard time and time again that we need transformative change to address climate change, but what does that actually mean? At Earth Law Center we believe we need to advance a transformation in the values and ethics that underlie our legal, governance and economic systems--- how we value, relate to, and treat Nature. Earth law and Rights of Nature is one way to transform our values and systems to address climate change at its roots by recognizing the interconnectedness and dependency of human and economic systems on Earth's natural systems.
At the New York Times Climate Hub session, Michelle reflected on the scant attention paid to the role of ocean health, which is vital to the health of all life on Earth. She commented, “Human-centered values and priorities dominate conservation agendas and frameworks. Consider the main staple of this COP, the Paris Agreement, where the Ocean is only mentioned in the preamble ... and where economy or economics is mentioned over 20 times.” Consistent with this focus, COP26 delegates displayed little or no willingness to question basic assumptions about Nature as human property to be used for private gain and human convenience – no impulse to move towards Earth stewardship by learning to consume and live differently. Delegates appeared to believe that by simply replacing fuel sources and properly harnessing technological advances, the climate catastrophe could be solved without any changes in law or lifestyles in wealthier nations.
While we wish that COP26 had accomplished more, we realize that there are serious limitations on what can be accomplished through the COP model. There is no world government, no global environmental law, and no world court with jurisdiction to enforce the COP26 Pact or similar agreements. However, the UN COP summits provide a forum for the creation of voluntary agreements between and among nations. Perhaps even more important, the summits provide a rare opportunity for in person, global communication and shared experience. They facilitate communication between divergent countries and interests -- between the neediest and the wealthiest nations and between the Global South and North -- an opportunity to work for the common welfare of all people and the entire community of life on Earth.
The summits also provide a vital opportunity for governments to hear from the people. The Glasgow gathering included several massive street demonstrations. On November 5th, Greta Thunberg spoke to thousands of young people and schoolchildren at a Fridays for Future rally, demanding action, not talk. On November 6, designated the Global Day of Action for Climate Justice, 100,00 people marched in Glasgow, and thousands more marched in other cities. News reports estimated that a global total of over two million people took to the streets, demanding action.
While disappointing, it is not surprising that negotiations and governments act slowly. Governmental leaders must balance competing policies and interests, including balancing their countries’ short-term economic interests against their peoples’ and future generations’ long-term welfare.
However, that does not mean that the young people and others, like those consigned to the Green Zone and those marching in the streets should be patient. Indeed, it means the opposite. The continuing onslaught of climate-related disasters demonstrates that impatience is not only warranted. It’s essential. Earth is heating even faster than anticipated by the scientific community. Nature won’t wait on the ponderous progress of diplomacy.
In his closing remarks, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized the need for ongoing pressure on world governments and acknowledged the power of activism and of the “climate action army”, which took to the Glasgow streets by the tens of thousands. He admonished that army, saying, “Never give up. Never retreat. Keep pushing forward.”
The COP process provides possibilities. Here at Earth Law, we will keep pushing for results. We will push for a transition away from classifying Earth as human property and toward a new paradigm of Earth-centered laws and policies. We will continue advocating in council chambers and the courts. We will continue to assist others in their fight for social justice and Earth stewardship. COP26 demonstrated to us that, despite huge disparities in wealth, power and interests, world-wide progress can be made towards living in Harmony with Nature. ELC will push, ever harder, to speed that progress.
