Glasgow: The UN climate talks in Scotland ended with a global agreement aimed at keeping alive hopes of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and therefore giving the world some chance of saving a catastrophic climate change. have to keep.
Alok Sharma, conference https://www.reuters.com/business/cop president, was clearly emotional before thrashing his executioner in relief, pointing out that the nearly 200 national delegations present in Glasgow range from coal to no veto Was. — and gas-fueled superpowers for oil producers and Pacific islands are being swallowed up by sea level rise.
The two-week conference in Glasgow, extended by an additional day, was the first of its kind but the first to call for a reduction in fossil fuels, which power not only the world’s economy, but the main cause of man. Is. – Produced global warming. Is.
But there was last-minute drama in the form of India, whose energy needs are heavily dependent on coal – last-minute objections were raised to this part of the agreement.
This section was hastily amended to accelerate “efforts to end coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” that were undermining “phasing out efforts”.
The prosperous economies of the European Union and Switzerland, as well as the Marshall Islands, one of the smaller Pacific island states whose existence is threatened by rising sea levels, met the transition with gloom.
But everyone said they would let it stand for the overall agreement.
“The approved texts are a compromise. They reflect the state of interests, circumstances, contradictions and political will in the world today,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
“They take important steps, but unfortunately the collective political will was not enough to address some of the deepest contradictions.”
‘deep disappointment’
Sharma had the difficult task of balancing the demands of climate-vulnerable 11-11 countries, large industrial powers, and countries like India and China, whose consumption or export of fossil fuels is critical to their economic growth.
His voice became emotional as he heard vulnerable countries expressing their anger at the last-minute changes.
“May I say to all the delegates that I apologize and I am deeply sorry for the way this process turned out,” he told the gathered delegates.
“I also understand the deep disappointment but I think, as you noted, it is also important that we protect this package.”
The overarching goal they set ahead of the conference was one that climate campaigners and vulnerable countries found too modest – namely, the 2015 Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming of 1.5 degrees “alive” https://www.reuters Is. com/business/cop/whats-difference-between-15c-2c-global-warming-2021-11-07 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
The agreement in effect acknowledged that commitments made so far to cut emissions of planet-heating greenhouse gases are nowhere near enough, and called on nations to establish tougher climate pledges next year instead of every five years, as in They currently need to.
Scientists say that to go beyond a 1.5C rise, there will be extreme sea level rise and catastrophe, including devastating droughts, monstrous storms and wildfires, far more than what the world is already facing. is destructive.
But national resolutions made so far to cut greenhouse emissions – mostly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and gas – will limit the average global temperature rise to just 2.4 Celsius.
‘The coal age is coming to an end’
Jennifer Morgan, executive director of campaign group Greenpeace, saw the glass as half full.
“They changed one word, but they can’t change the signal coming out of this COP, that the coal age is coming to an end,” she said. “If you’re a coal company executive, this COP saw a bad outcome.”
Developing countries argue that prosperous nations, whose historical emissions are to warm the planet, will have to pay more to help reduce their carbon footprint as well as adapt to its consequences.
The deal gave the poorest countries more promises, but no guarantees, that they would eventually get more of the financial aid they had long been told.
It urged rich countries to double finance for climate adaptation by 2025 from 2019 levels, which has been a key demand of the small island nations at the conference.
Adaptation funding goes mainly to the poorest countries and currently accounts for only a small fraction of climate funding.
A UN committee will report next year on progress toward providing $100 billion per year in overall annual climate funding that rich countries promised by 2020 but failed to meet. And governments will be called to meet in 2022, 2024 and 2026 to discuss climate finance.
Yet $100 billion a year is far short of the actual needs of poor countries, which could reach $300 billion in adaptation costs alone by 2030, according to the United Nations, due to economic losses from crop failures or climate-related disasters. with. Apart from.
(Additional reporting by William James, Elizabeth Piper, Simon Jessop, Andrea Januta and Richard Waldmanis; Editing by Katie Daigle and Francis Carey, Writing by Kevin Liffey)
Disclaimer: This post has been self-published from the agency feed without modification and has not been reviewed by an editor
read all breaking news, breaking news And coronavirus news Here. follow us on Facebook, Twitter And wire,