Climate Summit (COP26) enters its second week with global consensus on one matter: that climate is already changing at a dangerous pace due to human activities. If some consider this an already established given, it is worth remembering that it wasn’t long ago that the voices of skeptics continued to resound, even at the highest levels of decision-making, from the United States to Brazil, all the way down to Australia. Within a few months, the new US administration overturned former President Donald Trump's climate policies, and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro lost credibility at home and abroad, on issues ranging from climate to coronavirus, with the two ending up in courts. Not to forget also that until recently there were some voices in mainstream media promoting a conspiracy theory claiming that climate change is a hoax invented by industrialized countries to impose restrictions that hinder the progress of developing countries.
It is true that, for the first time since the launch of the climate summits 26 years ago, the voice of skeptics was completely silenced in the corridors of the conference. But accepting the existence of the problem and its causes is one thing, and agreeing on effective solutions is another matter entirely. Despite the enthusiasm shown by heads of state in their opening statements, it was clear that the dispute still remained over the distribution of the burdens of tackling climate change: who starts first, who is given additional grace period, who pays the cost, how will the shares be distributed, at what speed will emissions be stopped entirely, and will the timeframe be the same for all, or varying according to different situations?
One upshot from the first week is that the topic of capturing carbon from burning fossil fuels, to reuse it for industrial purposes or store it safely, was put on the table as a serious option, after it was previously presented as a far-fetched experimental idea. Technological developments in recent years have made it part of the package. However, wide acceptance of this technology depends on the success in achieving safe and cheap methods ready to put into action.
The most prominent turning point in this field may be the strong entry of Saudi Arabia's Circular Carbon Economy Initiative, through local research and applications, as well as international partnerships. The initiative is accompanied by producing hydrogen as a clean energy carrier and exporting it in liquefied form. It remains to be seen whether practical results can be reached quickly, while keeping the priority on enhancing efficiency, modifying consumption patterns, shifting to cleaner production patterns, and spreading renewable energy.
Some countries have also proposed reconsidering nuclear technology as an acceptable option for producing clean energy that results in a rapid reduction in carbon emissions. However, if "clean" is a true description with regard to nuclear energy being carbon-free, adequate safety and security guarantees during power production, as well as storage of radioactive waste coming from nuclear plants still need to be strengthened.
Two major developments were behind bringing these alternatives up for discussion: the first is the intensification of the effects of climate change in recent years, which has made rapid acceleration towards drastically decreasing carbon emissions an urgent matter that cannot be postponed. The second development is what has been proven in recent months that renewable sources alone are not sufficient in the foreseeable future to provide the world with all the energy it needs. Pending the materialization of the best solutions in terms of cost and safety, carbon capture, reuse and storage seems to be a safer option, in addition to being the most advantageous for oil and gas producing countries.
Oil producing countries are not alone in calling for a smoother transition that avoids economic turmoil. In the corridors of Glasgow, meat producers, led by Brazil, are campaigning against the adoption of recommendations to reduce meat production and consumption. But despite this, Brazil was one of the signatories on an agreement reached by the conference to stop cutting forests and rehabilitating them, a measure which puts restrictions on raising cows and growing fodder. On another hand, some of the major coal producing countries that use it as a main source of energy have been reluctant to abandon it quickly. While 40 countries committed during the first week of the conference to stop the use of coal, in different stages before middle of the century, China settled for stopping funding of new coal-fired power plants projects abroad, while continuing to rely on it within its borders. Other countries, such as India and South Africa, are waiting for more aid to finance the transition from coal to cleaner energy sources. While the United States remained outside the coal agreement, it was among 20 countries that pledged to stop funding fossil fuel projects abroad starting in 2022, unless they adopt carbon capture and storage technology.
A few days ago, a television channel presented a report on COP26 titled "The Last Chance", and asked me how countries can be persuaded to implement their commitments, and how to exert pressure on China, the biggest polluter today, to reduce its emissions quickly and decisively. My answer was that I do not subscribe to the "last chance" warnings, because the world is still in critical negotiations and is unlikely to engage in collective suicide. The United States has returned to the climate arena as a major player alongside the European Union, which began implementing its Green Deal as roadmap to transit to a carbon-neutral economy years before 2050. For the first time, China committed to a specific date to reach zero emissions, although in 2060 rather than 2050. Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer in the world, also committed to stopping carbon emissions completely before 2060, in parallel with an implementation program included in Vision 2030 and the Green Saudi Initiative, which were strongly present during discussions of the first week of the summit.
As for China, the real pressure to reduce its emissions is to put an end to the consumer boom around the world, which satiates its appetite by buying cheaper Chinese products, due to weaker environmental restrictions in the country. An option to solve this dilemma may be to calculate carbon emissions from Chinese products in the countries of consumption and not in the country of origin, or at least divide them on both sides.
Politicians can no longer ignore the moral pressure imposed by the scientific consensus on climate change and its effects, and the pressure of public opinion around the world, all the way to the streets of Glasgow and the halls of the summit, especially among young people.
As negotiations continue in the second week to reach inevitable compromises, with clear progress on mutual commitments in sight, the Glasgow summit will eventually agree on resolutions that may not meet all aspirations. This will not be the last chance, but a good leap forward, which will open the door to many opportunities for years to come.
