Has climate change talk up to COP26 all just been 'blah, blah, blah'?

Ever since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was agreed to, subsequent negotiations at the UNFCCC's Conference of the Parties (COP) have been fraught. Walkouts have occurred, and in 2001 and 2009 it seemed, for various reasons, that multilateral negotiations were over for good. Yet in 2015 the Paris Agreement was born, with all countries committing to actions consistent with their national interest. Now, six later, we're heading into COP26. Under an ambitious UK presidency, in partnership with Italy, the goals of COP26 are to secure global net zero by 2050 and keep 1.5 degrees within reach, to adapt to protect communities and natural habitats, to mobilise finance, and to work together to deliver.

Greta's three "blahs" were very insightful, as there are in fact three main areas where we need to see urgent new action.

The first, and most obvious one, is cutting emissions. The IPCC's recent Sixth Assessment Report confirmed that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher than at any time in at least 2 million years, and concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide are higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. The 1.5-degree global warming level will be reached between 2021 and 2040. Australia has already warmed by 1.4 degrees.

The World Disasters Report 2020, meanwhile, states that in 2020, during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 100 disasters affected over 50 million people. About 99 per cent of these disasters were extreme climate- and weather-related disasters.

Yet despite this code-red warning, the September 2021 UNFCCC Synthesis Report states that all the emissions reduction targets recorded as at July 30 this year, including the US and EU net zero by 2050 commitments, will result in emissions being 16.3 per cent above the 2010 level by 2030. The IPCC says that to meet the 1.5-degree warming goal, carbon dioxide emissions need to decline by about 45 per cent from the 2010 level by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. So, by 2030, there's an overshoot of 61.3 per cent above 2010 levels - "blah, blah, blah".

There's also a big "blah" when it comes to adaptation. National adaptation plans are required under the Paris Agreement, but very few have been developed. They depend on financing in developing countries. In October 2019, the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics found that with below 2 degrees of warming and $US200 billion of adaptation measures in place, climate-induced losses start at $US400 billion each year by 2030. However, in 2020, the Green Climate Fund reporteds only $US8.3 billion in pledges had been received, down from $US10.4 billion in 2019. Developed countries agreed in 2010 to give developing countries $US100 billion per year - an amount that should be up to $US1.1 trillion by now. US President Joe Biden has pledged another $1 billion. All of this still adds up "blah, blah, blah".

Perhaps most concerningly, there is a "blah" when it comes to compensating losses that are now inevitable, thanks to our slow action on cutting emissions. In 2013, the parties to the UNFCCC agreed to deal with climate-induced loss and damage in particularly vulnerable developing countries under the Warsaw International Mechanism. However, the Paris Agreement does not provide compensation for loss and damage. The Warsaw International Mechanism executive committee has produced impressive research reports and established a task force on displacement - an issue on which it has released extensive recommendations. It has disseminated information on insurance - although we know that the uptake of insurance in developed and developing countries is very low. There is also no Green Climate Fund funding allocated to loss and damage (and displacement).

READ MORE:

So, how can we move from "blah, blah, blah" to something meaningful? The way we'll keep track on whether countries are meeting their Paris targets is through the Paris Agreement's global stocktake in 2023, and every five years thereafter. Countries must also submit biennial transparency reports starting on December 31, 2024, which will be reviewed by a technical expert review team. Given the Synthesis Report's devastating findings, are the outcomes of these stocktakes and transparency reports self-evident? It has taken five years to establish the Paris Agreement's implementation and compliance committee. It is early days, but proceedings against countries must be "facilitative in nature and function in a manner that is transparent, non-adversarial, and non-punitive". So we also need renewed focus on more effective enforcement, if countries are to be held accountable for their climate pledges.

My conclusion is that the progress on climate change to date has been far too slow since 1992. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report confirms this. However - and this is absolutely crucial - without the "blah, blah, blah" there would be no action taken at all on climate change.

The Paris Agreement sets the guardrails on what countries must do - and very urgently - to avert the worst impacts of climate change. It has provided the justification for corporations to respond in the many ways that they have, and for civil society to rise up and demand its implementation against recalcitrant countries. It is hopefully the catalyst for major private sector investments, where governments have failed. Without it, everyone, and not just our political leaders, would just be shouting into the wind.