Insufficient!
Considering the magnitude of the challenge humanity is facing, the results offered by the latest Conference of the Parties (COP) can only be described in such a way.
Honestly, is this the best we can do?
The 197 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached agreement on a range of topics, including finalizing the “rulebook” for implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement.
But that's to be expected at any and every COP.
Scientists, representatives of climate-threatened communities and even the private sector reps all criticised the final outcome as insufficient.
The legacy of COP26 will depend on whether the international community can build on the promises made in Glasgow.
But we have been hearing promises since 2008.
Green funding, abatement, mitigation lower CO2.
Bla, bla, bla...
... It's just not happening fast enough.
From a scientific perspective, COP26 fell short. If by some miracle, political lobbyists from all 197 countries present at the COP decided to stop vying for fossil fuel interests, a best case scenario has us set for 1.5 to 2.4 degrees Celsius temperature rise.
Between 2008-2011 I worked for Her Majesty's Government on a diplomatic mission to help the world avoid disastrous climate change.
Back then, already, we were doing our best efforts to convince the planet immediate action was to be taken to avoid a 2 degree Celsius rise in average temperatures.
If a decade ago, a 2 degree rise would set a series of disastrous climate change events, the same is true today.
So if we are looking at a best case scenario between 1.5 and 2.4 ...
... WE HAVE FAILED
Tina Stege, Climate Envoy for the Marshall Islands, stressed that a 1.8 degree world is unfathomable for many communities, including her own, already experiencing flooded homes during high tides and even greater destruction during major storms:
“That’s happening now at 1.1. - So I don’t want to talk about 1.8.”
Anything greater than 1.5 degrees will have devastating ecological and social impacts, particularly for the most vulnerable communities, with each fraction of a degree increasing the global risk of catastrophic ecological tipping points.
From a justice perspective, COP26 also failed.
Twelve years ago, wealthy, industrialised countries (Annex 1) pledged $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries suffering the greatest impacts from climate change.
Wealthy countries and multilateral development banks failed to meet this target for 2020 and 2021, with only an estimated $80 million so far provided.
Also, the financial support received is almost all financing mitigation and not adaptation.
Even more disappointing was the failure to agree on a new “loss and damage” funding mechanism. This would compensate communities for significant climate costs that cannot be adapted to, such as the irreversible loss of land or ecosystems.
COP26 managed to put into operation the Santiago Network and include on Loss and Damage technical support facility but it denied the primary ask from those communities that are most-affected: new financial compensation for loss and damage.
The United States and several European Union member sates are concerned about opening the doors to potentially unlimited liability for climate change. Therefore they vetoed the creation of a “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility.”
For the first time (amazingly), a COP outcome specifically mentioned fossil fuels, with the Glasgow Pact calling for coal power and fossil fuel subsidies to be “phased down.”
China and India made a successful last-minute push to change the language (deemed too strong) frustrating COP26 President Alok Sharma and drawing harsh criticism from the High Ambition Coalition and climate activists. Still, it marked an important step forward, and one that few expected at the start of the summit.
Maybe - trying to be positive here - overall, the Glasgow Pact reflected much more urgency in the text than previous COPs, “expressing alarm and utmost concern” about climate change.
In UN-speak that's pretty big.
While the ink is still setting on the Glasgow Pact, eyes are already casting forward to COP27 in Sharm-el-Sheik, Egypt.
Parties will face significant pressure to show that they are meeting the urgency of the climate crisis.
To do this, they must close gaps in both ambition and implementation.
Looking towards next year, let's hope Africa delivers like the UK did not.