Speaker 1: the following is a CNN a podcast. May I just
Speaker 1: say to all delegates, I
Speaker 2: apologize for
Speaker 1: the way this process has unfolded and I'm deeply
Speaker 2: sorry, I
Speaker 1: also understand the deep disappointment but I think as you
Speaker 1: have noted it's also vital that we protect this package.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the climate conversations. I'm Jamie ho and
Speaker 1: that was president of the last conference of parties. Alok
Speaker 1: Sharma so cop 26 is over and all eyes on
Speaker 1: the next year in Egypt.
Speaker 1: So the expectations of the world on Glasgow, just what
Speaker 1: did the two week conference achieve? We've heard analogies are plenty.
Speaker 1: The goal of keeping temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius
Speaker 1: is alive but its pulse this week. Besides that, what
Speaker 1: did the nearly 200 countries and parties to the UN's
Speaker 1: climate convention achieve where they did fall below expectations. It's
Speaker 1: been said that the can has been kicked down the
Speaker 1: road at least two next year and a new president
Speaker 1: to guide negotiations. But can we really afford to do
Speaker 1: that
Speaker 1: with me to discuss? This is Melissa law research fellow
Speaker 1: at the N. U. S. Energy Studies Institute
Speaker 1: Having participated in previous cops for over a decade. Melissa
Speaker 1: this time has been tracking 26 negotiations from home Melissa.
Speaker 1: Welcome
Speaker 2: Jamie, thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1: You're a cop veteran. You've been to? I don't know
Speaker 1: how many now in the past and you apparently weren't
Speaker 1: in Glasgow, tell us why you didn't go this time
Speaker 1: and what it was like keeping track of things all
Speaker 1: the way from here.
Speaker 2: I decided not to go to Glasgow this year? First?
Speaker 2: Of course I needed a break. I have travel anxiety,
Speaker 2: but also because I decided to save my emissions, not
Speaker 2: go to Glasgow. Yes, and also because the presidency promised
Speaker 2: a virtual platform, the cop 26 virtual platform and all
Speaker 2: of us who are credited,
Speaker 2: we have access to this platform, so I was accredited
Speaker 2: and I decided to go on. However,
Speaker 2: there were quite a few technical glitches in the first week,
Speaker 2: which meant that some of us observing from afar, we're
Speaker 2: not really able to go in, but it's okay. I'm
Speaker 2: on quite a number of mailing lists and there were
Speaker 2: people updating about the car, you know, what was happening
Speaker 2: inside the Scottish event campus. So there was no shortage
Speaker 2: of information coming out of Glasgow,
Speaker 1: I will take it that you were then at least
Speaker 1: able to keep track of things unfold on a daily basis.
Speaker 1: Right back to the substance Glasgow was meant to be
Speaker 1: a really big caught, the one after paris in 2015
Speaker 1: that would operationalize many of the decisions from paris. There
Speaker 1: was so much riding on it now, we've had a
Speaker 1: few days to digest it, a few days to read
Speaker 1: through all the reports, what's your take
Speaker 1: on what happened? It's not exactly a definitive moment for
Speaker 1: concerted climate action that we'd all maybe hopeful. But in
Speaker 1: your eyes, were there really big surprises,
Speaker 1: maybe a few wins, then what's your take on the
Speaker 1: biggest disappointments? You
Speaker 2: Just need to Google Cop 26 and you'll know right.
Speaker 2: A lot of mixed reactions about whether the cup was
Speaker 2: a success or failure. I personally think that there were
Speaker 2: some winds but there were also a number of disappointments.
Speaker 2: I think for me one of the big winds was
Speaker 2: that the U. K. Really displayed great diplomacy and they
Speaker 2: managed to invite some 120 world leaders and these world
Speaker 2: leaders attended something called the World Leaders Summit on the
Speaker 2: 1st and 2nd of november, the UK presidency said these
Speaker 2: were decorations on coal, cars, cash and trees.
Speaker 2: It also includes maintain some of the big declarations, if
Speaker 2: you don't mind, I'll just share here. Was that a
Speaker 2: number of countries, I think something like 42 of them
Speaker 2: have set coal phase out dates and also they have
Speaker 2: publicly announced that they would end finance or coal. And
Speaker 2: then for cars over 20 countries also signed some pledge
Speaker 2: By 2035 that they would actually have zero emission cars
Speaker 2: on the roads. But then some of the observers have
Speaker 2: pointed out that major car manufacturers such as like Germany
Speaker 2: China France, Japan and us have not joined this declaration.
Speaker 2: There was also something on forests. Very, very big news
Speaker 2: about forests.
Speaker 2: 141 countries actually pledged to halt and reverse deforestation
Speaker 2: By 2030 or within the decade and that's significant. There
Speaker 2: was another one on methane where over 100 countries agreed
Speaker 2: to reduce methane emissions. You know maintain emissions got a
Speaker 2: higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide. So they've agreed
Speaker 2: to reduce this by 30% from 2020 levels by the
Speaker 2: end of the decade as well. And there was quite
Speaker 2: a bit of money I think 328 million
Speaker 2: pledged by a number of philanthropies to to tackle methane
Speaker 2: as well. What was really surprising actually for me was
Speaker 2: the US china joint Glasgow declaration on enhancing climb action
Speaker 2: in the 2020. This was really big. I think nobody
Speaker 2: really saw it coming. It was a surprise announcement in
Speaker 2: the second week
Speaker 2: and in fact this was the same people
Speaker 2: that made some announcements about US china called a collaboration prepare.
Speaker 2: It's right so this is us special envoy john Kerry
Speaker 2: and his chinese counterpart Seattle wa There was a bit
Speaker 2: of a gap in the last four years for the U. S.
Speaker 2: But I think a lot of people were pleasantly surprised
Speaker 2: that the U. S. And china decided to collaborate and
Speaker 2: I think it really
Speaker 2: took us over the finish line. So those are a
Speaker 2: couple of the winds. I feel maybe I just mentioned
Speaker 2: one more ahead of cop 26 2020 was supposed to
Speaker 2: have been the year of cop 26 it was also
Speaker 2: the year where the updated climate pledges or nationally determined
Speaker 2: contributions were due because of the covid 19 pandemic.
Speaker 2: The submissions were fine and few between
Speaker 2: last year. We were really hoping that countries would step
Speaker 2: up this year and ahead of cop 26 submit all
Speaker 2: of the updated pledges by the end of cop 26.
Speaker 2: We had something like 100 and 50 over countries who
Speaker 2: had submitted the updated NBC's. This is important because this
Speaker 2: shows commitment to the paris agreement. It shows commitment to
Speaker 2: the process.
Speaker 2: And we also saw a number of net zero commitments
Speaker 2: grow ahead of the cop. I mean there were really
Speaker 2: some surprising names right countries that came up with net
Speaker 2: zero targets. These are arab countries in the week prior
Speaker 2: to cop the U. A. E. United arab Emirates who
Speaker 2: will host cop 28 in 2023.
Speaker 2: They had announced a net zero target by 2050. And
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia also committed to net zero emissions by 2060.
Speaker 2: Even India also committed to net zero by 2070 during
Speaker 2: the cup itself. So with some of these additional commitments,
Speaker 2: the international Energy agency actually put out some very early
Speaker 2: estimates saying that we might be able to keep global
Speaker 2: warming to about 1.8 degrees
Speaker 2: Celsius. But then some experts have also said that there
Speaker 2: may be a bit too optimistic. So we'll see what
Speaker 2: the data analysis comes up in the coming days and weeks.
Speaker 2: All of this was kind of a result of the
Speaker 2: big push because of the I. P. C. C. The
Speaker 2: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had released a report in
Speaker 2: august so it's really timely. This is the working group.
Speaker 2: One report
Speaker 2: that report said that it's really urgent climate crisis is
Speaker 2: happening and we must act
Speaker 2: For me, those were the major issues going in to
Speaker 2: the carbon at the car. But of course for me,
Speaker 2: the biggest win was the completion of the Paris rulebook.
Speaker 2: Uh and you see issues like common timeframes reporting tables
Speaker 2: for transparency and Article six all concluded thankfully at this car.
Speaker 2: And that kind of means that we have
Speaker 2: the full set of rules and we can move on
Speaker 2: and get to implementation.
Speaker 1: Well you've definitely laid it all out. But as you
Speaker 1: were speaking then, I sort of see two sets of
Speaker 1: issues and decisions and news that came out over the
Speaker 1: last two weeks. And I suppose one part of the
Speaker 1: part of
Speaker 1: things that happened were sort of things not necessarily related
Speaker 1: to the formal negotiations at the U N F triple C.
Speaker 1: So all the declarations that came, for example, all the
Speaker 1: leaders declarations that came before negotiators actually started negotiating. And
Speaker 1: we had as you say, all the announcements of methane
Speaker 1: and the forestation, even the US china announcement as well,
Speaker 1: which was kind of separate from the negotiations. But as
Speaker 1: you say, may have provided some impetus for the talks.
Speaker 2: Do you think all
Speaker 1: that happening in parallel had
Speaker 1: significant enough impact on the actual formal negotiations as they
Speaker 1: looked at really decision text for example, which all negotiators
Speaker 1: looked towards and the world looks towards as well. Was
Speaker 1: that enough? And do you think that adds to the
Speaker 2: decision or does it
Speaker 1: actually detract from some of the more concrete things that
Speaker 1: people had hoped that all parties to the U N. F.
Speaker 1: To percy would agree to? Because as you say, there
Speaker 1: was some disappointing parts to it as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So you're right, Jamie, I think there were some
Speaker 2: people who felt that these big declarations on cold cash
Speaker 2: cars and trees were considered site deals by the UK
Speaker 2: presidency and there were certainly not formally part of the
Speaker 2: U N F C C C process. I think some
Speaker 2: people also felt that the leaders being in week one
Speaker 2: at the conference actually reduce access a little bit more
Speaker 2: as well because of all the security detail around some
Speaker 2: of these world leaders, the access for observers going into
Speaker 2: the negotiating routes was even smaller. We also know that
Speaker 2: these countries that made these declarations,
Speaker 2: they haven't actually included these in the N D C. S. Right?
Speaker 2: The nationally determined contributions.
Speaker 2: So how will they be held accountable?
Speaker 1: You
Speaker 2: Know, fulfilling these targets as well. And I talked about
Speaker 2: net zero and yourself alluded to it as well. These
Speaker 2: are big dreams, right? Net zero by 2050 it somewhere
Speaker 2: where 30 years away. And we just don't have the
Speaker 2: time or the carbon budget to wait that long.
Speaker 2: Many members of civil society, maybe even some governments
Speaker 2: are really upset right about this are disappointed because I
Speaker 2: read somewhere it's called like a betrayal. And uh so
Speaker 2: there were many countries also who said that there could
Speaker 2: have been more balance in the agenda. So heavily focused
Speaker 2: on mitigation while other issues are adaptation and loss and
Speaker 2: damage finance were actually sidelined
Speaker 2: because of the nature of
Speaker 2: wanting to finalize the paris agreement rules as it were.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wanted to jump in on a couple of numbers. Okay.
Speaker 1: And I'll use your experience having observed these negotiations over
Speaker 1: maybe even more than a decade and that's basically the
Speaker 1: 1.5 degree aspiration and go versus the two degree
Speaker 1: aspiration angle.
Speaker 1: You see different perspectives and where people lie on the spectrum, right?
Speaker 1: Some will feel that you know, 1.5 really is on
Speaker 1: life support. You know, hopefully they'll get there but maybe not.
Speaker 1: But there's some voices as well which are on the
Speaker 1: optimistic side say that actually is now entrenched in the U.N.F.
Speaker 1: people see in the global sort of mindset and
Speaker 2: No one's really talking about two
Speaker 1: degrees anymore. It's not aspiring for 1.5 degrees. Even if
Speaker 1: it's going to be tough. What's your take, having seen
Speaker 1: how over the last 10, 12 years people have spoken
Speaker 1: about 1.5 or two degrees that you know, how would
Speaker 1: you conceptualize and contextualized where we are now compared to
Speaker 1: back then,
Speaker 2: since paris we've certainly seen
Speaker 2: More focused on 1.5 as opposed to 2°, even though
Speaker 2: 2° is also enshrined
Speaker 2: as you know, in the paris agreement, there was a quote,
Speaker 2: I think the representative from kenya who said that 1.5
Speaker 2: is unacceptable even to them because it feels something like
Speaker 2: three degrees on the ground and they will experience it
Speaker 2: very differently from a country that might be able to
Speaker 2: adapt to the level of temperature increase. And of course,
Speaker 2: it's an existential issue for small islands
Speaker 2: And I remind you of Singapore is a small island
Speaker 2: as well. So those of us who are acceptable to
Speaker 2: sea level, right? I think we really don't have time
Speaker 2: to waste and 1.5 shouldn't be an aspiration. It is
Speaker 2: a threshold beyond which I think the adverse effects of
Speaker 2: climate change will really be felt and it really is
Speaker 2: being felt this year even
Speaker 2: And the preceding years. So it's really important that we
Speaker 2: stay true to this. 1.5. I do see, as you
Speaker 2: said that there's been a lot of focus, we are
Speaker 2: now focusing more on 1.5 as opposed to two degrees
Speaker 2: because we recognize that the world vulnerable are really going
Speaker 2: to bear the brunt of climate effects. I do see
Speaker 2: more of it these days.
Speaker 1: But the thing is this, there is more attention on it,
Speaker 1: But it's just barely there. And a big part of
Speaker 1: really getting to 1.5, therefore, is everyone really coming up
Speaker 1: with stronger and more ambitious at DCs correct. I suppose
Speaker 1: one of the things that this car agreed to at
Speaker 1: least was that people will come back next year with
Speaker 1: potentially more and hopefully more ambitious targets, was this something
Speaker 1: of a surprise to you that people agree to come
Speaker 1: back so soon? Or did you
Speaker 1: for see some degree of reticence and maybe not total
Speaker 1: agreement that they would come back so soon, given what
Speaker 1: was decided in paris,
Speaker 2: I was completely surprised by this statement or this provision
Speaker 2: in the covering decision of the Glasgow Climate Pact and
Speaker 2: this was originally introduced by the UK presidency.
Speaker 2: So I actually went on record and then said that
Speaker 2: it's not what countries
Speaker 1: agree in
Speaker 2: paris, so they're not going to agree to it, but
Speaker 2: then it remained in the text. And so this has
Speaker 2: led to countries like Singapore, Minister for sustainability and the
Speaker 2: environment actually sit that Singapore will revisit its NBC. So
Speaker 2: I think that's promising.
Speaker 2: However, NBCS is one part of it and the majority
Speaker 2: of the developing world
Speaker 2: have actually called for greater international support in order to
Speaker 2: fulfill some of their conditional targets in the NBCS Trust
Speaker 2: is super important with regard to these international meetings and
Speaker 2: processes where the covering decision is concerned, there was also
Speaker 2: this term that made it into the final text which
Speaker 2: is to express deep regret
Speaker 2: On the failure of developed countries to mobilize the US100
Speaker 2: billion per year by 2020. The NBC suddenly have to
Speaker 2: be taken into consideration the context of whether finance will
Speaker 2: be mobilized as well and whether developing countries ought to
Speaker 2: trust that the developed
Speaker 2: World because of historical responsibility among other things have to provide. Right.
Speaker 2: And this is all enshrined in the convention as you
Speaker 2: know that they always go back to it over and
Speaker 2: over again, right? The principles of common but differentiated responsibilities
Speaker 2: and respective capabilities so on and so forth. But certainly
Speaker 2: the covering decision does indicate that parties will have to
Speaker 2: accelerate the deployment of as you call clean technologies and
Speaker 2: this is paragraph 36 I'm talking about where for the
Speaker 2: first time
Speaker 2: fossil fuels is mentioned in any sort of decision. It
Speaker 2: was quite surprising to me and certainly I think a
Speaker 2: lot of people also you you were pricing on the
Speaker 2: news that folks blaming china and India for watering down
Speaker 2: the text right? It was supposed to have been phased
Speaker 2: out unabated coal power
Speaker 2: but in the end what made it in was face down.
Speaker 2: But if you look at that paragraph in totality, you'll
Speaker 2: see that
Speaker 2: it's got a lot of components to it. So it
Speaker 2: mentions the deployment of clean power generation energy efficiency.
Speaker 2: It also mentions the phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies,
Speaker 2: which is really important for this region. And also it
Speaker 2: talks about a just transition. There's a lot to unpack
Speaker 2: moving forward. Really need to think about what this means
Speaker 2: for countries thinking about their NBCS and revisiting it between
Speaker 2: now and november next year, where the cop is going
Speaker 2: to take place in Egypt and they're supposed to bring
Speaker 2: those new NBCS and submit them before that cop in
Speaker 2: Egypt will be a busy for countries
Speaker 1: I'm gonna jump in on the face down with his
Speaker 1: face out. This one has really caught the imagination of
Speaker 1: everyone
Speaker 1: in the news
Speaker 1: thinking about what it means and it's quite clear what
Speaker 1: it means on the whole though, as you say, well,
Speaker 1: it may have been convenient to look at India and
Speaker 1: china as part of the reason as to why that
Speaker 1: was changed from a face out to face down. But
Speaker 1: overall though, what's your sense? I mean obviously people will
Speaker 1: criticize things for not being as ambitious as it was.
Speaker 1: But do you think the signal is strong enough that,
Speaker 1: you know, people do now know that the era of
Speaker 1: coal is going to end even if it's a face down.
Speaker 1: Is that where we're headed? You think it's strong enough
Speaker 1: language and as you say, fossil fuels have been mentioned
Speaker 1: and overall scene as a package is the right thing
Speaker 1: more on the wall for fossil fuel industries
Speaker 1: and subsidies and call in the long run, is it
Speaker 1: clear enough now
Speaker 2: it's pretty clear, I think we need to recognize that
Speaker 2: there were also a number of countries that signed up
Speaker 2: to the cold packed and even though they may not
Speaker 2: be the largest emitters in the world or they may
Speaker 2: not have, you know, the largest share of coal and
Speaker 2: their energy makes you have countries like south Korea, Indonesia,
Speaker 2: Vietnam Poland Ukraine that signed on to reduce coal and
Speaker 2: the use of coal. And I think that's important right?
Speaker 2: Because climate change is a global problem and it requires
Speaker 2: everybody to contribute. So I do think that India and
Speaker 2: china have been disproportionately blamed for this so called watering
Speaker 2: down of the face out. Turn right the language and
Speaker 2: the covering decision. The reality also is that we need
Speaker 2: to think about fossil fuels and phase out face down
Speaker 2: in the context of global equity. What are these coal
Speaker 2: power generators being used for? Is it being used for
Speaker 2: luxury emissions or is it being used towards development powering
Speaker 2: the poor villages, that sort of thing. I know I'm
Speaker 2: going to get shut down for this, but we need
Speaker 2: to add more nuance to the discussion. Right? It's not
Speaker 2: bifurcate that well anymore. Rich poor.
Speaker 2: There are so many countries in the world actually middle
Speaker 2: income and they can actually afford the transition, but not
Speaker 2: all countries can afford transition just yet. They certainly need
Speaker 2: to be held not necessarily only be helped by the
Speaker 2: richest countries
Speaker 1: since you mentioned equity are going to ceo of you
Speaker 1: Now on one issue, which again, there was some criticism
Speaker 1: on the fact I didn't go far enough. I didn't
Speaker 1: address it
Speaker 1: in any way that was satisfactory and that was the
Speaker 1: issue of loss and damage. As with all cops. This
Speaker 1: one again was quite majorly in focus this time around,
Speaker 1: but there was some disappointment there, explain to us what
Speaker 1: you would have expected and hoped for and loss and
Speaker 1: damage and in the final balancing decisions
Speaker 1: where it was that it sort of fell off and
Speaker 1: didn't meet expectations.
Speaker 2: Indeed, the top 26 agenda was supposed to help in
Speaker 2: the operationalization of loss and damage, but you're right, there
Speaker 2: was no specific action taken at the end. Um, there
Speaker 2: was a proposal for a loss and damage facility by
Speaker 2: a group of countries, but this was removed towards the end.
Speaker 2: There was already political dialogue actually on loss and damage
Speaker 2: to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. Of course
Speaker 2: in the world, there was some progress in Glasgow about
Speaker 2: the functions of the santiago network on loss and damage.
Speaker 2: So parties made some little bit of progress that yes,
Speaker 2: there was a lot of disappointment around loss and damage
Speaker 2: and I do agree with analysis that the car was
Speaker 2: a bit lopsided. Right? So there was so much focused
Speaker 2: on mitigation and really very little on adaptation,
Speaker 2: but as with all caught bandwidth of negotiators is limited.
Speaker 2: And I was told also that because of the pandemic
Speaker 2: and because of the requirements of the venue having to
Speaker 2: safe distance, there was not enough space for everybody to
Speaker 2: be represented. And I believe a lot of delegations also
Speaker 2: cut back on sending people. And so it could also
Speaker 2: have well been banned with issues not having enough negotiators
Speaker 2: on the ground going to these meetings and prioritizing the
Speaker 2: agendas on adaptation and loss and damage. So it could
Speaker 2: be any number of factors. But I was told also
Speaker 2: that Egypt will focus on adaptation, potentially lost damage as well.
Speaker 2: So perhaps countries if they can't wait of course can
Speaker 2: look forward to the next call for.
Speaker 1: One of the things that you mentioned earlier on was
Speaker 1: the issue of trust and inclusivity as well as part
Speaker 1: of the process that brings people on and it's very
Speaker 1: hard to not feel hard done by if I were
Speaker 1: developing country if I were a small island state that again, um,
Speaker 1: loss and damage has not been satisfactorily dealt with.
Speaker 1: Again, it is one of those things. And I suppose
Speaker 1: the other thing is again, as we've always said earlier
Speaker 1: on as well, climate finance, right? In the overall scheme
Speaker 1: of things. You've seen this sort of recur year to
Speaker 1: year cop to cop what's the take their when it
Speaker 1: comes to what was decided or at least I was
Speaker 1: admitted to as you alluded to at the beginning, as
Speaker 1: far as finances concerned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a huge finance gap as you know, so
Speaker 2: there was an agreement that developed countries would provide us
Speaker 2: $100 billion 2020 years. So every year they would have
Speaker 2: to provide this amount. But then the developed countries have
Speaker 2: not been able to do that. They agreed, I think
Speaker 2: prior to call, they announced that they would try to
Speaker 2: do it. I think by 2022 next year,
Speaker 2: there was also an agenda item at 26 which is
Speaker 2: to develop a program to decide on the next climate goal.
Speaker 2: This is the post 2020 climate finance goal. And what
Speaker 2: they did agree at the car was to establish an
Speaker 2: ad hoc working program between 2020 2020 24.
Speaker 2: So what people need to know is that
Speaker 2: It was never required at least by this year to
Speaker 2: decide on the number. So the new goal needs only
Speaker 2: to be concluded by 2020 for so what they needed
Speaker 2: to agree on in Glasgow was the process, how would
Speaker 2: they get to this number in Glasgow countries were able
Speaker 2: to come to consensus on it. And so
Speaker 2: we now know that there will be something like four
Speaker 2: technical expert dialogues and ministerial level discussions
Speaker 2: each year between 2020 2020 20 for so it's gonna
Speaker 2: shape up to be a very intensive process and it
Speaker 2: also needs to be inclusive. It will be open to
Speaker 2: non state actors as well because more and more I
Speaker 2: think countries are realizing that we cannot just rely on
Speaker 2: governments
Speaker 2: to fund mitigation or adaptation right? We need to unlock
Speaker 2: private sector finance as well in a way I thought
Speaker 2: that it was also really great that this car we
Speaker 2: saw quite a number of contributions towards things like the
Speaker 2: adaptation fund. Even there were first time contributors like U. S.
Speaker 2: And Canada. There was also this big group called the
Speaker 2: Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet.
Speaker 2: This is anchored by philanthropic organizations and multilateral development banks
Speaker 2: To unlock another $100 billion. Finance is going to have
Speaker 2: to come from everywhere. And if we only rely on
Speaker 2: the court process, I think we're not really going to
Speaker 2: get to 1.5. So I think we really need to
Speaker 2: reach all of the underserved groups and try our best
Speaker 2: to disseminate and mobilize the funding as quick as possible.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the things that you said at
Speaker 1: the beginning about what this car at least was able
Speaker 1: to achieve was finalized the rule book from Paris Let's
Speaker 1: get back to that conversation and the good news as
Speaker 1: far as that's concerned in finalizing that rule book and
Speaker 1: one of the issues was Article six that a lot
Speaker 1: of people were looking
Speaker 2: at as
Speaker 1: it relates to carbon markets. Tell us in your view
Speaker 1: how you saw that pan out,
Speaker 1: and was that something you think is a good outcome
Speaker 1: for everyone concerned.
Speaker 2: Article six essentially is in relation to international cooperation. Some
Speaker 2: people know it as the carbon markets or non-carbon markets
Speaker 2: provisions under the Paris agreement. It's really complicated, it's very
Speaker 2: technical in nature and yes, countries were not able to
Speaker 2: come to conclusion
Speaker 2: Prior to Glasgow of course, um it was supposed to
Speaker 2: have been part of the big package in Katowice Poland
Speaker 2: back in 2018, but it's such a big issue that
Speaker 2: parties couldn't come to a final decision and it was
Speaker 2: pushed to Madrid then the delay because of pandemic, and
Speaker 2: finally in Glasgow We have some outcomes and I think
Speaker 2: it was really important because our very own
Speaker 2: Minister for sustainability and the environment mr graceful
Speaker 2: was called on by the UK presidency to co facilitate
Speaker 2: the ministerial level informal consultations on article six. So, really
Speaker 2: difficult job as I understand, she actually had to switch
Speaker 2: out two or three partners on the way the other
Speaker 2: minister was originally supposed to be from Japan, the Norway,
Speaker 2: that kind of lost the election and then became another guy.
Speaker 2: So she was actually the main ST
Speaker 2: throughout the year, really all of the operative paragraph of
Speaker 2: article 66264 and 68 were finalized. Article six essentially allows
Speaker 2: countries to transfer what we call carbon credits. The technical
Speaker 2: term is for 62 is internationally transferred mitigation outcomes and
Speaker 2: they will be allowed to use
Speaker 2: these mitigation outcomes towards their climate pledges. Now, some civil
Speaker 2: society probably call this as a bit of a cop out, right,
Speaker 2: because they feel like it undermines the actual necessary mitigation
Speaker 2: that needs to happen and it allows countries to buy
Speaker 2: their way out of climate action. But I think that
Speaker 2: the outcome at least on article six is important because
Speaker 2: it does help us to accelerate the deployment of funding
Speaker 2: towards technology and so on. The crux of article 6.2
Speaker 2: was the issue of corresponding adjustments, meaning to say that
Speaker 2: if a host country develops a set of mitigation outcomes
Speaker 2: and they transfer it to the next country country b
Speaker 2: let's say then they cannot use that set of outcomes
Speaker 2: or credits towards their own pledge. They have to cancel
Speaker 2: it from their own ledger or inventory.
Speaker 1: This is the fear of double
Speaker 2: Counting. That's right. Yes, absolutely. So on the other side,
Speaker 2: of course, that country also will need to mention, Okay,
Speaker 2: they they have bought these from the other country. And
Speaker 2: so corresponding adjustment is really important because otherwise there will
Speaker 2: be a lot of double counting and just keeping in
Speaker 2: mind that under the Kyoto Protocol, right, you had only
Speaker 2: one group of countries, 37 industrialized nations
Speaker 2: that had targets and so they were hosting projects in
Speaker 2: the developing world and then taking their credits.
Speaker 2: But now under the paris agreement because every country has
Speaker 2: an NBC always expected to put forward an NBC climate target.
Speaker 2: You have the situation where maybe the developing countries want
Speaker 2: the credit for themselves rather and they don't want to
Speaker 2: sell it or they may be both buyers and sellers.
Speaker 2: And so these ways to account is really going to
Speaker 2: be very important. What countries were able to do in
Speaker 2: Glasgow was to ensure that corresponding adjustments will have to
Speaker 2: be reported
Speaker 2: Under the enhanced transparency framework. The corresponding adjustments will need
Speaker 2: to be part of a structured summary. When countries submit
Speaker 2: their biennial transparency reports from 2024 onwards, the small work
Speaker 2: that needs to be done, which is to elaborate further
Speaker 2: guidance on
Speaker 2: a single method for corresponding adjustments
Speaker 2: because at the moment NBcs look very different. The intended
Speaker 2: nationally determined contributions were submitted. Pre paris paris agreement wasn't
Speaker 2: even called the paris agreement, It wasn't a doctor countries
Speaker 2: summit all kinds of NBCS. And so they all look
Speaker 2: different some five years, some are 10 years, some are
Speaker 2: not even CO two related.
Speaker 2: The non CO two and maybe their renewable energy targets.
Speaker 2: So in the end we need to figure out a
Speaker 2: single method for how you would go about making these
Speaker 2: corresponding adjustments if one country has uh CO two related
Speaker 2: target and another country has a renewable energy giggle target.
Speaker 2: For example, what methodologies would you apply to make sure
Speaker 2: the adjustments are made accurately.
Speaker 1: The thing about this then is you know, as especially
Speaker 1: developing countries, look at how Article six was resolved and
Speaker 1: at least settle for this round of negotiations. You do
Speaker 1: have contacts around the NGO circuit and people who do
Speaker 1: watch this closely. Was this a good outcome and a
Speaker 1: fair outcome on article six as a whole
Speaker 1: that you think people can sort of accept and then
Speaker 1: just move on to remaining things in future cops? I'll
Speaker 2: be honest, by and large is too complicated for a
Speaker 2: lot of people. It's not just the Ngos, you know,
Speaker 2: it's
Speaker 1: everybody,
Speaker 2: it's really complicated and basically what people want to know
Speaker 2: that their country is going to make their best effort
Speaker 2: to
Speaker 2: Reduist consumption of fossil fuels and then taper of the emissions.
Speaker 2: But the reality is very different right? The reality is
Speaker 2: that emissions will probably increase because of recovery from COVID-19
Speaker 2: because of growth because of population demands and so and
Speaker 2: so forth.
Speaker 2: So how do you taper off, how do you allow
Speaker 2: countries actually meet those ambitious targets? True markets really to
Speaker 2: carbon markets? And of course, I think that broadly speaking,
Speaker 2: there will be people who don't believe in markets at all.
Speaker 2: Article six was on the agenda. It was a big
Speaker 2: provisions under the Paris agreement and it had
Speaker 2: to be finalized and I think those of us who
Speaker 2: have been following the talks
Speaker 2: are quite released really, you know, um, that article six
Speaker 2: is finalized and we have two new mechanisms right in
Speaker 2: most one and 64 which is the new mechanism that
Speaker 2: succeeds the kyoto protocol's clean development mechanism. Some of the
Speaker 2: observers that really have been following very closely a lot
Speaker 2: more closely than I have
Speaker 2: are quite happy with the outcome. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Speaker 1: We certainly hope that the existence of markets does not
Speaker 1: detract from the crucial necessity for action. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to now sort of as we tail off our conversation
Speaker 1: zoom out from the details into really larger bigger picture things.
Speaker 1: And we spoke about this right at the start about
Speaker 1: the U. S. And china.
Speaker 1: We had john Kerry and CS and were again meeting
Speaker 1: and they are I will presume all colleagues as you
Speaker 1: and I know as you look back on the last
Speaker 1: four or five years, do you think the reintroduction of
Speaker 1: the biden administration and the US being able to work
Speaker 1: with china at least at some level on climate change
Speaker 1: as has been evidence during this cop.
Speaker 1: Do you think it made a material difference if as
Speaker 1: a thought experiment it wasn't the case. We have had
Speaker 1: a different cup. Perhaps you suggested you a little bit surprised.
Speaker 1: But really how surprised? I mean, I know I was
Speaker 1: quite pleasantly surprised that it happened. But again, could this
Speaker 1: have happened in any other circumstance? You
Speaker 2: think? I
Speaker 2: definitely agree that the U. S. Reentry into the paris
Speaker 2: agreement made a big difference at this cop and even
Speaker 2: people on the ground who told me john Kerry is
Speaker 2: just such a presence when he's around. I was told
Speaker 2: that he was the one at the very end at
Speaker 2: the closing plenary went around talking to people very nicely
Speaker 2: trying to iron out some of the final decisions
Speaker 2: and it's not just the US. Right. I think that
Speaker 2: you also contributed quite heavily and the UK presidency, I
Speaker 2: was told that France Zimmerman, the lead negotiator for the
Speaker 2: eu he made a very sincere plea to countries to
Speaker 2: not reopen the text and as you know, once the
Speaker 2: taxes reopen can be another few days or a couple
Speaker 2: of days at least
Speaker 2: somehow this cop
Speaker 2: avoided the late night, the overnight negotiations. Maybe there was
Speaker 2: some in for most, but most people were told to
Speaker 2: go home right, go back and rest and come back
Speaker 2: the next morning. The text will be out at like
Speaker 2: eight o'clock in the morning and it really was out
Speaker 2: at like 8 30 in the morning and the secretary
Speaker 2: of the presidency worked really hard. So I think was
Speaker 2: a confluence of factors. But the U. S. And china
Speaker 2: certainly timed their announcement very well in the second week
Speaker 2: when all of the flurry around the world leaders summit
Speaker 2: was over and we were really getting down to business.
Speaker 2: It just was able to carry us across the finish line.
Speaker 2: I'm glad of course that the U. S. Is back
Speaker 2: and they are
Speaker 2: very sincere and interested to work with many parties. So
Speaker 2: you've seen just a range of
Speaker 2: Countries that they've offered to work with at the cop
Speaker 2: and also beyond the cop and in China I mean
Speaker 2: putting aside the geopolitical tensions and differences and they were
Speaker 2: able to come together and jointly announced one after another.
Speaker 2: You know, it looked really professional. Um I think certainly
Speaker 2: in his press briefing said that this was 10 months
Speaker 2: in the making.
Speaker 2: It's not something that they cobbled together
Speaker 2: Right the moment the Biden administration came back, the Chinese
Speaker 2: were already involved in some of these discussions. So 10
Speaker 2: months in the making really good really good outcome.
Speaker 1: Well yes definitely shout out to that. You know of
Speaker 1: course as we said earlier in a conversation to countries
Speaker 1: like India as well who came up with quite surprising
Speaker 1: and quite rejuvenating pledges as far as net zero concern
Speaker 1: quite early on last question then, you know, as we
Speaker 1: look forward to Egypt next year, some of the can
Speaker 1: has been kicked down the road
Speaker 1: as you look at
Speaker 1: various cops and how they've been led by various presidencies?
Speaker 1: Do you think you'll make any difference having a country
Speaker 1: like Egypt leading the discussions this time. And do you
Speaker 1: think that's what's needed in terms of getting to the
Speaker 1: right outcomes in balancing of some of the areas where
Speaker 1: we discussed may not have been as balanced as the
Speaker 1: developing countries may have liked.
Speaker 2: I certainly think so. You know, the last few cops
Speaker 2: have actually been held
Speaker 2: in european countries or at least in the continent of europe, right?
Speaker 2: Because the previous one was supposed to have been held
Speaker 2: in chile, but then in the end was in Madrid,
Speaker 2: there are some groups who attend the cops who felt
Speaker 2: like access because of the vaccine not being able to
Speaker 2: get the vaccine, not being on the red list
Speaker 2: was a problem for them and
Speaker 2: during the U. K. For this car. Right. And so
Speaker 2: I think, yes, having a developing country next is really important.
Speaker 2: And Egypt has promised, I think that they would focus
Speaker 2: on the adaptation agenda item. That's good news. Of course,
Speaker 2: as you said, this is kicking the can down the
Speaker 2: road a bit. And if this year was anything to
Speaker 2: go by, we don't really have a lot of time
Speaker 2: to do adaptation. Climate change is already happening one more
Speaker 2: year to negotiate a global goal on orientation and to
Speaker 2: secure funding for it. Maybe some countries and some communities
Speaker 2: will just not be able to survive it. That's the
Speaker 2: stark reality of it. So I think it's important to
Speaker 2: have that insight but then also make effort to really
Speaker 2: get moving on the ground ensuring that these communities making
Speaker 2: sure that they are resilient to the effects that they're
Speaker 2: facing individually as communities.
Speaker 1: On that note, we certainly hope that that will happen
Speaker 1: in the meantime. I suppose you have a couple of
Speaker 1: months to think about whether you want to be in
Speaker 1: Egypt next year melissa leo. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jamie. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Mhm.
Speaker 1: Thanks melissa and thanks for listening to the climate conversations.
Speaker 1: Stay up to date on CNN's coverage of climate change
Speaker 1: on sienna dot asia. It's all on the orange tab.
Speaker 1: You can also find this and other CNN podcast on
Speaker 1: our website and on Itunes and Spotify,
Speaker 1: the team behind this podcast, Christina robert, lindsey Stirling and
Speaker 1: Aaron Low. I'm Jamie Hall till next week.