A new light brown paper made of sunflower pollen can automatically fold itself into a food container or straw when exposed to moisture in the air, breaking the mould for single-use packaging.
The intelligent pollen paper – created by scientists from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) – is created by adding potassium hydroxide to sunflower pollen grains.
After 24 hours, the pollen transforms into a gel that is moulded onto a petri dish, for example, and left to dry overnight. The dried pollen paper is then peeled from the mould.
The pollen paper can vary in thickness from 20 to 200 micrometres, similar to that of a strand of hair – but it is far from fragile.
In fact, pollen is known as the diamond of the plant kingdom as it is one of nature’s most durable materials, said the research team’s co-lead, Professor Cho Nam-Joon from NTU’s School of Materials Science and Engineering.
Prof Cho’s research includes turning pollen into plastic and metal alternatives.
The pollen paper can be made thicker or layered if it were to be folded into a container or straw. It can be used as a greener alternative to materials such as plastics and styrofoam for disposable products and packaging.
Pollen is also abundant and can be degraded in nature gradually.
“If we make the paper thicker, its properties will be more plastic-like. The original raw material itself is very strong. So, by modifying that, it can be stronger,” said Prof Cho.
The pollen paper comes to life when it is exposed to humidity, and after some toner – a powder that works like printer ink – prints lines and patterns on the brown paper. Toner acts as the ink in office and home laser printers.
To apply toner on the pollen paper, it goes through an ordinary printer, just like writing paper.
The pollen paper is then exposed to different humidity levels in a controlled environment.
While the pollen paper is sensitive to moisture in the air and curls up, the inked parts do not respond to water. These opposing behaviours cause the flat paper to morph into three-dimensional shapes as humidity drops.
How the paper folds or twists depends on the printed pattern.
For example, a piece of pollen paper cut into an outline of a box would automatically fold into a box when the folded hinges are printed with barcode-like vertical lines.
A strip of paper printed with diagonal lines would curl into a straw.
Pollen paper with an ink pattern printed on it. PHOTO: NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Prof Cho said: “Products can be produced without manual folding, reducing the skill and time necessary for fabrication. The whole process is also eco-friendly and scalable.”
Coating the morphed paper with petroleum jelly or chitosan – a natural sugar found in the shells of crabs and shellfish – will prevent the product from unravelling due to humidity changes, and lock it in shape.
NTU president Subra Suresh, who co-led the research, said: “We combined easy-to-process pollen grains and cost-effective digital printing to develop a moisture-sensitive (material) that can morph on demand into… complex shapes depending on the patterns we print.”
(From left) Professor Cho Nam-Joon, NTU President Subra Suresh, and NTU research fellow Zhao Ze examining the pollen paper. PHOTO: NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Prof Cho said this is the first time pollen is used to develop self-folding materials. The research team’s method was published in the scientific journal Proceedings Of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America last month.
Packaging waste, including plastics, makes up about one-third of domestic waste in Singapore. Last year, about 200,000 tonnes of disposables – including carrier bags and takeaway containers – were thrown away here.
The NTU team is now working on optimising its pollen paper and method so that companies can eventually use the technology to manufacture greener products, including humidity sensors.
As Singapore marks 50 years since its first Tree Planting Day, each and every Singaporean can do his or her part to keep the country green and sustainable, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said on Sunday (Nov 21).
“The saplings planted 50 years ago have grown into beautiful trees with broad canopies and deep roots,” he said.
“In the same way, the Clean and Green Movement can continue to broaden and deepen in the years ahead.”
In a pre-recorded message from Mount Faber where one of Singapore’s founding fathers, Dr Goh Keng Swee, planted a raintree at the first Tree Planting Day in 1971, DPM Heng said tree planting has become a cherished national tradition that has evolved and expanded into the Clean and Green Singapore movement which was launched on Sunday.
In his speech, he outlined how people can keep the country green, reduce waste and ensure the city remains clean.
He said Singaporeans could keep the country green by taking part in the One Million Trees movement which aims to plant more than a million trees here over the next decade.
They could also partake in the national gardening movement and the NPark’s Gardening with Edibles programme, which saw some 460,000 seed packets distributed last year.
To reduce waste, DPM Heng said Singaporeans should buy only what they need and bring their own reusable bags and containers, while recycling regularly and correctly by depositing different materials in the correct bins and ensuring these are free of food contamination.
Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat (centre) with (from left) North West District Mayor Alex Yam, National Development Minister Desmond Lee, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor and Sembawang GRC MP Mariam Jafaar at the launch of Clean and Green Singapore in Kampung Admiralty on Nov 21, 2021. PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN
Businesses can also play their part, such as the 169 partners of the National Environment Agency’s Say Yes To Waste Less campaign.
Keeping the city clean is also important.
DPM Heng said the pandemic has taught us the importance of hygiene and cleanliness.
Initiatives to encourage this include the Clean Tables Campaign launched earlier this year to remind diners to return their trays after meals.
During the launch of Clean and Green Singapore 2021 at Kampung Admiralty, DPM Heng presented 16 national awards to grassroots organisations for their efforts in public hygiene, cleanliness, resource conservation and energy efficiency.
He also planted a critically endangered Knema curtisii tree with Mayor of North West District Alex Yam.
They were joined by Minister of National Development Desmond Lee and Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment Amy Khor, who planted a Horsfieldia polyspherula.
The trees are from the nutmeg family.
The event also saw the launch of CGS Experiences, an online series of webinars with a live host that will bring participants through a virtual tour of sites of significant environmental interest.
Twenty sessions are available for public booking till March 31 next year.
DPM Heng concluded his speech on Sunday with a Chinese saying that meant trees planted by former generations will provide shade for future generations.
“Much like how young saplings planted in 1971 have flourished into a tree planting movement, what we build today will have a lasting effect for our future generations,” said DPM Heng.
“Let us all play our part in building a cleaner and greener Singapore for tomorrow.”
As the world warms, there is an urgent need to find ways to keep people cool. This year, several deadly records have been set in South Asia: in New Delhi, the highest July temperature in 90 years was recorded, at 43.6 degrees Celsius. In April in Karachi, mercury levels hit 44C — the highest in 74 years.
Last week, the climate analysis coalition Climate Action Tracker published research showing that even if the new pledges made by the world’s governments in the first week of COP26 are achieved, global temperatures would rise by more than 2.4C this century. This coincided with the publication of research showing that with just a 2C global temperature rise, a billion people will be affected by extreme heat stress.
Even at 1.5C of global warming (the aspirational target set by the Paris Agreement), studies have found that deadly heat stress could become common across South Asia. Despite pledges to control greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say the world could reach the 1.5C threshold in a matter of years.
There is therefore a pressing need for sustainable cooling technologies and practices that are both low-carbon and accessible to the poorest people — who are also most at risk of heatwaves. And, crucially, there needs to be grassroots support for the proposed solutions.
“We cannot agree on global multilateral solutions if we don’t have local, appropriate implementation,” said Carlos Alvarado Quesada, president of Costa Rica, speaking in Glasgow on 4 November at an awards ceremony held by Ashden, a UK charity that supports solutions to the problems caused by climate change. “Implementation has to be done locally, respecting women, respecting indigenous communities [and] working together with them.”
This year’s Ashden Awards, attended by The Third Pole, recognised the importance of sustainable cooling. Many of the projects highlighted below are recipients of finance via its Fair Cooling Fund, which aims to scale up “frontline fair cooling solutions”.
1. Empowering women through low-cost solutions
Houses in poor neighbourhoods are usually built from cement, often with plastic covers or tin sheets to keep the rain out. These materials absorb heat, and create hot and stuffy living conditions. As urban populations increase and the impacts of global warming become more apparent, the problems will worsen — with knock-on impacts for sanitation and health. Women are particularly exposed, as their work often takes place within the home.
Mahila Housing Trust (MHT) is a not-for-profit organisation based in Ahmedabad. It works in 10 cities across India to boost communities’ resilience to heat stress. It provides women with advice on how to cool their homes in ways that are easily implemented and affordable: to date, more than 1,600 women have been educated about climate change and how to deal with some of its effects.
The techniques focus on passive cooling methods — preventing heat from building up within people’s homes. One of the quickest and easiest to implement is painting roofs and sun-facing walls with solar-reflective paint, which can reduce indoor temperatures by 4-5C. According to the Global Cool Cities Alliance, when sunlight hits a light-coloured roof, 80 per cent of its energy is reflected, compared with 5 per cent for a dark-coloured roof.
A second easy step MHT advises is to grow potted plants and creepers on roofs, which the charity says can reduce indoor temperatures by 2.5C. Vegetation has been proven to have a cooling effect through shading and evapotranspiration. MHT has helped about 200 houses in Bhopal and Ranchi to do this.
MHT also advises on and helps with renovating roofs. The replacement structures have vents and are made from recycled materials that let more light in without trapping heat. According to MHT, these can reduce temperatures by 6-7C. Finally, the charity trains women on principles for reducing heat stress. For example, said Aneri Nihalani, MHT’s communications officer, considering the orientation of a building during construction can help reduce overheating. Taking these steps can help with the family’s finances as well as their comfort, as they need less electricity to cool their homes.
Since 2014, the Mahila Housing Trust has helped more than 2,000 families to adopt heat-resilient measures. In recognition of its work, MHT won the 2021 Ashden Award for Cooling in Informal Settlements, which was presented at COP26.
2. Geothermal air-conditioning
The temperature on the surface of the Earth fluctuates constantly. But below the Earth’s surface there is little change in temperature. The founders of GeoAirCon, a company in Pakistan, have harnessed this stability to cool homes down.
In a GeoAirCon system, a ‘loop’ of underground pipes filled with fluid is installed. Geothermal heat pumps move heat around the system. During the summer, these pipes draw heated water from the building and move it underground. (In winter, the opposite principle applies to warm the house.)
According to the company, the temperature of the earth about 8-12 feet below the surface in Pakistan ranges from 21-25C. GeoAirCon systems can therefore cool buildings to this range — a comfortable temperature for the human body.
GeoAirCon says geothermal systems are twice as efficient in cooling as the most efficient conventional air-conditioning system. Cooling capacity is influenced heavily by the insulation of a building, M Hassamuddin, chief executive of GeoAirCon, told The Third Pole, so use of passive cooling best practices is also advised.
A system costs US$260-460 to install, and costs significantly less to run than a conventional air-conditioning unit, according to the company. Hassamuddin said that though more suited to houses with outdoor spaces, the technology can be installed in densely populated areas, with an area less than a metre wide required to make the hole for the underground pipes.
So far, GeoAirCon systems have been installed in 12 buildings in Pakistan. GeoAirCon was runner up for the 2021 Ashden Award for Cooling in Informal Settlements.
3. Low-impact cooling systems
In 2015, eight million air conditioners were installed in India. That number is expected to grow by 200-300 million in the next 20 years. But traditional air conditioning is expensive, electricity-intensive and often uses greenhouse gases like HFCs, exacerbating the climate crisis.
CBalance, an Indian consultancy that has also received financial support from Ashden, is working to reduce the reliance on conventional air-conditioning. It promotes passive cooling design and ventilation, fostering cooperation between architects and urban communities through its Fairconditioning programme. Hasan ul Banna Khan, an engineer working on Fairconditioning, told The Third Pole that in most cases a building can maintain a comfortable temperature using just passive design techniques coupled with sustainable cooling systems.
Having reduced the requirement for artificial cooling as much as possible, it also promotes technologies that reduce the energy and greenhouse gas intensity of cooling.
These include:
• Evaporative cooling, which uses evaporated water to cool air. Unlike conventional air conditioning, this does not use refrigeration, and therefore requires a lot less energy. In one building in Pune, this system reduces the need for conventional AC by 40 per cent.
• Radiant or structure cooling, where cool water is circulated through a building. The technology has been used in 73 large buildings in India, including the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Pune.
• Use of solar power to chill water.
• Air-conditioning units that are more energy-efficient and emit fewer HFCs.
4. Cool roofs programmes
Under the Ahmedabad Heat Action Plan (HAP) in India, a partnership between the municipal corporation, Indian Institute of Public Health and the Natural Resource Defence Council, more than 7,000 low-income households’ roofs have been painted white. It is estimated that such initiatives save an estimated 1,100 lives every year.
On a bigger scale, the Million Cool Roofs Challenge is a US$2 million philanthropic initiative to rapidly scale up the use of solar-reflective roofs as a form of sustainable cooling in developing countries suffering heat stress. Ten teams are awarded grants of US$100,000.
In 2019, one of the finalists was the team from Bangladesh, a country with high humidity levels and where ambient temperatures are already reaching 40C. The Bangladesh team painted the roofs of two factories and 105 other buildings in Dhaka, including a nursery and a school, with average indoor air temperatures falling by more than 7C.
Architects and builders can also look to traditional materials, techniques and designs, which have kept occupants cool for centuries. In one project in Rudrapur, north Bangladesh, students and architects worked with local architects and craftsmen to create houses for low-income families. Using mud and bamboo alongside manmade materials, they installed openings for cross-ventilation, insulation made from coconut fibre and glass windows.
Traditional stilt houses, such as those found in Assam, also use passive cooling. The structures enable cross-ventilation and shading. The walls, which are left unplastered, promote natural ventilation. Recently, projects have started to combine traditional models with materials to enhance their resilience to extreme weather.
The importance of policymakers and urban planning for sustainable cooling
As global emissions drive temperatures to new highs, there is an urgent need to roll out these methods and technologies more widely, at the same time as taking urgent action to limit global warming. Both Aneri Nihalani from MHT and GeoAirCon’s M Hassamuddin told The Third Pole that finance is the main obstacle to wider adoption of the solutions their organisations offer.
Hasan ul Banna Khan from the Fairconditioning programme said there is still a lack of awareness of the impacts of conventional air-conditioning, as well as “a dearth of motivated and skilled architects and engineers in the sustainable building design sector”.
Beyond that, urban planners and policymakers need to step in. In Vietnam, the Hanoi City Master Plan 2030 builds the growing need for sustainable urban cooling into the country’s commitment to be net zero by 2050. It aims to prevent heat build-up throughout the city, using ventilation corridors of green and blue space.
As South Asia warms and urbanises, cities will need to put similar heat adaptation and mitigation measures at the heart of their development plans.
This story was published with permission from The Third Pole.
As pressure ramps-up to drastically shrink the carbon footprint of the world’s cities, developers and architects have been tinkering with the recipe for the type of materials that goes into a building. City-planners are banking on technology to make cheaper and greener steel and concrete, to drive down the hefty emissions of built infrastructure.
Building and construction are responsible for 39 per cent of all carbon emissions in the world, according to the International Energy Agency. Concrete, the primary component for most built infrastructure, is responsible for a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The five billion tonnes of cement produced each year account for eight per cent of the world’s man-made carbon dioxide emissions. It would rank third for its emissions if it was a country. Then there is steel — whose production accounts for around seven per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
As countries look to slash their emissions, hard-to-abate sectors like construction are facing more heat with governments joining hands and forming coalitions to signal that, moving forward, they will shift to buy low-carbon steel and concrete for public construction.
At the COP26 landmark climate summit in Glasgow, the governments of the United Kingdom, India, Germany, Canada and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), under a new coalition named the Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI), pledged to support the use of low-carbon materials in building construction. “If you make it, we will buy it,” said the five nations in a statement.
The member governments of the IDDI plan to reveal interim targets by mid-2022, to better align their procurement plans with new net-zero goals for the public construction sector. The pledge also includes requirements for members to disclose the carbon embodied in major public construction projects by 2025, said the UK COP presidency in a press release.
Within the next three years, the IDDI aims to have at least 10 countries commit to purchasing low-carbon concrete and steel.
Large steelmakers clean up their act
The public procurement of steel and concrete in the five nations currently represents between 25 to 40 per cent of the domestic market for such materials. Industry stakeholders said that the pledge is a clear market signal from some of the world’s largest steel and concrete buyers believing that it will create green demand across the supply chains of the building sector.
China, India and Japan are the world’s top steel producing countries. Image: World Steel Association
“Global construction accounts for 39 per cent of total global emissions, with buildings equivalent to the size of Paris being built every week. There is now a critical and narrow window for sector transformation,” said Jo da Silva, global director of sustainable development at Arup, a London-based engineering, architecture and city planning consultancy.
“Governments need to make companies feel confident about investing now in the processes of making low-carbon steel and concrete,” she said.
China, the world’s largest steel and concrete producer, is missing from the IDDI list. However, its top steelmaker, the China Baowu Steel Group Corp., formed its own global alliance with other steel producers last Thursday, in a bid to gather resources and exchange information in the development of low-carbon metallurgical technology.
Known as the Global Low-Carbon Metallurgical Innovation Alliance, it has more than 60 members from 15 countries. These include leading global steelmakers and mining enterprises such as Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal, German conglomerate Thyssenkrupp and Melbourne’s BHP Group. About 20 Chinese steel companies are also part of the alliance.
Baowu has committed to carbon neutrality by 2050, a decade earlier than the Chinese government’s national target.
China’s Baowu Steel Group Corp., the world’s largest steelmaker, initiated the formation of a global alliance of steel producers last Thursday, in a bid to gather resources and exchange information in the development of low-carbon metallurgical technology. [Click to enlarge] Image: World Steel Association
Neil Martin, chief executive for property developer Lendlease’s European business, told Eco-Business that the commitment from steel producers and national authorities to seize decarbonisation opportunities is a potential game-changer for the building sector.
Need for sharper approach on embodied carbon
Lendlease currently uses a large amount of steel – what amounts to a volume sufficient for the building of 60 Eiffel Towers per annum – for its global projects. Substituting the material will make a difference for the environment, given how dirty the steel industry is.
The developer targets to be completely net zero by 2040.
“Property developers have made progress in reducing the operational carbon emissions of buildings, but here’s the rub: almost 90 per cent of building emissions are Scope 3 – indirect emissions from the production of building materials along the value chain. We still have to buy a lot of steel, concrete, aluminium and glass, but we do not have control over their production and supply lines,” said Martin.
Currently, much of the push towards greener buildings is devoted to minimising the energy needed to keep them running, but the situation is changing. During COP26, architects, mayors and property developers have been calling for green building certifications that take embodied emissions from materials into account in order to meet net-zero carbon goals.
Traditionally, steel is made by heating and melting iron ore in a blast furnace at high temperature. A by-product of the chemical reaction that takes place is carbon dioxide. Now, there are several other production methods that are cleaner, involving renewables and green hydrogen. These processes, however, are at various stages of development.
Professor Lam Khee Poh, dean of the National University of Singapore’s School of Design and Environment, and its Provost’s Chair Professor of Architecture and Building, said that strong signalling from national actors to industry matters and governments need to go beyond changing their public procurement models.
We need not and should not regard our predominantly steel and concrete jungles as the norm for cities.
Professor Lam Khee Poh, Dean of NUS School of Design and Environment, Singapore
“It is not just that the public sector is often a major customer. Yes, there are economies of scale to be gained, but more importantly, the demonstration of leadership from governments has an impact on the enactment of building codes and standards that will pave the way for a green transition,” he said.
Lam, a strong advocate for net-zero cities, said that building industries around the world typically work to existing regulations and only a handful will adopt voluntary standards to advance the field.
According to COP26 reports, between 2015 and 2020, 19 additional countries have building energy codes in place. However, most construction will still take place in countries without such codes.
“The building sector has historically been fragmented. It will take a revolutionary effort to develop a broadly accepted and comprehensive method of calculating embodied carbon that can be effectively and efficiently implemented in the design process for change to happen,” Lam said.
Better pricing for low-carbon building materials
In Southeast Asia, there is also a need to overcome the biased perception that concrete is cheap, which leads to the inertia to replace concrete use in buildings. The low cost of concrete is mainly due to the use of cheap labour in developing countries, and does not take into account the spillover costs when the production of concrete creates externalities – negative impacts on the environment, said Lam.
Referring to a recently-published McKinsey report, Lam argued that products such as carbon-cured concrete, if positioned differently, can potentially give companies an edge among environmentally conscious buyers and greater pricing power.
Timber as an alternative material should be considered too, especially for tropical cities. “We need not and should not regard our predominantly steel and concrete jungles as the norm for cities,” he said.
Yvonne Soh, executive director of the Singapore Green Building Council, told Eco-Business that the council has recently observed that there is no cost premium for using greener concrete in buildings in Singapore, based on current standards.
Soh also noted that lower-carbon options, whether concrete or steel, are already available.
“In fact, there is a lot of interest among private sector players and many are ready to take the leap to try out new materials. We do not have a lack of willing early adopters,” she said. “The key issue is regulatory barriers, because there are basic safety requirements governing the usage of structural materials in a building.”
“Building professionals must also be comfortable with using the material,” she said, drawing parallels to how governments have educated the public on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before they pushed for widespread adoption. “It’s not just about sticking some wallpaper on the wall. We have to ensure that [the use of low-carbon materials] does not compromise the building’s structural safety.”
The Singapore Green Building Council now conducts courses on sustainable supply chains for buildings, to encourage firms and stakeholders in the built environment sector to address environmental gaps in their sourcing and reporting. The council also initiated a pledge for the built environment industry to act on embodied carbon. As of November 2021, more than 75 organisations have signed up.
Countries have gathered to negotiate the final details of a global bid to keep planetary warming under 1.5-2C.Olivia Wannan reports from Glasgow.
ANALYSIS: The world has agreed to ramp up climate action even further this decade, spend more on adaptation, and even for the first time, agree that (some) fossil fuels must go.
The two-week UN climate summit in Glasgow has ended in a joint compromise from nearly 200 countries, including on a number of outstanding sticky issues in the Paris Agreement “rulebook”. Developed countries have also acknowledged they have a legal and moral obligation to help vulnerable countries with the permanent loss and damage they are already suffering – though punted a solution to future meetings.
And a last-minute capitulation to phase down rather than phase out coal power cast a shadow over the Glasgow pact. In the end, the measure of success will depend on where history sets its benchmark.
If we use the lowest bar for success – whether there is more global climate action today than there was two weeks ago – then the 26th Conference of the Parties (or COP26) has achieved that.
The announcement that India had set a net-zero target was a pleasing development, even if the target date is 2070 and its short-term pledges remained unambitious. Indonesia’s and South Korea’s pledges to phase out coal-power was also good news. Canada and the US made large commitments to reduce fossil methane leaks (and, interestingly, agricultural emissions) and got nearly 100 other countries to sign up.
And while China declined to join the methane pledge, it did sign a deal with the US late in the second week, which included commitments to regulate methane leaks and limit deforestation.
Were governments ambitious enough?
If the point of success is 1.5 degrees Celsius, then the conference will not earn that accolade. Climate modellers have been tracking the plethora of commitments and coalitions launched during the meeting. Even on the basis that every single one will be met (a prospect many doubt), that path would hold warming to 1.8C. Scientists warn that the effects of climate change get vastly worse with even a fraction of a degree, so there is a lot of human suffering between 1.5C and 1.8C.
In addition, experts have also exposed the large gap between countries’ long-term goals and the short-term action they’re prepared to take.
Short-term goals are outlined in each country’s Nationally Determined Contribution (or NDC). These look out to 2030 – a point when carbon dioxide emissions would need to nearly halve, according to the world’s climate scientists, to keep 1.5C within reach. The path set by these and other pledges out to 2030 put the world on a path to 2.4C.
The host country, the UK, selected Alok Sharma to act as the president of the 26th Conference of the Parties (or COP26). JEFF J MITCHELL/GETTY IMAGES
With this in mind, countries that have not yet updated their NDC have been officially urged to submit tougher targets before COP27, to be held in Egypt. In fact, all countries are being requested to revisit their targets by the end of next year to ensure they align with 1.5C to 2C of warming (though this is caveated to take into account national circumstances).
It’s hoped big emitters such as China, Russia and Australia might then come to next year’s meeting with NDCs that could shift the global temperature dial even further still. Climate Change Minister James Shaw has already poured cold water on the idea of the New Zealand Government following this recommendation.
The onslaught of coalitions and alliances – on everything from methane and fossil fuel extraction to deforestation – announced during COP26 will supplement countries’ NDCs. There was plenty of criticism that these were voluntary, with no compliance. For example, if New Zealand fails to produce its intended methane savings of 10 per cent by 2030, the Global Methane Pledge won’t come after us in any way, beyond a public shaming.
But that’s a pattern set by the Paris Agreement itself. There are some seemingly mandatory features for the 197 countries signed up – such as reporting and deadlines for new targets. But even those aren’t well enforced: New Zealand missed the deadline to strengthen its NDC. We just scraped in before the start of COP26.
During a short speech on the final day, Shaw reflected on the shortcomings of the proposed agreement: “Is it enough to hold warming to 1.5C? I honestly can’t say that I think that it does. But we must never, ever give up,” he said.
“The text represents the least-worst outcome. The worst outcome would be to not agree [on] it, and keep talking through next year and deter action for yet another year.”
Countries in the naughty corner
Large greenhouse emitters China and Russia were called out for not showing up, literally and figuratively. Chinese president Xi Jinping and Russia president Vladimir Putin did not attend the leaders’ summit at the beginning of the talks, though negotiating teams for each country did attend to get the Paris Agreement “rulebook” and other outstanding matters settled.
Chinese president Xi Jinping did not attend COP26. He has not left China since the beginning of the pandemic (File photo) ANDY WONG/AP
By COP26, all 197 countries in the Paris Agreement were supposed to “ratchet” up their ambition. Russia updated its pledge last year, though it was deemed little better than its old one.
In 2020, Xinping announced a new pledge: that his country’s emissions would peak before 2030 and that China would reach net zero by 2060. This year, he formalised those commitments and promised to stop financing coal-fired power plants in other countries.
The Chinese leader is known to save his major climate announcements for UN general assembly events, rather than play to the COP timetable.
But similar criticism could be aimed at New Zealand, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern not attending the talks and – more importantly – taking few concrete steps during the two weeks.
The Government did increase its NDC, before the summit began. Ardern promised to save 149 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the next decade.
Billed as a halving of emissions, Climate Action Tracker said – minus the creative maths – this was closer to a 22 per cent cut (a target now rated as “almost sufficient” though not our fair share).
And even that won’t require the country to take additional action domestically. (Thus, New Zealand retained Climate Action Tracker’s “Highly Insufficient” rating).
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern did not attend the Glasgow climate summit, citing her duties as the APEC host. (File photo) HAGEN HOPKINS/GETTY IMAGES
New Zealand is still planning to emit roughly the same amount of net emissions between now and 2030 as in the budgets proposed by the Climate Change Commission earlier this year. So now, the Government will just buy a few more carbon credits from other countries.
During the summit, New Zealand also signed up to a number of pledges without taking any major new steps. No new policies will be required for the Government to meet the Global Methane Pledge – because it’s a collective goal to reduce methane by 30 per cent, New Zealand can simply make the cut of 10 per cent it’s already obliged to under the Zero Carbon Act.
Similarly, our new membership in the pledge to end deforestation or in the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance required little extra.
In sum, the Government has done little but spent more money: committing to a larger carbon credit bill, and also increasing foreign aid towards mitigation and adaptation for developing nations – which it bumped up to $325 million each year.
Still, New Zealand behaved better than our trans-Tasman neighbour. Australia refused to boost its NDC, stayed far away from alliances cutting methane and coal, and initially attempted to block declarations on phasing out fossil fuels.
An emotional Mary Robinson, Chair of @TheElders and former President of Ireland slams leaders for not being in crisis mode and blames Saudi Arabia for blocking @skynews#COP26 Today will be very important. pic.twitter.com/BxEcXzGptg
Climate finance was a critical item on this year’s agenda. In return for a commitment to begin cutting emissions, developed countries promised – by 2020 – to deliver $100 billion to developing countries each year.
That deadline was missed, but the COP26 organisers hoped to pull a few additional commitments out of large economies. Early in the talks, the goal appeared to be within reach after the Japanese prime minister agreed to bump his country’s share up by $10b.
Yet with the US arguing their hands were tied by a requirement to get permission from Congress, there were few other large economies to come to the table. As the summit closed, this goal remained unmet.
Australia was a relative Scrooge: prime minister Scott Morrison doubled his contribution – to AU$2b (NZ$2.08b) – whereas New Zealand quadrupled its cash to NZ$1.3b.
As well as meeting the old goal, the talks turned to the next climate finance target.
There wasn’t much progress on setting a new goal for mitigation finance, apart from a call for discussions to begin. Finance in the form of loans – a bugbear of developing countries – wasn’t ruled out. On a brighter note, rich countries are urged to “at least” double the cash put towards adaptation.
Another request of developed countries was for the finance they were owed, under the legal precedent of loss and damage, for the permanent effects that climate change was already having on their lives. In the Pacific, this includes the loss of land to sea level rise and salinisation, plus the loss of GDP from extreme weather events that had become a permanent part of storm season.
Three philanthropies offer £3m to help set up a Glasgow Loss and Damage Finance Facility, nudging developed countries resisting calls to create one https://t.co/5gwTXfsLAG
Developed countries had contributed the lion’s share of the rise in greenhouse gas, and therefore – the argument goes – should have to stump up that share of the costs.
And while developing countries welcomed the help from a proposed network that would offer them technical assistance in dealing with these permanent issues, they also wanted cash for reparations. This was a point of principle for many. In the end, the countries decided that this scheme “will be provided with funds”, though specific numbers will need to be discussed.
Cyclones are coming with increased frequency to Fiji. So too are calls for rich, developed countries to provide reparations. NASA VIA AP
The biggest sticking points
The summit’s to-do list also included the finalisation of the Paris Agreement “rulebook”, which would specify how the landmark 2015 accord would actually work in practice.
A number of sticky issues – including how countries might create and trade carbon credits between one another and what information would be required to be submitted on a regular basis – had failed to be resolved at previous meetings.
One of the most contentious debates revolved around who could claim credit for carbon-cutting projects paid for by others. Many countries – including New Zealand – maintained that the global carbon maths must be balanced: if carbon credits were sold, then the purchasing country (or company) would adjust its emissions tally down and the host country must adjust its tally upwards.
But Brazil in particular argued that the host should, essentially, be able to have its climate cake and eat it.
To settle this issue, a proposal to create two types of carbon credits was put on the table. There would be higher-quality credits to be sold to other countries and airlines in an international pact. In addition, there would be a lesser type of credit, offered to private companies.
The host country of carbon cutting projects now holds the power to authorise higher-quality credits. When that happens, the balanced carbon maths (that New Zealand and others want) would be required.
It can also authorise lesser credits. While these would be paid for by someone else, the host country could claim the environmental benefits when it reported its progress towards its NDC.
Experts, including Environmental Defense Fund’s Kelley Kizzier, said this system appeared robust – though it may need keeping an eye on.
It’s debatable how many companies would want these lesser credits, since they may not be able to use carbon-neutral claims, for example.
However, activists were worried that giving host countries authorisation powers might allow them to flout safeguards, such as protections for human rights.
Another area of contention was on old carbon credits, dating back to the predecessor of the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol. Many Kyoto carbon-cutting projects had issued credits that remained available for sale.
Since president Jair Bolsonaro took office, Brazil began to fight for controversial climate provisions in the Paris rulebook. ERALDO PERES/AP
Climate activists hate this idea, criticising these old units as “zombie credits”.
But the host countries of some of these projects – notably Brazil – did not want to lose the value of the units. They argued that the schemes, which were reducing emissions, could collapse without funding.
In the talks, some countries signalled they’d be open to allowing these projects to transition into the new system, but wanted to restrict the number of “carryover credits” issued before 2020, when the Paris Agreement took effect.
A consensus was struck, allowing some old credits to enter the new system. There were a few limitations: the project had to have started after 2013, with the credits issued before 2021, and these could only be used towards a country’s first NDC. This is one compromise likely to receive heavy criticism from climate activists in the coming days.
The purchase of these old credits will weaken, or completely undermine, the NDC of any country that uses them.
Speaking earlier in the week, WWF carbon market expert Brad Schallert said it is risky to allow these credits, even if there’s no appetite for them. They “blow a hole” in the Paris Agreement, he added.
“If no one buys them, then we’d be okay,” he added. “But we have to assume the worst.”
A proposal to limit the number of carbon credits a country can use to achieve its NDC made it into the rulebook. New Zealand negotiators opposed this provision strongly – if set high enough, this could seriously mess with the Government’s plans to outsource up to 68 per cent of its carbon-cutting pledge.
But the work to set this limit won’t start until 2028, meaning it’s more likely to be an issue for the next NDC period, beyond 2030.
What climate activists fought for
Considering the failure of “Global North” countries to produce the $100b on time, one hot-button issue during the summit was a suggestion that every carbon trade should provide a 2 or 5 per cent cut of the proceeds to an adaptation fund, to help vulnerable communities.
It wasn’t just the percentage that negotiators were haggling over, but the types of trade involved. The Paris Agreement specifically links this idea to the international carbon market, so some negotiating teams (including New Zealand’s) thought this shouldn’t apply when countries trade directly with each other. But developing countries argued this would simply be a loophole, and wondered why anyone would design a carbon trading system with one type of credit undermining another.
This debate was also linked to a proposal to gift an “angel’s share” of all credits purchased to the Earth. If rich countries outsource their carbon goals to others, then this would give an additional boost, argued vulnerable countries (which are the keenest to see ambitious climate action). Shares of up to 30 per cent were suggested.
Under one COP26 proposal, a percentage of all carbon credits would be cancelled – and “gifted” to the good of the planet. NASA
In the end, countries settled on 5 per cent for adaptation, and 2 per cent for the planet, for any carbon credits sold on the international market.
But when countries trade credits directly between one another, they are only “strongly encouraged” to provide a share of the proceeds for adaptation and donate another cut to the Earth. This would mean a country such as New Zealand would be named and shamed for not doing this, but wouldn’t be breaking the Paris rules.
One of the passion projects of many New Zealand activists and attendees was to get protections for human rights and the rights of Indigenous people into the Paris rulebook. This would ensure that any projects using foreign funds to reduce carbon emissions would not come at the expense of vulnerable communities.
This was identified as a problem under the pre-2020 Kyoto credit system. The New Zealand negotiating team said it lobbied strongly for these rights to be included and the proposed rules to be as tough as could be.
This was successful: projects will need to demonstrate how they will protect these rights, both in the initial design of the scheme and in regular reports. The push to get an independent body to assess grievances was also successful.
How much should developed nations pay for damages due to climate change? It’s a major #COP26 flashpoint, and these @nyt charts dive into 170 years of CO2 emissions that show a huge rich/poor divide that’s not going away after Glasgow. https://t.co/TBH8xchx2R
A fight to get 197 countries to agree to some joint commitment calling time on fossil fuels was a major bone of contention at the 11th hour. To avoid annoying countries that export a lot of fossil fuels, the Paris Agreement doesn’t mention them at all.
As Saturday began, the proposed joint summary from all countries called for accelerated efforts to “phase out” both unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The US pushed to keep in the qualifiers “unabated” and “inefficient”, which weaken the proposal. It would, for example, allow coal power stations with carbon capture. The efficiency of subsidies is also a subjective assessment.
On the final day, China, India, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa and Venezuela voiced their opposition to this call.
India even argued that developing countries are “entitled” to use fossil fuels. The country’s negotiators proposed the watered-down “phase down” replace “phase out” related specifically to coal power.
This didn’t go down well: the Swiss negotiator pointed out the amendment would make it harder to reach 1.5C, and received a long round of applause. COP26 president Alok Sharma, who set out to “consign coal to history”, became visible upset when discussing the concession.
In the end, the wording was reluctantly passed – so the package of wider measures could be as well.
While hardly progressive, fossil fuels still took a small hit, and the call could pave the way for stronger language at future COPs.
Let's remember that despite this watered-down language, this is the first COP decision to mention coal (even "phase down"), and fossil fuel subsidies. #COP26
All in all, the sheer volume of competing interests means COP26 was unlikely to be capable of producing an agreement that any single person would prefer.
There will be a lot of interpretation of what it got wrong. But getting nearly 200 countries to collectively move, even on this existential issue, is a mammoth undertaking. For just a day or two, that needs to be celebrated.
The judgement of the world, particularly the young, was on negotiators’ minds. On Friday (Saturday NZ time), European Union climate chief Frans Timmermans held up a photo of his grandchild, and shared his concern about the young child’s future.
A day later, Tuvalu Climate Minister Seve Paeniu shared a photo of his three grandchildren. “Glasgow has made a promise to secure their future – that will be the best Christmas gift that I will present to them.”
The COP26 climate summit in Glasgow has been billed as a last chance to limit global warming to 1.5C.
But beyond the deals and photo opportunities, what are the key things countries need to do in order to tackle climate change?
1. Keep fossil fuels in the ground
Burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and especially coal, releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, trapping heat and raising global temperatures.
It’s an issue which has to be tackled at government level if temperature rises are to be limited to 1.5C – the level considered the gateway to dangerous climate change.
A recent UN report has suggested that reducing emissions of methane could make an important contribution to tackling the planetary emergency.
A substantial amount of methane is released from “flaring” – the burning of natural gas during oil extraction – and could be stopped with technical fixes. Finding better ways of disposing of rubbish is also important, because landfill sites are another big methane source.
At COP26, nearly 100 countries agreed to cut methane emissions, in a deal spearheaded by the US and the EU. The Global Methane Pledge aims to limit methane emissions by 30% compared with 2020 levels.
3. Switch to renewable energy
Electricity and heat generation make a greater contribution to global emissions than any economic sector.
Transforming the global energy system from one reliant on fossil fuels to one dominated by clean technology – known as decarbonisation – is critical for meeting current climate goals.
Wind and solar power will need to dominate the energy mix by 2050 if countries are to deliver on their net zero targets.
There are challenges, however.
Less wind means less electricity generated, but better battery technology could help us store surplus energy from renewables, ready to be released when needed.
4. Abandon petrol and diesel
We’ll also need to change the way we power the vehicles we use to get around on land, sea and in the air.
Ditching petrol and diesel cars and switching to electric vehicles will be critical.
Lorries and buses could be powered by hydrogen fuel, ideally produced using renewable energy.
And scientists are working on new, cleaner fuels for aircraft, although campaigners are also urging people to reduce the number of flights they take.
5. Plant more trees
A UN report in 2018 said that, to have a realistic chance of keeping the global temperature rise under 1.5C, we’ll have to remove CO2 from the air.
Forests are excellent at soaking it up from the atmosphere – one reason why campaigners and scientists emphasise the need to protect the natural world by reducing deforestation.
Programmes of mass tree-planting are seen as a way of offsetting CO2 emissions.
Trees are likely to be important as countries wrestle with their net zero targets, because once emissions have been reduced as much as possible, remaining emissions could be “cancelled out” by carbon sinks such as forests.
6. Remove greenhouse gases from the air
Emerging technologies that artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, or stop it being released in the first place, could play a role.
A number of direct-air capture facilities are being developed, including plants built by Carbon Engineering in Texas and Climeworks in Switzerland. They work by using huge fans to push air through a chemical filter that absorbs CO2.
Another method is carbon capture and storage, which captures emissions at “point sources” where they are produced, such as at coal-fired power plants. The CO2 is then buried deep underground.
However, the technology is expensive – and controversial, because it is seen by critics as helping perpetuate a reliance on fossil fuels.
7. Give financial aid to help poorer countries
At the Copenhagen COP summit in 2009, rich countries pledged to provide $100bn (£74.6bn) in financing by 2020, designed to help developing countries fight and adapt to climate change.
That target date has not been met, although the UK government, as holders of the COP presidency, recently outlined a plan for putting the funding in place by 2023.
Many coal-dependent countries are facing severe energy shortages that jeopardise their recovery from Covid and disproportionately affect the poor. These factors stop them moving away from polluting industries.
Some experts believe poorer nations will need continuing financial support to help them move towards greener energy. For instance, the US, EU and UK recently provided $8.5bn to help South Africa phase out coal use.
The future of heavy transport is looking increasingly zero emission, as the first trial of electric trucks kicks off in Auckland’s Zero Emissions Area (ZEA) just as a major manufacturer reveals it is expecting the arrival of its first shipment of hydrogen fuel cell-powered trucks this month.
The Auckland Inner City ZEA trial follows the arrival of the first Fuso eCanter electric trucks, five of which are being used by trial participants: Mainfreight, Bidfood, Toll Global Express, Owens Transport and Vector OnGas.
The one-year trial will see the integration of the fully-electric trucks into New Zealand’s commercial fleet to deliver goods in the inner city.
“Transport makes up more than 40 per cent of Auckland’s emissions profile,” said Auckland Mayor Phil Goff. “The shift towards emissions-free vehicles is a critical step towards meeting our climate change goals.
“This trial will complement emissions-reduction work already underway by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, including the roll-out of emissions-free electric buses across our transport network. It will also contribute towards our vision of creating a zero-emissions area in Auckland’s city centre.”
Earlier this year, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) approved co-funding for the five trucks to support the development of New Zealand’s zero-emission transport fleet.
The all-electric Fuso eCanters are ready to hit the streets of Auckland city. SUPPLIED/STUFF
Tracey Berkahn, Auckland Transport’s group manager of services and performance, said AT is proud to endorse and support the trial.
“It’s really important for AT that this trial helps demonstrate the potential for electric heavy vehicles. Companies involved in the trial will have the advantage of understanding what it really takes to run electric trucks. This trial is quite unique as those involved have banded together over this common cause.
“While our focus at AT has been on the electrification of buses, it is also important that we explore other ways to support the lowering of emissions.”
At the same time as the trial starts, Hyundai New Zealand has revealed that it is expecting to land five new hydrogen fuel cell-powered Xcient trucks here before the end of the month.
Hyundai is expecting the first five Xcient hydrogen fuel cell-powered trucks before the end of this month. SUPPLIED/STUFF
Hyundai says the trucks, which are expected to arrive at the Port of Auckland on or about 18 November “signify the progression and application of hydrogen technology in New Zealand” and that the hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and traditional battery electric vehicles (BEV) “will complement one another in the future as the country transitions to zero carbon.”
The company says that hydrogen technology is better suited than battery electric trucks as a heavy-duty, reliable, future cost-effective replacement for diesel trucks, as the use of hydrogen rather than weighty batteries means they have longer range, shorter refuelling time and greater payload.
The Xcient’s electric motor is run by two 90kW fuel cells supported by a small 72kWh battery pack, and Hyundai New Zealand says the first of the trucks will be on the road in the second quarter of next year, in a live field demonstration transporting “large volumes of goods commercially across New Zealand.”
“As a Kiwi owned company, we are big believers of implementing alternative fuel technology here in New Zealand,” said Andy Sinclair, Hyundai New Zealand General Manager.
The Xcient is powered by two 90kW fuel cells that charge a 72kWh battery pack, which runs the electric motor. SUPPLIED/STUFF
“We have championed this through the introduction of New Zealand’s first hydrogen-powered SUV, the Nexo, in 2019. Now with the Xcient FCEV, we have an opportunity to help fast track the large scale adoption of alternative green fuels in the New Zealand road freight sector,”
“We’re fortunate as a local distributor to have a strong working relationship with Hyundai Motor Company, who acknowledge and support our hydrogen ambitions. Hyundai Motor Company anticipated the future potential of hydrogen fuel cells at an early stage, and we have been able to benefit from that.”
New Zealand is just the third country to have access to these trucks, following Switzerland and Korea, and Hyundai New Zealand has initially taken Swiss specification to get the programme underway early.
Hyundai New Zealand says it will work with local partners in the freight sector to determine where the trucks will operate regionally. This demonstration will give insights into how the trucks fit into timetables, capacity, maintenance schedules, refuelling, drivability and user-training specific to New Zealand.
China and the US announced a surprise plan to work together on cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the crucial next decade, in a strong boost to the Cop26 summit, as negotiators wrangled over a draft outcome.
The world’s two biggest emitters had been trading insults for the first week of the conference, but on Wednesday evening unveiled a joint declaration that would see the world’s two biggest economies cooperate closely on the emissions cuts scientists say are needed in the next 10 years to stay within 1.5C.
The remarkable turnaround came as a surprise to the UK hosts, and will send a strong signal to the 190-plus other countries at the talks. China and the US will work together on some key specific areas, such as cutting methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – and emissions from transport, energy and industry.
“Both sides recognise that there is a gap between the current effort and the Paris agreement goals, so we will jointly strengthen our Paris efforts and cooperation … to accelerate a green and low carbon transition,” said Xie Zhenhua, China’s head of delegation. “Climate change is becoming an increasingly urgent challenge. We hope this joint declaration will help to achieve success at Cop26.”
Speaking at a virtual business conference on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, President Xi Jinping did not mention the deal directly but said “all of us can embark on a path of green, low-carbon sustainable development”.
“Together, we can usher in a future of green development,” he said.
John Kerry said: “The two largest economies in the world have agreed to work together on emissions in this decisive decade.
“This is a roadmap for our countries and future collaboration. China and the US have no shortage of differences. But cooperation is the only way to get this job done. This is about science, about physics.”
He told the conference: “This declaration is a step that we can build on to close the gap [between the emissions cuts set out so far and those needed]. Every step matters. We have a long journey ahead of us.”
Kerry compared the cooperation with China with the agreements by the US to reduce nuclear weapon arsenals in the cold war. “You have to look beyond differences sometimes to find a way forward.”
Just saw John Kerry sitting down with Xie Zhenhua. Fingers crossed that chief negotiators of worlds two biggest emitters 🇨🇳🇺🇸 can work together and nudge the world closer to 1.5C climate target.
The China-US Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s came despite growing political tensions between the two powers, which had been reflected in the climate talks. In his parting shot at the conference, Joe Biden on Tuesday slammed China’s president, Xi Jinping, for “not showing up”. After that, Xie took a swipe at the US in an interview with the Guardian, saying: “We are not like some countries who withdrew from the Paris agreement after entering into talks.”
Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary-general, welcomed the agreement: “Tackling the climate crisis requires international cooperation and solidarity, and this is an important step in the right direction.”
The announcement followed a call by developing countries for rich nations to come forward with more financial help for vulnerable countries, saying a new draft outcome for the talks was too weak in this regard.
The draft text, published early on Wednesday morning by the UK as president of the talks, set out the probable outcome of the Cop26 talks, including a potential requirement for countries to return to the negotiating table next year to beef up their national plans on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The text also set out the scientific case for limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, and expressed “alarm” that emissions were far higher than the levels needed to stay within safe temperature thresholds.
But poor countries said the text needed more emphasis on climate finance, to help them cut carbon and cope with the impacts of climate breakdown.
Aubrey Webson, chair of the Alliance of Small Islands States, which represents 37 of the most at-risk countries, said: “The text provides a basis for moving forward but it needs to be strengthened in key areas in order to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable, particularly on finance. We won’t get the ambition on emissions we need for 1.5C if we don’t scale up the provision of finance, and this includes the long overdue recognition of a separate and additional component for loss and damage.”
He added that the language was too weak: “‘Urging’, ‘calling’, ‘encouraging’ and ‘inviting’ is not the decisive language that this moment calls for. We have limited time left in the Cop to get this right and send a clear message to our children, and the most vulnerable communities, that we hear you and we are taking this crisis seriously.”
Bruce Bilimon, minister of health for the Marshall Islands, part of the High Ambition Coalition made up of developed and developing countries, added: “We need a comprehensive Glasgow package to build and reinforce trust between developed and developing states.”
Other developing countries told the Guardian that clearer commitments were needed to force countries to ratchet up their emissions cuts.
The UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, made a flying visit to Glasgow on Wednesday, where he warned delegates that failure to reach an effective agreement would bring an “immense” and well-deserved backlash from around the globe.
Johnson called for “a determined push to get us over the line” – and said some countries had not done enough to achieve this. Leaders not in Glasgow needed to “pick up the phone to their teams here and give them the negotiating margin, give them the space they need in which to manoeuvre and get this done”, he said.
Johnson criticised – but did not name – some countries for “conspicuously patting themselves on the back” for signing up to the Paris climate accord but doing too little at Cop.
“The world will find it absolutely incomprehensible if we fail to deliver [a good outcome]. And the backlash from people will be immense and it will be long-lasting, and frankly we will deserve their criticism and their opprobrium.”
African nations want Cop26 to open discussions this week on a mega-financing deal that would channel $700bn (£520bn) every year from 2025 to help developing nations adapt to the climate crisis.
Tanguy Gahouma-Bekale, the chair of the African Group of Negotiators on climate change, said the increased finance was needed for the accelerated phase of decarbonisation required to hold global heating to 1.5C.
These funds would also be essential, he said, to cope with the impacts, including fiercer heat, widening droughts and more intense storms and floods, which are using up an increasingly large share of GDP. According to a recent study, some African nations are already spending more on climate adaptation than on healthcare and education.
“The work on this needs to start now,” said the climate diplomat from Gabon. “Talks about finance take time so we need to have a roadmap now with clear milestones on how to achieve targets after 2025 to ensure the money flows every year.”
It is also a question of justice. The climate problem was largely created by Europe, North America and east Asia, but the worst impacts are in the southern hemisphere. In 2009, rich nations promised $100bn a year, which was considered a downpayment and an important gesture of trust.
Until now, they have welched on the deal by providing only 80% of what they had promised. For the African group, Glasgow is a time to make amends and lift the level of support in line with the greater urgency demanded by science.
The money is needed immediately, say negotiators. According to a recent study by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Cameron devotes close to 9% of its GDP on climate adaptation, Ethiopia 8%, Zimbabwe 9%, while Sierra Leone, Senegal and Ghana are all more than 7%. Even with these high shares of domestic funding, the study found a gap of about 80% between need and expenditure.
Gahouma-Bekale, who also serves as special adviser to the Gabonese president, Ali Bongo, said the opening phase of Cop26 had pushed the world in a more positive direction, but words needed to be backed by actions in the second week.
“We have received some assurance during the world leaders’ summit that they really want to close the gap and we have seen strong announcements on deforestation and methane,” he said. “What we want to see now is implementation. Only implementation can give us the assurance we need that we can keep warming to 1.5C.”
Africa accounts for less than 4% of historical global emissions, compared with 25% for China, 22% for the EU and 13% for China. But it has suffered many of the most devastating effects of climate disruption, recently including droughts in the Sahel and floods in the Nile delta. In future, it is expected to be among the most vulnerable regions of the world to heatwaves and crop failures.
Some African countries have shown leadership. Gabon is among a handful of nations that already have a carbon-negative economy because its vast tropical forests in the Congo Basin absorb more greenhouse gases than its factories, cars and cities emit. It has recently passed an ambitious climate law that aims to ensure the country remains dependant on forests and agriculture rather than the fossil fuel industry. To achieve this goal, it needs outside support so that the government can continue to raise living standards.
Many African nations depend on coal for electricity and did not join a declaration this week by more than 40 countries to quit this most polluting of fossil fuels. Gahouma-Bekale said this pledge was an important step forward, but developing nations would need more time.
“This is very good news for the world,” he said. “If we want to succeed with the Paris goals, then we must phase out all fossil fuels, and coal is among them. But our situation in Africa is different. We are still on our way to be developed. We can’t drastically stop coal and oil. For now we need to use it to eradicate poverty and access to energy. We will need support for the transition. And we need to be flexible. For five to 10 years, we must do the two together [coal and renewables] so the transition can be smooth.”
That transition will depend on a flow of funding. African nations insist wealthy countries are held as rigorously to account on their finance promises as they are on emissions reductions. That means regular reporting on the levels of support provided, needed and received.
“What we want to achieve at this Cop is a transparency framework with strong rules on accounting,” said Gahouma-Bekale.
Emission-free hydrogen could, one day, entirely replace fossil fuels – and a start up in Germany believes it has the key ingredient to make it accessible to all.
Born in a climate-change affected South Pacific Island, Vaitea Cowan believes deeply in green hydrogen technology. She co-founded Enapter more than three years ago.
“I wanted to replace all the diesel generators in New Caledonia and all the remote areas that didn’t need to rely on dirty diesel, ” she says.
“But then realising the potential for green hydrogen to replace fossil fuels, I wanted to be part of this change.”
Green solutions will only be adopted if they are the most economically attractive. And that’s our mission at an after to make green hydrogen cost-competitive with fossil fuels.
Vaitea Cowan, Co-founder, Enapter
With headquarters in Germany, the company has deployed its ion exchange membrane electrolysers in over 100 projects across 33 countries. The technology turns renewable electricity into emission-free hydrogen gas.
Developed more quickly and cheaply than once thought possible, the AEM electrolyser already fuels cars and planes, powers industry and heats homes.
Enapter’s hydrogen generators have recently won Prince William’s Earthshot Prize in the ‘Fix Our Climate’ category.
What is green hydrogen?
Much of the planet’s hydrogen is locked up in water. So-called ‘green’ hydrogen is an emission-free way of extracting it. This extraction relies on renewable energy, which is used to power electrolysis. Electrolysis is the chemical process needed to separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the water.
Extracting hydrogen this way has been facing criticism, because of its low efficiency and high cost. Enapter says, however, that their AEM Electrolyser solves these problems and provides a quick and easy way to produce green energy, even at home.
Half of the water used to flush a toilet can power a home for days
Enapter says its electrolyser uses about 2.4 litres of water to generate enough hydrogen for a couple’s home for several days.
However, the exact number of days depends on the power storage capacity. This amount of water is equal to half of the water used for flushing a toilet once (5 litres), and eight times less than the water consumption of a dishwasher (20 litres).
