The UK will continue to press governments around the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions urgently in the next year to limit global heating to 1.5C, after the UN climate talks that concluded last week, the president of the summit has pledged.
Alok Sharma, the cabinet minister who led the Cop26 talks, said the world had shown in Glasgow that countries could work together to establish a framework for climate action but the next year must focus on keeping the promises made there.
“The 1.5C limit lives,” he writes in today’s Guardian. “We brought it back from the brink. But its pulse remains weak. We must steer it to safety by ensuring countries deliver on the promises they have made.”
Some argued the talks had failed because the pledges on emissions cuts made at Cop26 were insufficient to meet the 1.5C goal.
Sharma acknowledged that countries must increase their pledges and turn them into action and policies. Referring to youth activists from around the world who urged political leaders to act in Glasgow, he said: “We owe it to all of them to deliver what we agreed.”
Two weeks of Cop26 talks ended in dramatic fashion as Sharma feared the carefully constructed deal among nearly 200 countries was about to collapse at the last moment, when China and India objected to a reference in the final agreement to the “phase out” of coal-fired power.
In the end a compromise was reached, with Sharma on the brink of tears as he apologised to developing countries for the change. The pledges on emissions cuts made at the talks would lead to heating of about 2.4C above pre-industrial levels, far above the 1.5C threshold, so the Glasgow pact also requires countries to revise their targets upwards in the next year.
Under the UN rules, the UK will retain responsibility for climate negotiations for the next year, until the Egyptian government assumes the presidency next November. In his first public writing since the talks concluded, Sharma sets out his aims.
“The UK’s work as the Cop26 presidency is really only just beginning,” he writes. “Over the course of the next year, we will work with countries urging them to take action and honour their promises.
“There is no formal policing process in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change system, and so we must keep up the constructive pressure, and build on the trust and goodwill generated through Cop26.”
The lack of any policing process or sanctions for countries that fail to revise their national targets on emissions, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), means that the main ways of holding governments to account are through public scrutiny and political pressure.
Australia’s government has already made clear that it does not intend to increase its targets, which are widely regarded as inadequate. The US and the EU have also indicated they do not intend to increase their ambition.
Key countries under the spotlight are the world’s biggest emitter, China, whose promise to peak emissions by the end of this decade disappointed many analysts who argued it could go further; and the third biggest emitter, India, which announced new targets in Glasgow but has yet to formally detail them. Russia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil are also under scrutiny.
Sharma argues that business and finance will play a key role. “Markets are falling into line, with the value of shares in coal firms around the world dropping since we sent a signal that coal is no longer king,” he writes.
Green campaigners have told the Guardian that if the UK wants to show leadership this year, ministers must also look to their own actions. Proposals for a new coalmine in Cumbria, new oil and gas licences in the North Sea, airport and road expansion and dithering on green policy have tarnished the UK’s reputation, while above all the decision to slash overseas aid – even while the Cop26 talks centred on climate finance for poor countries – caused deep alarm.
Sharma was widely regarded as isolated within the cabinet at Cop26, as insiders told the Guardian of a rift between the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and prime minister, Boris Johnson, over green measures.
Sunak visited the summit briefly but made little impact on senior figures from other countries present. The foreign secretary, Liz Truss, also played a little role in Glasgow.
Rachel Kyte, a former World Bank top official on climate change, now dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University in the US, told the Guardian that getting other donor countries to increase climate finance “was made even more complicated by UK Treasury’s insistence on cutting overseas aid. While this was then confirmed as being temporary the damage was done … The UK lost moral authority, and leverage as the presidency which we saw them struggling with. Alok was liked and respected wherever he went but it was not lost on people that he was a little alone [in the cabinet as a champion of climate action]. ”
Rachel Kennerley, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “The fight to curb climate breakdown didn’t end with Mr Sharma’s gavel coming down on an underwhelming deal. Just next week the high court will hear about UK-financed gas drilling in Mozambique, so this is the perfect time for the government to withdraw support for that damaging project, laden as it is with climate hypocrisy.
“Given the UK’s historical contributions to emissions alongside our role as Cop host, it’s right that we take a good look at the fact that we are still supporting fossil fuel extraction, here and overseas.”
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 world is poised to make a big leap forward at the UN Cop26 climate summit, with world leaders “sharpening their pencils” to make fresh commitments that could put the goals of the 2015 Paris agreement within reach, John Kerry has said.
Kerry, special envoy for climate to Joe Biden, gave an upbeat assessment of the prospects for Cop26, which begins in Glasgow at the end of this month, saying he anticipated “surprising announcements” from key countries.
“The measure of success at Glasgow is we will have the largest, most significant increase in ambition [on cutting emissions] by more countries than everyone ever imagined possible. A much larger group of people are stepping up,” he said in an interview with the Guardian. “I know certain countries are working hard right now on what they can achieve.”
Kerry cautioned that there was “still a lot of distance to travel in the next four weeks” and that the progress he anticipated was not yet “signed, sealed and delivered”. That view echoes private soundings the Guardian has taken from the UK hosts, the UN and other key figures.
But he said Cop26 could set the scene for further progress to follow swiftly. “There is not a wall that comes down after Glasgow,” said Kerry. “It is the starting line for the rest of the decade.”
But Kerry, one of the pivotal figures at the talks, also acknowledged the outcome would fall short of a fully fledged deal meeting the aims of the Paris accord, which binds nations to hold global heating to “well below” 2C, with an aspirational limit of 1.5C.
Kerry delivers a speech at Cop25 in Madrid in 2019. Photograph: Fernando Villar/EPA
“Will it be that every country has signed on and locked in? The answer is no, that will not happen,” he said. “But it is possible to reach that if [Cop26 creates] enough momentum.”
He said: “Glasgow has to show strong commitment to keeping 1.5C in reach, but that does not mean every country will get there. We acknowledge that there will be a gap [between the emissions cuts countries offer and those needed for a 1.5C limit]. The question is, will we have created a critical mass? We are close to that. If we have some more countries stepping up in the next weeks, we have something to build on.”
Under the 2015 Paris agreement, 197 parties – every government bar a few failed states – agreed to hold global temperature rises to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels, while “pursuing efforts” to stay within 1.5C. But the commitments governments made on cutting emissions at Paris, called nationally determined contributions (NDCs), were too weak, and would lead to more than 3C of heating, so countries also agreed to return every five years to ratchet up their ambitions.
Those commitments should be made at the two-week Glasgow summit, which begins on 31 October, having been postponed for a year because of Covid-19, to be attended by more than 120 world leaders. In the six years since Paris, scientists have presented a clearer warning of the dangers of allowing temperatures to rise beyond the tougher 1.5C limit, so the declared aim of the UK hosts is to “keep 1.5C alive” by gathering enough NDCs, climate finance and pledges to phase out coal and preserve forests, to make that possible.
Staying within the 1.5C threshold would require carbon emissions to fall by 45% this decade, but apart from a brief plunge owing to Covid-19 lockdowns, emissions are still rising and are forecast to show their second-strongest leap on record this year. Despite new NDCs from the US, the UK, the EU and others, in total the commitments so far would lead to a 16% rise in emissions.
China, the world’s biggest emitter, will be key to any hopes of a strong outcome at Cop26, but has yet to submit a new NDC. The president, Xi Jinping, who has not left China since the start of the pandemic, has not said whether he will come to Glasgow.
Kerry said Cop26 could still be a success if Xi did not attend. “I am hopeful that President Xi is very much engaged and is personally making decisions, and personally committed,” he said, pointing to a long phone call between Xi and Biden recently in which the climate was discussed. “There was a very clear commitment to work with the US to achieve our goals. We are very hopeful.”
Another positive sign, he said, was that rich nations were close to fulfilling a longstanding pledge that developing countries would receive $100bn (£73bn) a year in financial assistance to help them cut emissions and cope with the effects of extreme weather, which has so far been missed. Biden recently vowed to double the US pledge of climate finance to $11bn a year by 2024, and other countries have stepped up their efforts, leading the climate economist Nicholas Stern to predict that the $100bn target would be met next year.
Xi Jinping remotely attends the Leaders Summit on Climate in April. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock
“We need to get $100bn locked in, whether that is this year or next year. I believe we are going to be there with the money President Biden offered,” Kerry said.
He said countries must also agree to reform fossil fuel subsidies, which amount to hundreds of billions a year. “If you want a definition of insanity, it’s subsidising the very problem you are trying to solve,” he said.
Kerry, a longstanding US senator who challenged George W Bush for the presidency and served as US secretary of state under Barack Obama when the Paris agreement was signed, is embarking on a final hectic round of diplomacy in the next few weeks, with meetings planned with Russia, China, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. World leaders will also meet for the G20 summit in the days before they arrive in Glasgow.
In those meetings, Kerry will point to the commitments Biden has made domestically, including phasing out fossil fuels from electricity generation and reducing emissions from cars. “The US is heading to a post-2035 future where our power sector will be carbon-free. That is not a small step. I hope that can encourage other countries too, with regard to what they might be trying to achieve.”
He will also emphasise the technological advances that could help countries to move faster. “There is a massive amount of money and energy going to bringing these [clean technologies] up to scale,” he said.
Kerry was also confident the US’s post-pandemic infrastructure bill, which Biden hopes to be the engine of a “green recovery”, but which may be scaled back from the $3.5tn envisaged amid opposition and delays, would be passed.
Asked if he was worried about there being any upsets at the Cop26 conference, Kerry said: “I’m not succumbing to any fear at this point. Keep going, straight ahead.”
Alok Sharma, the UK cabinet minister and president-designate of Cop26, travelled to the French capital on Tuesday to call for world leaders to reprise the spirit of the Paris agreement, and come forward urgently with fresh commitments. He said: “Cop26 is not a photo op or a talking shop. It must be the forum where we put the world on track to deliver on climate. And that is down to leaders … Responsibility rests with each and every country, and we must all play our part. Because on climate, the world will succeed or fail as one.”
