Nations have reached a historic agreement to protect the world’s oceans following 10 years of negotiations.
The High Seas Treaty aims to place 30% of the seas into protected areas by 2030, to safeguard and recuperate marine nature.
The agreement was reached on Saturday evening, after 38 hours of talks, at UN headquarters in New York.
The negotiations had been held up for years over disagreements on funding and fishing rights.
The last international agreement on ocean protection was signed 40 years ago in 1982 – the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
That agreement established an area called the high seas – international waters where all countries have a right to fish, ship and do research – but only 1.2% of these waters are protected.
Marine life living outside these protected areas has been at risk from climate change, overfishing and shipping traffic.
In detail: The plan to protect the high seas
In the latest assessment of global marine species, nearly 10% were found to be at risk of extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
These new protected areas, established in the treaty, will put limits on how much fishing can take place, the routes of shipping lanes and exploration activities like deep sea mining – when minerals are taken from a sea bed 200m or more below the surface.
Environmental groups have been concerned that mining processes could disturb animal breeding grounds, create noise pollution and be toxic for marine life.
The International Seabed Authority that oversees licensing told the BBC that “any future activity in the deep seabed will be subject to strict environmental regulations and oversight to ensure that they are carried out sustainably and responsibly”.
Rena Lee, UN Ambassador for Oceans, brought down the gavel after two weeks of negotiations that at times threatened to unravel.
Minna Epps, director of the IUCN Ocean team, said the main issue was over the sharing of marine genetic resources.
Marine genetic resources are biological material from plants and animals in the ocean that can have benefits for society, such as pharmaceuticals, industrial processes and food.
Richer nations currently have the resources and funding to explore the deep ocean but poorer nations wanted to ensure any benefits they find are shared equally.
Dr Robert Blasiak, ocean researcher at Stockholm University, said the challenge was that no one knows how much ocean resources are worth and therefore how they could be split.
He said: “If you imagine a big, high-definition, widescreen TV, and if only like three or four of the pixels on that giant screen are working, that’s our knowledge of the deep ocean. So we’ve recorded about 230,000 species in the ocean, but it’s estimated that there are over two million.”
Laura Meller, an oceans campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic, commended countries for “putting aside differences and delivering a treaty that will let us protect the oceans, build our resilience to climate change and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people”.
“This is a historic day for conservation and a sign that in a divided world, protecting nature and people can triumph over geopolitics,” she added.
Countries will need to meet again to formally adopt the agreement and then have plenty of work to do before the treaty can be implemented.
Liz Karan, director of Pews Trust ocean governance team, told the BBC: “It will take some time to take effect. Countries have to ratify it [legally adopt it] for it to enter force. Then there are a lot of institutional bodies like the Science and Technical Committee that have to get set up.”
Hosted at the company’s international headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, Delta Air Lines has stated that the ‘sustainable skies lab’ will host teams working to both scale and improve existing technologies and those working on “revolutionary” technologies which do not yet exist commercially. Research, design and testing will all be possible at the lab.
On existing technologies, the aim of the lab is to “connect, align, showcase” and accelerate work already underway at Delta by enabling co-working between teams on issues such as electrifying ground equipment and improving operational efficiencies.
Like many other airlines, Delta is using a mix of changes to operational procedures and aircraft upgrades to drive fuel efficiency, with 10 million fewer gallons of fuel used in 2022 than in 2021 by the firm. Older planes including its Boeing 777s have been retired to make way for next-gen aircraft including the A350 and the A300-900neo. Delta claims that these aircraft are 20% more fuel-efficient in terms of fuel used per passenger, per mile travelled.
For technologies that do not yet exist commercially, such as large electric passenger planes and hydrogen passenger planes, the lab will facilitate partnerships aimed at accelerating development. Delta is already partnering with some large aircraft manufacturers, such as Airbus, as well as emerging aircraft innovators like electric plane firm Joby. There will also be partnerships between the private sector and academia.
The strategy for the lab is being spearheaded by Delta’s chief sustainability officer Pam Fletcher. She is being supported by a new council including specialists from across the business, including those working in technical operations, flight operations, fuel, fleet management and customer service.
On collaborating for technology breakthroughs, Fletcher said: “With aviation being a hard-to-decarbonise industry, none of us can do this alone.
“We’re rolling out the welcome mat for disruptors of choice to take advantage of Delta’s global resources to accelerate our path to decarbonization and a fully sustainable travel experience.”
Target evolution
Delta committed to becoming a net-zero business by 2050 in 2021, through the UN-backed Race to Zero initiative. It subsequently had emissions targets for 2035 approved by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as aligned with ‘well below 2C’. These targets entail cutting direct emissions (Scope 1) plus indirect emissions from jet fuel by 45%, on an intensity basis, against a 2019 baseline.
Delta is hoping to achieve verification under the SBTi’s net-zero standard, which will require it to strengthen its targets with a commitment for a 90% reduction across all scopes by 2050. The SBTi is notably in the process of phasing out ‘well below 2C’ targets through to 2025, with 1.5C targets needed for net-zero standard verification.
Fletcher has stated that, to meet its climate targets, Delta will need to consider different low-carbon solutions across different timelines. A blog post published in September 2022 by Fletcher states that the company is improving fuel efficiency and electrifying ground operations now, while also cutting single-use plastics. In the medium term, its approach is to scale sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production in partnerships across the industry and with governments, to bring down costs. The, in the long-term, hydrogen and electric aircraft could be commercialised.
“We’re optimistic about early-stage companies pushing the boundaries with futurist thinking on aircraft, propulsion and more, and look forward to fostering collaboration with the industry, academia, and start-ups to accelerate the sustainable future of flight,” Fletcher’s blog states.
Airlines in the UK are, by and large, following the Government’s strategy on decarbonisation – the Jet Zero Strategy. The Strategy bets heavily on efficiencies and SAF. Last month, the UK Government provided its latest tranche of funding for SAF developers, focusing on energy-from-waste and fuels created from carbon captured at industrial plants.
The arms race of investment for lab-grown has commenced. Money is being poured in as many see the lucrative and environmentally-sound possibilities in weaning a sceptical world away from its love of pork, beef, lamb, chicken, and the such.
According to a report by GovGrant, in terms of numbers, the US is far ahead of the game, being the only market to have broken the £1bn mark for investment (£1.36bn). A strong second belongs to the nation of Israel (£474.5m) – with its mature venture capital sector – followed by the Netherlands (£123.m), and Singapore (£100.6m).
Bringing up the remainder of the top ten are, in order, the UK, China, South Korea, Japan, France and Spain.
Much hope has been staked in the UK as it seeks to diversify its economy in the wake of Brexit. With the exception of the Netherlands, it is the leader for lab-grown meat in the region.
According to Adam Simmonds, a researcher at GovGrant: “Although it’s some way behind the US, the UK is still a leading innovator in this area. Plus, because there’s such huge potential demand among consumers here, that’ll only spur companies on to innovate further and perfect their products.”
FDA approval opens the doors
This emerging food technology recently received approval from the US’ Food and Drug Administration, thereby opening the doors to a massive scaling up in the coming years. To believe one estimate, lab-grown meat will make up a quarter of meat consumption by the year 2035.
These developments are not coming a moment too soon: according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector makes up 18% of all greenhouse gases. A robust lab-grown meat industry is sure to alleviate this pressure on the environment.
Alec Griffiths, IP Manager at GovGrant, commented on the technology’s extraordinary opportunities: “With the FDA rubber-stamping lab-grown meat as safe, the market should really take off now. That makes it more important than ever for companies to protect their assets, so we can expect to see an acceleration in the number of patents filed in the coming months and years – and plenty of new faces in the sector.”
Tesco has accelerated its plans for halving food waste in operations, bringing the commitment’s deadline forward from 2030 to 2025.
The supermarket first set the target five years ago, in alignment with target 12.3 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs). It set a baseline year of the 2016/17 financial year.
By the end of the 2021/22 financial year, the business had delivered a 45% reduction in operational food waste against this baseline. Given that it was, therefore, on track to exceed the 2030 target, it has pulled the deadline forward to 2025.
Actions which Tesco has already taken to reduce food waste in its operations have included forging partnerships with FareShare and OLIO to divert surplus food to communities; diverting surplus food not fit for human consumption to suppliers that can use it for animal feed; stocking ‘wonky’ produce to help reduce waste on farms and allowing store staff to take home foods approaching their use-by dates for free.
Tesco has been reporting food waste data since 2013 and was the first UK supermarket to do so
Tesco has also moved this week to link executive pay to the delivery of the accelerated target. It had already linked a quarter of the Performance Share Plan awards Executive Directors receive to progress on other key environmental and social targets, including those on emissions and on gender and ethnicity representation. Now, food waste will be added.
Tesco Group’s chief executive Ken Murphy said he hopes that the changes will “drive further transformative change”.
He also called on other businesses to follow suit, and for policymaking to raise the bar across the UK’s grocery sector. Murphy said: “The work we and our suppliers do won’t tackle the issue alone. We have long called for Government to introduce mandatory food waste reporting to help measure and judge if real action is happening. Action must be taken across the whole industry.”
Tesco is notably working with Defra on its ‘Step Up To The Plate’ pledge, which helps businesses and individuals align with SDG 12.3 and provides a platform for Ministers to receive recommendations for targeted policy support.
The pledge requires corporate signatories to adopt WRAP’s food waste reduction roadmap. The framework, built in partnership with charity IGD, sets out how organisations can measure and act on wastage levels across a “farm-to-fork” approach.
But, as Murphy said, the business wants the UK Government to go further and mandate that supermarkets publicly publish their food waste data in a uniform fashion.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) 2023-2027 was launched on the 17th of August 2022 by the Government of Sri Lanka and the United Nations in Sri Lanka.
The UNSDCF is the framework that guides the work of all the UN Agencies in Sri Lanka and articulates the collective vision and contribution of the United Nations to support Sri Lanka to accelerate actions towards the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The Cooperation Framework gives primacy to accelerating actions to ensure a rapid recovery from the economic crisis along with the impact of COVID-19, prioritising support to revitalise the economy and economic activities, social services, decent employment, social cohesion, and health and well-being for all people in Sri Lanka.
The UNSDCF was co-signed by the Secretary to the Treasury Mahinda Siriwardana on behalf of the Sri Lankan government and UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka Hanaa Singer-Hamdy on behalf of the United Nations. Heads of UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes in Sri Lanka also signed the Cooperation Framework.
The signing ceremony hosted at the Ministry of Finance was also attended by Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Aruni Wijewardane and the Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific of the UN Development Coordination Office, David McLachlan-Karr.
Speaking at the event, Secretary to the Treasury Mahinda Siriwardana noted that “the current global challenges demonstrate the continued importance for multilateral solutions that bring together the international community around shared priorities. This Cooperation Framework with the United Nations in Sri Lanka will be key, as we pursue sustainable and inclusive development for the people of Sri Lanka.”
Elaborating further the UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka Hanaa Singer-Hamdy said, “this Cooperation Framework is mutually owned and anchored in national development priorities, the 2030 Agenda and the principles of the UN Charter. The UNSDCF is structured around four interrelated and mutually reinforcing Strategic Priorities where the UN system will concentrate its expertise to support Sri Lanka to make transformational and accelerated progress. These Strategic Priorities cover Inclusive and Equitable Human Development and Well-being; Resilient and Green Recovery and Growth for Shared Prosperity and Environmental Sustainability; Social Cohesion and Inclusive Governance & Justice; and Gender Equality. Of course, our work will be underpinned by a crosscutting commitment to support rapid recovery from the economic crisis and the impact of COVID-19”. She further noted that programmes by the UN System will be anchored in the principles of human rights and non-discrimination and ensuring that “no one is left behind”.
“The 2023 – 2027 Development Cooperation Framework reflects Sri Lanka’s national development priorities while working in partnership with the UN Country Team towards the realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is being concluded at a very significant moment in Sri Lanka when transformational changes are being operationalized in the economic and social fronts. The Framework is also an important shift for the UN system in enhanced national level coordination in the delivery of its development activities,” Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Aruni Wijewardane said.
The UNSDCF will be funded through core budget allocations of an estimated USD 60 Million, in addition to approx. USD 325 Million through other resources – spread across the five-year period of implementation.
Sir David Attenborough has been named a Champion of the Earth by the UN’s Environment Programme.
The prestigious award recognises the 95-year-old’s commitment to telling stories about the natural world and climate change.
Accepting the award, Sir David said the world must take action now to protect nature and the planet.
His celebrated documentaries include The Green Planet and A Plastic Ocean.
Sir David said that environmental success stories should give us hope that change is possible.
“Fifty years ago, whales were on the very edge of extinction worldwide. Then people got together and now there are more whales in the sea than any living human being has ever seen,” he suggested.
“We know what the problems are and we know how to solve them. All we lack is unified action.”
UNEP Executive Director Inger Anderson said that the UN chose to recognise Sir David because of his devotion to broadcasting the natural world.
“If we stand a chance of averting climate and biodiversity breakdowns and cleaning up polluted ecosystems, it’s because millions of us fell in love with the planet that he captured on film and writing, in his voice,” said Inger Andersen, UNEP Executive Director.
Sir David began working on natural history programmes in the 1950s, and his programmes filmed in far-flung parts of the world became immensely popular. In the past four years, his warnings about the damage that climate change is causing the planet and humans have become more stark.
Sir David is particularly popular with children and teenagers worried about climate change. Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has said that meeting the broadcaster was “indescribable” and that everyone should strive to be like him.
Asked about Sir David, children visiting the London aquarium told BBC News they love watching him on TV and even have books about him.
“He does loads of things to support our planet and the animals. On his show, he tells us the natural world might be in danger if we don’t make a difference,” explains 10-year-old Raya.
She worries about the planet, saying she’s learned that “we need to stop using plastic, start using more electric cars, and we should plant more trees instead of cutting them down.”
Benjamin, 13, said watching Sir David’s programmes has inspired him to become a marine biologist. But they’ve also taught him about the danger we face from climate change and biodiversity loss.
“I want to be able to have a family and I want them to live a nice world. But if we start trying very hard, we can save the natural world,” he explained.
Sir David’s emphasis on success stories like bringing back whales from the point of extinction is important, Prof Rick Stafford, marine biologist at Bournemouth university, told BBC News.
“He really brought climate change and biodiversity loss to the forefront. Optimism is important but the major problems to be solved are not scientific – they are economic and political,” he explained.
Switching lights off when they are not in use, turning up the temperature on air-conditioning, and saving water – these may seem like small actions, but they are vital to the fight against climate change.
Today, buildings are responsible for nearly 40 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, with their construction and operations contributing 11 per cent and 28 per cent respectively. Efforts to improve their sustainability are not going far enough, and buildings remain “off track” to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in November.
Managing climate-friendly and energy-efficient buildings is crucial to achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably under 1.5°C, but there are many challenges.
“Since 2010, rising demand for energy services in buildings – particularly electricity to power cooling equipment, appliances and connected devices – has been outpacing energy efficiency and decarbonisation gains,” the IEA said. “Very high temperatures and prolonged heatwaves set records in many countries, driving up demand for air-conditioning.”
The United Nations, in its latest climate assessment published in February, added that if greenhouse gas emissions remain high, all Asian regions studied in the report – Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam – will be affected by dangerously high heat and humidity levels, sea level rise, flooding and other physical climate risks.
As governments aim to meet ambitious climate goals, they will increasingly look to the building sector to reduce its impact on the environment.
By accelerating digitalisation and embracing the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and other innovative digital technologies, we can achieve smarter, healthier and more sustainable buildings.
Chang Sau Sheong, chief executive, SP Digital
In Singapore, for instance, buildings make up over a third of the country’s electricity consumption. The city-state’s Building and Construction Authority (BCA) notes that the built environment plays a “major role” in helping to achieve the national sustainability agenda to tackle climate change and global warming.
This presents huge opportunities, and challenges, for landlords trying to drive efficiencies in commercial buildings. Technology is key in this effort, according to SP Digital, the digital arm of SP Group, a utilities group in Asia Pacific that focuses on low carbon, smart energy solutions.
“By accelerating digitalisation and embracing the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and other innovative digital technologies, we can achieve smarter, healthier and more sustainable buildings,” said Chang Sau Sheong, chief executive of SP Digital.
Mindset shifts key to green buildings
Setting regulatory benchmarks and fiscal policies has helped to green buildings and boost efficiencies. Technologies and smart systems have also improved sustainability. But changing the behaviour of landlords and tenants could prove to be the biggest hurdle yet.
Dr Clayton Miller, assistant professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS) who leads its Building and Urban Data Science Lab, told Eco-Business that there are many underused green building technologies, including innovative cooling systems that tap on high temperature radiant, desiccant dehumidification and mixed-mode ventilation.
“There are too many decision-makers who want to play it safe and stick with conventional systems, because they are afraid that trying something different will bring problems,” he said.
Some property owners and landlords may be put off by the costs and difficulties of retrofitting older buildings for sustainability. For example, installing green technologies may require space that is scarce in buildings not designed for them.
“With the myriad of green technologies out there, one of the key challenges that building owners may face is simply how and where to start the retrofitting process,” added Associate Professor Kua Harn Wei, of the Department of the Built Environment, NUS School of Design and Environment.
A smart way to achieve sustainability
Tenants may be stymied by a lack of data too, noted Chang. “Most landlords and property owners provide monthly utility bills, which makes it challenging for tenants to know how and where to best focus their efficiency efforts, and track how they are faring,” according to Chang.
A typical office in Singapore expends most – 60 per cent – of its energy on cooling, according to BCA. Lighting takes up 15 per cent of consumption.
GET TenantCare is a smart and automated tenant submetering solution designed to help landlords and property owners efficiently manage tenant utilities consumption. [Click to enlarge] Image: SP Digital.
To give tenants and landlords more granular data to manage their energy and water use, SP Digital created Green Energy Tech (GET) TenantCare, a smart and automated tenant submetering solution. Tenants and landlords can get visibility of their utilities consumption in granularity of 30-minute intervals, unlocking more ways to save electricity and water. The platform not only increases operational efficiency, but can improve tenant engagement that will drive sustainability efforts, Chang said.
As a tenant, for instance, you can better understand how you use electricity, get alerted to unusual usage earlier, find out which of your equipment is using a lot of energy, whether through faults or inefficiency, and make changes to lower your energy consumption.
“If you’re a landlord, you can use our solution to automatically calculate your tenants’ energy use intensity, based on their units’ energy usage and gross floor area. You can identify which tenants are using more electricity than expected and engage with them to persuade them to adopt more energy-efficient equipment or habits,” Chang said.
Smart technologies have other advantages. With GET TenantCare’s automated meter readings, landlords do not have to deploy manpower to check on and read the meters. This also eliminates human errors in the readings.
Smart building management systems, connected to motion and other occupancy sensors and weather forecasting systems, can automatically adjust air-conditioning temperatures, switch off unneeded lights, and do more to save electricity and water while maintaining comfort for occupants.
Promoting greener behaviours
With insights from smart technologies leading to quick wins in energy and water savings, landlords and tenants may be more motivated to continue on their sustainability journey.
“If people have good experiences trying out sustainable behaviours, they are likely to repeat them and form green habits over time,” Dr Sonny Rosenthal, cluster director of smart and sustainable building technologies at the Energy Research Institute at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), told Eco-Business.
Other novel systems and ideas could enable tenants and landlords to work in tandem to slash the carbon footprint of the buildings they occupy.
SP Digital’s GET Engaged solution is a digital dashboard that provides updates on buildings’ electricity and water use, and the resulting carbon emissions. When displayed in lobbies and other public areas, the information could spur tenants to make more sustainable choices.
Equipping people with relevant skills is essential too. Last year, the Singapore government launched the Sustainability in Singapore programme, which trains people from organisations to be green ambassadors.
This includes teaching them how to design effective sustainability campaigns to persuade their colleagues and other occupants in their buildings to be more environmentally friendly.
BCA chief executive Kelvin Wong explained: “As a building user myself, we tend to think that staying in green buildings alone is sufficient. But this is not true. Practising sustainable behaviour within building premises is equally important to make the most of green buildings.”
“Hand in hand, both green buildings and sustainable user behaviour would translate to lower carbon emissions, with the added advantage of monetary savings,” he added.
The BCA has also created “green lease” toolkits to guide landlords and tenants in crafting mutually-agreed-upon, sustainability-related agreements for office and retail buildings. These would set out objectives for how the building is to be improved, managed and occupied to reduce its impact on the environment.
Greener buildings go beyond providing environmental and economic benefits, Chang noted. Greener buildings can also enhance occupants’ health and overall well-being.
The world has taken its biggest step yet to curb the plastic pollution crisis.
The United Nations said Wednesday that representatives of 175 countries have agreed to develop a first-of-its-kind global treaty to restrict plastic waste. The resolution followed negotiations over the past week at the fifth session of the U.N. Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya.
The treaty aims to tackle one of the most pressing environmental issues the world faces. The sheer pervasiveness of plastic waste has been widely recognized in recent years, with plastic debris identified everywhere from Arctic snow to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest point in the ocean. Microplastics, tiny pieces of the material, have also been found in the digestive tracts of a range of species, from fish to seabirds, and even humans.
The U.N. said member states agreed to begin crafting a legally binding international agreement that addresses the “full lifecycle of plastic,” from its production to its disposal.
Inger Andersen, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, called the resolution, “the most significant environmental multilateral deal” since the Paris Agreement, a landmark accord signed by 196 countries in 2015 that aims to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
“Today marks a triumph by planet earth over single-use plastics,” Andersen said in a statement. “It is an insurance policy for this generation and future ones, so they may live with plastic and not be doomed by it.”
A delegate looks at a 30-foot monument dubbed “Turn off the plastic tap” by the Canadian activist and artist Benjamin von Wong, made with plastic waste collected from Kibera slums, at the venue of the fifth session of the U.S. Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, on Monday.Monicah Mwangi / Reuters
The proliferation of plastic has grown astronomically, from more than 2 million tons produced in 1950 to nearly 400 million tons produced in 2017, according to the U.N.
More than 12 million tons of plastic waste flow into the world’s oceans each year, the intergovernmental organization said, adding that that figure could triple by 2040.
A 2021 assessment by the U.N. Environment Program estimated that less than 10 percent of the world’s plastic has been recycled.
“Plastic pollution has grown into an epidemic,” Espen Barth Eide, president of the U.N. Environment Assembly’s fifth session and Norway’s minister for climate and the environment, said in a statement. “With today’s resolution we are officially on track for a cure.”
Barth Eide acknowledged that the resolution occurred against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, saying it “shows multilateral cooperation at its best.”
The U.N. said the treaty will not only curb the amount of plastic pollution, but will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing the material, since plastics are made from fossil fuels.
Nik Sekhran, chief conservation officer at the World Wildlife Fund, applauded the development and called it a “historic agreement.”
“As we strive toward securing a healthier future for people and the planet, today’s decision sets us on an ambitious mission to solve our plastic pollution crisis and to achieve a strong circular economy,” he said in a statement.
World leaders will now have until the end of 2024 to craft the treaty, including settling details on funding and collaboration.
The time is right to tap into hydrogen’s potential to play a key role in tackling critical energy challenges. The recent successes of renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles have shown that policy and technology innovation have the power to build global clean energy industries.
Hydrogen is emerging as one of the leading options for storing energy from renewables with hydrogen-based fuels potentially transporting energy from renewables over long distances – from regions with abundant energy resources, to energy-hungry areas thousands of kilometers away.
Green hydrogen featured in a number of emissions reduction pledges at the UN Climate Conference, COP26, as a means to decarbonize heavy industry, long haul freight, shipping, and aviation. Governments and industry have both acknowledged hydrogen as an important pillar of a net zero economy.
The Green Hydrogen Catapult, a United Nations initiative to bring down the cost of green hydrogen announced that it is almost doubling its goal for green electrolysers from 25 gigawatts set last year, to 45 gigawatts by 2027. The European Commission has adopted a set of legislative proposals to decarbonize the EU gas market by facilitating the uptake of renewable and low carbon gases, including hydrogen, and to ensure energy security for all citizens in Europe. The United Arab Emirates is also raising ambition, with the country’s new hydrogen strategy aiming to hold a fourth of the global low-carbon hydrogen market by 2030 and Japan recently announced it will invest $3.4 billion from its green innovation fund to accelerate research and development and promotion of hydrogen use over the next 10 years.
You might encounter the terms ‘grey’, ‘blue’, ‘green’ being associated when describing hydrogen technologies. It all comes down to the way it is produced. Hydrogen emits only water when burned but creating it can be carbon intensive. Depending on production methods, hydrogen can be grey, blue or green – and sometimes even pink, yellow or turquoise. However, green hydrogen is the only type produced in a climate-neutral manner making it critical to reach net zero by 2050.
We asked Dr Emanuele Taibi, Head of the Power Sector Transformation Strategies, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) to explain what green hydrogen is and how it could pave the way towards net zero emissions. He is currently based with the IRENA Innovation and Technology Center in Bonn, Germany, where he is responsible for assisting Member Countries in devising strategies for the transformation of the power sector, and currently managing the work on power system flexibility, hydrogen and storage as key enablers for the energy transition. Dr Taibi is also a co curator for the World Economic Forum’s Strategic Intelligence platform, where his team developed the transformation map on Hydrogen.
Green hydrogen technologies
What motivated you to develop your expertise in energy technologies and how does your work at IRENA contribute to it?
It was during my Master’s thesis. I did an internship in the Italian National Agency for Energy and Environment (ENEA), where I learnt about sustainable development and energy, and the nexus between the two. I wrote my thesis in management engineering about it and decided this was the area where I wanted to focus my working life. Fast forward almost 20 years of experience in energy and international cooperation, a PhD in Energy Technology and time spent in private sector, research and intergovernmental agencies, I currently lead the power sector transformation team at IRENA since 2017.
My work at IRENA is to contribute, with my team and in close cooperation with colleagues across the agency and external partners such as the World Economic Forum, in supporting our 166 Member Countries in the energy transition, with a focus on renewable electricity supply and its use to decarbonize the energy sector through green electrons as well as green molecules like hydrogen and its derivatives.
What is green hydrogen? How does it differ from traditional emissions-intensive ‘grey’ hydrogen and blue hydrogen?
Hydrogen is the simplest and smallest element in the periodic table. No matter how it is produced, it ends up with the same carbon-free molecule. However, the pathways to produce it are very diverse, and so are the emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).
Green hydrogen is defined as hydrogen produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable electricity. This is a very different pathway compared to both grey and blue.
Grey hydrogen is traditionally produced from methane (CH4), split with steam into CO2 – the main culprit for climate change – and H2, hydrogen. Grey hydrogen has increasingly been produced also from coal, with significantly higher CO2 emissions per unit of hydrogen produced, so much that is often called brown or black hydrogen instead of grey. It is produced at industrial scale today, with associated emissions comparable to the combined emissions of UK and Indonesia. It has no energy transition value, quite the opposite.
Blue hydrogen follows the same process as grey, with the additional technologies necessary to capture the CO2 produced when hydrogen is split from methane (or from coal) and store it for long term. It is not one colour but rather a very broad gradation, as not 100% of the CO2 produced can be captured, and not all means of storing it are equally effective in the long term. The main point is that capturing large part of the CO2, the climate impact of hydrogen production can be reduced significantly.
There are technologies (i.e. methane pyrolysis) that hold a promise for high capture rates (90-95%) and effective longterm storage of the CO2 in solid form, potentially so much better than blue that they deserve their own colour in the “hydrogen taxonomy rainbow”, turquoise hydrogen. However, methane pyrolysis is still at pilot stage, while green hydrogen is rapidly scaling up based on two key technologies – renewable power (in particular from solar PV and wind, but not only) and electrolysis.
Unlike renewable power, which is the cheapest source of electricity in most countries and region today, electrolysis for green hydrogen production needs to significantly scale-up and reduce its cost by at least three times over the next decade or two. However, unlike CCS and methane pyrolysis, electrolysis is commercially available today and can be procured from multiple international suppliers right now.
Green hydrogen energy solutions
What are the merits of energy transition solutions towards a ‘green’ hydrogen economy? How could we transition to a green hydrogen economy from where we are currently with grey hydrogen?
Green hydrogen is an important piece of the energy transition. It is not the next immediate step, as we first need to further accelerate the deployment of renewable electricity to decarbonize existing power systems, accelerate electrification of the energy sector to leverage low-cost renewable electricity, before finally decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify – like heavy industry, shipping and aviation – through green hydrogen.
It is important to note that today we produce significant amount of grey hydrogen, with high CO2 (and methane) emissions: priority would be to start decarbonizing existing hydrogen demand, for example by replacing ammonia from natural gas with green ammonia.
Recent studies have sparked a debate about the concept of blue hydrogen as a transition fuel till green hydrogen becomes cost-competitive. How would green hydrogen become cost competitive vis-à-vis blue hydrogen? What sort of strategic investments need to occur in the technology development process?
The first step is to provide a signal for blue hydrogen to replace grey, as without a price for emitting CO2, there is no business case for companies to invest in complex and costly carbon capture system (CCS) and geological storages of CO2. Once the framework is such that low-carbon hydrogen (blue, green, turquoise) is competitive with grey hydrogen, then the question becomes: should we invest in CCS if the risk is to have stranded assets, and how soon will green become cheaper than blue.
The answer will of course differ depending on the region. In a net zero world, an objective that more and more countries are committing to, the remaining emissions from blue hydrogen would have to be offset with negative emissions. This will come at a cost. In parallel, gas prices have been very volatile lately, leaving blue hydrogen price highly correlated to gas price, and exposed not only to CO2 price uncertainty, but also to natural gas price volatility.
For green hydrogen, however, we might witness a similar story to that of solar PV. It is capital intensive, therefore we need to reduce investment cost as well as the cost of investment, through scaling up manufacturing of renewable technologies and electrolysers, while creating a low-risk offtake to reduce the cost of capital for green hydrogen investments. This will lead to a stable, decreasing cost of green hydrogen, as opposed to a volatile and potentially increasing cost of blue hydrogen.
Renewable energy technologies reached a level of maturity already today that allows competitive renewable electricity generation all around the world, a prerequisite for competitive green hydrogen production. Electrolysers though are still deployed at very small scale, needing a scale up of three orders of magnitude in the next three decades to reduce their cost threefold.
Today the pipeline for green hydrogen projects is on track for a halving of electrolyser cost before 2030. This, combined with large projects located where the best renewable resources are, can lead to competitive green hydrogen to be available at scale in the next 5-10 years. This does not leave much time for blue hydrogen – still at pilot stage today – to scale up from pilot to commercial scale, deploy complex projects (e.g. the longterm geological CO2 storage) at commercial scale and competitive cost, and recover the investments made in the next 10-15 years.
Several governments have now included hydrogen fuel technologies in their national strategies. Given the rising demands to transition towards decarbonization of the economy and enabling technologies with higher carbon capture rates, what would be your advice to policymakers and decisionmakers who are evaluating the pros and cons of green hydrogen?
We will need green hydrogen to reach net zero emissions, in particular for industry, shipping and aviation. However, what we need most urgently is:
1) energy efficiency;
2) electrification;
3) accelerated growth of renewable power generation.
Once this is achieved, we are left with ca. 40% of demand to be decarbonised, and this is where we need green hydrogen, modern bioenergy and direct use of renewables. Once we further scale up renewable power to decarbonise electricity, we will be in a position to further expand renewable power capacity to produce competitive green hydrogen and decarbonise hard-to-abate sectors at minimal extra cost.
The future of green hydrogen
Where do you see energy technologies relating to hydrogen evolving by 2030? Could we anticipate hydrogen-powered commercial vehicles?
We see the opportunity for rapid uptake of green hydrogen in the next decade where hydrogen demand already exists: decarbonising ammonia, iron and other existing commodities. Many industrial processes that use hydrogen can replace grey with green or blue, provided CO2 is adequately priced or other mechanisms for the decarbonisation of those sectors are put in place.
For shipping and aviation, the situation is slightly different. Drop-in fuels, based on green hydrogen but essentially identical to jet fuel and methanol produced from oil, can be used in existing planes and ships, with minimal to no adjustments. However, those fuels contain CO2, which has to be captured from somewhere and added to the hydrogen, to be released again during combustion: this reduces but does not solve the problem of CO2 emissions. Synthetic fuels can be deployed before 2030, if the right incentives are in place to justify the extra cost of reduced (not eliminated) emissions.
In the coming years, ships can switch to green ammonia, a fuel produced from green hydrogen and nitrogen from the air, which does not contain CO2, but investments will be needed to replace engines and tanks, and green ammonia is currently much more expensive than fuel oil.
Hydrogen (or ammonia) planes are further away, and these will be essentially new planes that have to be designed, built and sold to airlines to replace existing jet-fuel-powered planes – clearly not feasible by 2030: in this sense, green jet fuel – produced with a combination of green hydrogen and sustainable bioenergy – is a solutions that can be deployed in the near term.
In conclusion, the main actions to accelerate decarbonisation between now and 2030 are 1) energy efficiency 2) electrification with renewables 3) rapid acceleration of renewable power generation (which will further reduce the already low cost of renewable electricity) 4) scale up of sustainable, modern bioenergy, needed – among others – to produce green fuels that require CO2 5) decarbonisation of grey hydrogen with green hydrogen, which would bring scale and reduce the cost of electrolysis, making green hydrogen competitive and ready for a further scale up in the 2030s, towards the objective of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
This article was originally published in the World Economic Forum.
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.”
