Fact: This was agreed at COP27
This was agreed on in two important areas alongside emission reductions:
Damages and losses
A fund should be established for damages and losses, in which poorer countries that fall victim to the extreme weather exacerbated by the emissions of the richer countries should be compensated. The issue was disputed at the meeting. How much money will go in, and who will get to share in it, is unclear.
Adaptations
A warmer planet means countries must adapt to deal with floods, droughts, storms and crop failure, which poorer and vulnerable countries may struggle to afford. A few minor commitments have been decided on by COP27, including more money for funds that finance fire protection, protective dikes, relocation of communities and water protection along roads.
Sources: The Guardian, CNN and AFP
Expectations were not very high. Still, many are expressing disappointment that the COP27 climate summit, which ended after late-night manglings recently, did not deliver any major steps to counter the root of the climate problem – greenhouse gas emissions. What really happened and why?
What happened to the important temperature target?
The Paris Agreement has two temperature goals: To limit warming to well below two degrees, and to “strive” to keep it below 1.5 degrees. But since 2015, when the agreement came into being, the research has become increasingly clear: Exceeding 1.5 degrees means serious risks for our living conditions.
It prompted world leaders at the climate summit in Glasgow last year to breathe life into the 1.5-degree target, even though it is slipping further and further away. Now we are rather on the way to 2.5 degrees of warming before the end of the century, according to a recent compilation.
Even before the meeting, many saw the 1.5-degree target as dead – and now voices are heard that COP27 will go down in history for having buried it once and for all.
“It is the great collective tragedy that they failed to specify the way there,” says Mathias Fridahl, researcher in climate policy at Linköping University.
Among others, Russia and Iran resisted sharper writing on how to reach the 1.5 degree target, which however remains in the final document from Egypt. At the same time, the document is completely empty of words regarding new goals or ambitions to reduce emissions.
According to Mathias Fridahl, who was present in Egypt, the discussion was heated in the meeting corridors about whether the 1.5 degree target should remain or not.
— But as with many other goals, it is a vision to strive for, much like the Swedish zero vision on traffic deaths. Everyone agrees that it doesn’t work, but it’s no less relevant for that.
According to Mathias Fridahl, 1.5 degrees is not a sharp limit and the importance of counteracting every tenth of a degree of temperature increase characterized many discussions.
“Every ton of carbon dioxide that stays in the earth instead of being extracted and pumped into the atmosphere makes a difference to the planet and our living conditions,” he says.
When will the emissions peak?
Right now the global emissions of greenhouse gases are increasing and one way to mark the way towards the 1.5 degree target is to set a year for when they have to turn down. According to the UN climate panel, it needs to happen no later than 2025, and both the EU and low-lying island nations pushed for the year to be stamped in Egypt.
But – as often in the climate negotiations – it was disputes about what is fair that put the brakes on the wheel.
Countries like China and India were on the bandwagon, assuming that richer countries will turn the curve downward first, while developing countries will take longer. But fossil states such as Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia opposed writings about a climax, which caused the whole issue to fall, according to Mathias Fridahl, who sees a connection to the geopolitical situation and the Ukraine war.
— Fossil fuels are used as a power factor and a weapon in warfare.
Mathias Fridahl, researcher in climate policy at Linköping University, on site at the COP27 climate meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt.
What was decided about fossil fuels?
At the last climate meeting in Glasgow, it was agreed to “phase down” the use of coal. A breakthrough because fossil fuels have never before been mentioned in the final documents from the climate negotiations, but at the same time a vague compromise, caused by India’s opposition to the sharper “phasing out”.
Before Egypt, many hoped for sharper wording, but the opposite happened. The host country managed to lobby for a decision to invest in “low-carbon” energy sources – which does not only mean solar and wind and is therefore feared to be a loophole for fossil natural gas, which produces lower emissions than coal but is still harmful to the climate.
“Unfortunately, the formulations open up more natural gas, which is not in line with the fact that we need to quickly move away from all types of fossil fuels,” says Mathias Fridahl.
This year, only a few countries made new promises regarding emission reductions, which many usually do at the beginning of the meeting to increase the pressure in the negotiations.
— It was incredibly quiet in terms of new promises, which was disappointing. One of the reasons is probably that bleaker times with the energy crisis and inflation make the countries hold tighter in their wallets.
Did something hopeful happen?
Although COP27 did not deliver any major progress on how to reduce emissions, there were still glimmers of light according to Mathias Fridahl.
Perhaps the biggest concerns a sensitive topic, which did not even reach the meeting agenda: the adjustment of financial flows. Simply described how all the money that flows around the world should start going to activities that benefit the climate instead of harming it.
Despite the fact that the adjustment of financial flows is one of three legs of the Paris Agreement, it was the first time the issue was even discussed when the EU wanted to put it on the agenda.
— Financial flows are, in a way, the very key to addressing climate change. At the same time, it is the biggest challenge because the countries want to rule over themselves. The fact that people even started talking about it can be a way to build status around the issue and maybe get it on the agenda for the next climate meeting. In that case, it can be a lever for real change. It is a seed of hope, says Fridahl.