Realistic expectations for COP26 gathering

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/10/2021 (1156 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

SOME 25,000 earnest delegates, representing every country you have ever heard of and some you haven’t, have descended upon otherwise relatively quiet Glasgow — approximately one delegate for every 20 Glaswegians.

They are attending COP26, the 26th Conference of the Parties — with “the parties” being the world’s nations getting together to formulate co-ordinated action to combat climate change. Who said travel in the time of COVID-19 was tough? Of course, being free, it may just seem easy.

These COPs have spawned two international agreements — the 1997 Kyoto Accord and the 2015 Paris Agreement — both aimed at securing commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Canada signed on to Kyoto with the same understanding with which we seem to climb aboard any international environmental agreement: that we wouldn’t have to do much, or at least not anything painful, to meet our commitment.

When it became obvious this was not the case, we withdrew. Many others who had signed on — and there were many who did not — decided their original enthusiasm was misplaced and also backed off. Kyoto became and remains a dead letter.

Accumulated science and real-world observations leading up to COP21 in Paris in 2015 lent a sense of urgency that had been lacking at previous COPs, and national delegations lined up to commit to what were thought at the time to be aggressive greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Why, even China, in a bilateral agreement with the U.S., committed to stabilize emissions by 2030 (although it should be noted that China’s fossil-fuel usage has increased by nine per cent during the current pandemic).

These pledges were formalized in the Paris Agreement, with the stated goal of halting global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. We well remember the scenes of weeping and cheering delegates clutching one another in a spontaneous outpouring of joy as the curtain came down on COP21.

Those who took the time to wade through the turgid prose of the 2018 special report of the International Panel on Climate Change may also have wept. The report’s message was clear enough: even if all of the commitments made under the Paris Agreement were kept — and by then it was clear that a great many would not be — and very substantial additional measures were put in place, global warming would still reach at least 2C by 2100, and perhaps increase by as much as 3-5C.

Nonetheless, Canada continues to cite the Paris Agreement as the basis for its domestic mitigation measures, and has upped its original commitment — which was to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 — to at least a 40 per cent and as much as a 45 per cent reduction. This may win the high moral ground in Glasgow as we attempt to get the big emitters to get serious. We need not tell them that it is not at all clear just how we are going to meet our target(s).

Even before the thousands poured into Glasgow, governments had been lobbying hard to soften the content of the IPCC documents that will be a critical part of the COP26 dialogue. Surely this should not surprise, as world prosperity is largely powered by oil, natural gas and coal. Canada is dependent, but less than most, as we derive more than 60 per cent of our electricity from renewables, mainly hydro-electricity, and nuclear which, while non-renewable, at least does not generate GHGs in any significant quantity.

The problem facing COP delegates is that the transition most of them are vigorously promoting — away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources — cannot occur in the timeframe necessary to prevent global warming of 3-5C. That is, it cannot happen in time unless our governments, backed by their citizens, are prepared to initiate actions that will drastically alter the way we live our lives.

The pre-COP attempts to soft-peddle the urgent need for action, the rapid escalation of fossil-fuel usage exceeding pre-pandemic levels, and the clear indication in words and actions of major emitters such as China, India and Russia that they do not foresee significant reduction of their emissions anytime soon, tell the real story. The world will not come anywhere near the reductions scientists have determined will be required by 2030 and the two decades beyond to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

What does this mean for Canada? Surely it means we must hope for the best — reduce our emissions as much as we can, in the hope we can play a role in convincing others to follow suit, and in the process prepare our economy for the inevitable transition to renewables; and at the same time plan for the worst. That means building or modifying infrastructure to ensure our food supply, our cities and the transportation within and between these cities can withstand the changes wrought by climate change.

So, hopefully, when not cavorting around Glasgow, Canadian delegates will be button-holing and arm-twisting to convince others to commit to real progress and, when they return home, throw their full weight behind the real challenge we face: adaptation.

Norman Brandson was deputy minister of the former Manitoba departments of environment, water stewardship and conservation from 1990 to 2006.